TCR_Public/161030.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 30, 2016, Vol. 20, No. 303

                            Headlines

ALM VIII: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on Class D-R Notes
APOLLO AVIATION 2016-2: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on C Loans
BROMPTON LIFECO: DBRS Confirms Pfd-4 Preferred Shares Rating
CARLYLE GLOBAL 2012-4: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Cl. E-R Notes
CITIGROUP 2015-GC35: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Cl. F Certs

COMM 2015-CCRE27: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Cl. F Certificates
COMM MORTGAGE 2016-COR1: Fitch Assigns B- Rating on Cl. F Certs
COUNTRYWIDE HOME 2004-SD2: Moody's Confirms Ca Rating on Cl. B Debt
CPS AUTO 2016-D: DBRS Assigns BB Rating on Class E Notes
CWAB TRUST 2006-1: Moody's Hikes Class AF-3 Notes Rating to Caa1

CWABS TRUST 2004-AB1: Moody's Assigns C Rating on Cl. M-3 Certs
CWABS TRUST: Moody's Takes Action on $2BB of RMBS Issued in 2006
DBUBS 2011-LC3: Moody's Hikes Class E Notes Rating to Ba1
DRIVE AUTO 2015-B: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
FREMF MORTGAGE 2011-K12: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Cl. X-2 Debt

GE COMMERCIAL 2005-C4: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Cl. A-J Notes
GLOBAL MINISTRIES: S&P Keeps Ratings on 23 Tranches on CreditWatch
GS MORTGAGE 2005-GG4: Fitch Lowers Rating on Cl. F Certs to D
GS MORTGAGE 2015-GC34: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Cl. F Certs
GS MORTGAGE 2015-GS1: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Cl. F Certs

JP MORGAN 2006-CIBC17: Moody's Cuts Class A-J Debt Rating to 'Ca'
LCM XXII: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class D Notes
MADISON PARK XXII: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on Class E Notes
MASTR ADJUSTABLE 2005-4: Moody's Cuts A-X Debt Rating to Caa3
ML-CFC COMMERCIAL 2007-9: Fitch Lowers Rating on 2 Certs to 'Csf'

MORGAN STANLEY 2007-IQ15: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on 8 Certs
OHA LOAN 2016-1: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on Cl. E Notes
PRESTIGE AUTO 2015-1: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
REGATTA VII: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on Class E Notes
RFT 2015-FL1: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class C Notes

SHACKLETON II: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
THL CREDIT 2013-2: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
TIAA REAL 2003-1: S&P Lowers Rating on Class E Notes to D
VENTURE X: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to BB+
WESTLAKE AUTOMOBILE 2016-3: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Cl. E Notes

WHITEHORSE VI: S&P Assigns Prelim. B Rating on Class B-3L Notes
[*] Moody's Takes Action on $526MM of RMBS Issued in 2003-2009

                            *********

ALM VIII: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on Class D-R Notes
-------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to six classes of
notes issued by ALM VIII, Ltd. (the "Issuer" or "ALM VIII"):

   -- US$382,700,000 Class A-1-R Senior Secured Floating Rate
      Notes due 2028 (the "Class A-1-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

   -- US$59,700,000 Class A-2-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes

      due 2028 (the "Class A-2-R Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

   -- US$41,900,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating
      Rate Notes due 2028 (the "Class B-R Notes"), Assigned A2
      (sf)

   -- US$35,800,000 Class C-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating
      Rate Notes due 2028 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Assigned Baa3
      (sf)

   -- US$29,000,000 Class D-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
      Notes due 2028 (the "Class D-R Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

   -- US$9,650,000 Class E-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
      Notes due 2028 (the "Class E-R Notes"), Assigned B2 (sf)

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

      "Rated Notes."

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The Issuer has issued the Rated Notes in connection with the
refinancing of (i) seven classes of secured notes (together, the
"Original Notes"), previously issued on December 18, 2013 (the
"Original Closing Date") and (ii) one class of loans and one class
of notes that were issued in connection with a refinancing of one
class of secured notes previously issued on the Original Closing
Date (together with the Original Notes, the "Refinanced Debt")
issued on February 25, 2016. The Issuer used the proceeds from the
issuance of the Rated Notes to redeem in full the Refinanced Debt.
On the Original Closing Date, in addition to the Original Notes,
the Issuer issued one class of preferred shares, which are not
subject to this refinancing and will remain outstanding.

In addition to changes to the capital structure described above and
to the coupons of the notes, key modifications to the CLO that
occurred in connection with the refinancing include: extensions of
the non-call period, reinvestment period, weighted average life
test and stated maturity of the notes, changes to the collateral
quality matrix and a variety of other changes to transaction
features.

ALM VIII is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes are
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90% of the portfolio must consist
of senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up to 10% of
the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and unsecured loans.
The underlying portfolio is 100% ramped as of the closing date for
this refinancing.

Apollo Credit Management (CLO), LLC (the "Manager") manages the
CLO. It directs the selection, acquisition, and disposition of
collateral on behalf of the Issuer and may engage in trading
activity, including discretionary trading, during the transaction's
four year reinvestment period. After the reinvestment period, the
Manager may reinvest unscheduled principal payments and proceeds
from sales of credit risk obligations, subject to certain
restrictions.

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.

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

   -- Performing par and principal proceeds balance: $596,336,056

   -- Diversity Score: 55

   -- Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 3091

   -- Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 4.05%

   -- Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.0%

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

   -- Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

Factors That Would Lead to an Upgrade or a 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 3091 to 3555)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

   -- Class A-1-R Notes: 0

   -- Class A-2-R Notes: -2

   -- Class B-R Notes: -2

   -- Class C-R Notes: -1

   -- Class D-R Notes: 0

   -- Class E-R Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 3091 to 4018)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

   -- Class A-1-R Notes: -1

   -- Class A-2-R Notes: -3

   -- Class B-R Notes: -4

   -- Class C-R Notes: -2

   -- Class D-R Notes: -1

   -- Class E-R Notes: -3





APOLLO AVIATION 2016-2: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on C Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Apollo
Aviation Securitization Equity Trust 2016-2's $640 million
fixed-rate loans.

The transaction is an asset-backed transaction backed by two AOE
issuers' series A, B, and C notes, which are in turn backed by 35
aircraft and the related leases, and shares or beneficial interests
in entities that directly and indirectly receive aircraft portfolio
lease rental and residual cash flows, among others.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 21,
2016.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

   -- The likelihood of timely interest on the class A loans
      (excluding the step-up amount) on each payment date, the
      timely interest on the class B loans (excluding the step-up
      amount) when they are the senior-most loans outstanding on
      each payment date, and the ultimate interest and principal
      payment on the class A, B, and C loans on the legal final
      maturity at the respective rating stress.

   -- The 69.12% loan-to-value (LTV) ratio (based on the lower of
      the mean and median [LMM] of the three half-life base values

      and the three half-life current market values, except for
      four A330-200 aircraft where S&P excludes BK Associates'
      appraisal) on the class A loans; the 80.53% LTV ratio on the

      class B loans; and the 84.84% LTV ratio on the class C
      loans.

   -- The aircraft collateral's quality and lease rental and
      residual value generating capability.  The portfolio
      contains 31 narrow-body passenger planes narrow-body
      passenger planes (18 A320 family, 12 B737-NG, and one B757-
      200) and four A330-200 wide-body passenger planes.  The 35
      aircraft have a weighted average age of approximately 12.2
      years and remaining average lease term of approximately 4.5
      years.  Except for one B757-200 aircraft, these aircraft are

      still in-production models and have a large operator base,
      which provides the aircraft with a lot of liquidity in the
      aircraft re-leasing and trading market.  While Airbus
      delivered the first A320neo in January and Boeing will
      deliver the B737MAX next year, S&P expects that the new fuel

      efficient models replacing all of the current A320 family
      will take many years; S&P views this as a moderate threat to

      aircraft values and incorporate it into S&P's collateral
      evaluation.

   -- Many of the initial lessees have low credit quality, and
      59.6% of lessees (by aircraft value) are domiciled in
      emerging markets.  S&P's view of the lessee credit quality,
      country risk, lessee concentration, and country
      concentration is reflected in our lessee default rate
      assumptions.

   -- The transaction's capital structure, payment priority, loan
      amortization schedules, and performance triggers.  Similar
      to S&P's recently rated mid-life aircraft ABS, this
      transaction has a few structural features--such as rapid
      amortization, partial rapid amortization, and excess
      proceeds payment--that can, to some extent, mitigate the
      value retention risk of aging aircraft and the risk of
      monetization of aircraft's green time.

   -- The existence of a revolving credit facility that equals
      nine months of interest on the series A and B notes.

   -- There is a series C reserve account (initially funded with
      $1.85 million) to cover the series C loans' interest.  ICF
      International will provide a maintenance analysis at
      closing.  After closing, AAML will perform the maintenance
      analysis, which will be confirmed for reasonableness and
      achievability in an opinion letter from ICF International.
      The senior maintenance reserve account, the junior reserve
      account, and the engine reserve account in aggregate must
      keep a balance of the higher of the lower of $1 million and
      the rated notes' outstanding notional amount and the sum of
      forward-looking maintenance expenses and engine reserve
      account payments.  The senior maintenance reserve account
      will be funded at $25.12 million at closing.  Six months
      after the initial closing date, any excess maintenance
      amounts over the required amount will be transferred to the
      collection account.

   -- The senior indemnification (capped at $10 million) is
      modeled to occur in the first 12 months.

   -- The junior indemnification (uncapped) is subordinated to the

      rated classes' principal payment.

   -- AAML, an affiliate of Apollo Aviation Group LLC (a multi-
      strategy alternative investment firm specializing in
      commercial aviation investing), is the servicer for this
      transaction.  AAML specializes in managing mid-life and
      older aircraft assets, and S&P views AAML's capability of
      servicing such aircraft assets as sufficient.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Apollo Aviation Securitization Equity Trust 2016-2
Class       Rating          Amount (mil. $)
A           A (sf)                      515
B           BBB (sf)                     85
C           BB (sf)                      40



BROMPTON LIFECO: DBRS Confirms Pfd-4 Preferred Shares Rating
------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS Limited confirmed the rating of the Preferred Shares issued by
Brompton Lifeco Split Corp. at Pfd-4 (high).

In April 2007, during the initial public offering, the Company
issued 3.1 million Preferred Shares (the Preferred Shares) at
$10.00 each, along with an equal number of Class A Shares at $15.00
each. On May 1, 2014, the Company completed a secondary treasury
offering, raising approximately $19.7 million in gross proceeds. In
September 2014, the Company completed another secondary treasury
offering, raising approximately $51.6 million in gross proceeds.
The new termination date for both classes of shares is set for
April 29, 2019. On maturity, the holders of the Preferred Shares
will be entitled to the value of the Company up to the face value
of the Preferred Shares. Holders of the Class A Shares will receive
the remaining value of the Company. The Board of Directors may
extend the Company’s term and the shares by successive terms of
up to five years, provided that shareholders are given an optional
retraction right at the end of each successive term.

The Company holds a portfolio (the Portfolio) consisting of common
shares of the four-largest publicly traded Canadian life insurance
companies: Great-West Lifeco Inc., Sun Life Financial Inc.,
Manulife Financial Corporation and Industrial Alliance Insurance
and Financial Services Inc. The Portfolio is approximately equally
weighted and subject to annual rebalancing. The Preferred Shares
are entitled to receive fixed cumulative, quarterly distributions
in the amount of $0.14375 per preferred share, yielding 5.75%
annually on the issue price of $10.00 per share. Holders of the
Class A Shares are expected to receive regular monthly cash
distributions targeted at $0.075 per share, yielding 6% annually on
the original issue price of $15.00 per share. No monthly
distributions on the Class A Shares will be made if the Preferred
Share distributions are in arrears or if the net asset value (NAV)
of the Company falls below 1.5 times (x) the principal amount of
the outstanding Preferred Shares. Furthermore, no special
distributions (i.e., distributions in excess of $0.075 per month)
will be made if the NAV of the Company is below $25.00.

The Company has the ability to write covered-call options or
cash-covered put options with respect to all or part of the common
shares of the Portfolio and may also engage in securities lending
to generate additional income to supplement the dividends received
on the Portfolio. Based on the dividend yields of the underlying
companies in the Portfolio and after management fees and other
expenses have been paid, the dividend coverage ratio stands at
0.6x.

The main form of credit enhancement available to the Preferred
Shares is a buffer of downside protection. Downside protection
corresponds to the percentage decline in market value of the
Portfolio that must be experienced before the Preferred Shares
would be in a loss position. The amount of downside protection
available to the Preferred Shares as of October 13, 2016, is
34.4%.

Some important rating considerations are the credit quality,
volatility and diversification of the Portfolio as well as changes
in dividend policies of the underlying companies in the Portfolio.
Based on these considerations and performance metrics, DBRS
confirms the Pfd-4 (high) rating of the Preferred Shares issued by
Brompton Lifeco Split Corp.

DBRS will continue to closely monitor changes in the credit quality
of the Preferred Shares. The timing of DBRS rating actions will
generally follow the surveillance guidelines listed in DBRS’s
split share methodology.

Notes:

All figures are in Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted.
The related regulatory disclosures pursuant to the National
Instrument 25-101 Designated Rating Organizations are hereby
incorporated by reference and can be found by clicking on the link
to the right under Related Research or by contacting us at
info@dbrs.com.

The applicable methodology is Rating Canadian Split Share Companies
and Trusts (June 2016), which can be found on our website under
Methodologies.

RATINGS

Issuer            Debt Rated          Rating Action      Rating
------            ----------          -------------      ------
Brompton Lifeco   Preferred Shares      Confirmed         Pfd-4
Split Corp.                                               (high)
   



CARLYLE GLOBAL 2012-4: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Cl. E-R Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the A-R, B-R, C-1-R,
C-2-R, D-R, and E-R notes from Carlyle Global Market Strategies CLO
2012-4 Ltd., a U.S. collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
transaction managed by Carlyle Investment Management LLC.  S&P
withdrew its ratings on the class A, B-1, B-2, C, D, and E notes
from this transaction after they were fully redeemed.

On the Oct. 20, 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 the ratings on the original notes in line with their full
redemption and assigned ratings to the replacement notes.

The replacement notes are being issued via a supplemental indenture
and a restated indenture, which, in addition to outlining the terms
of the replacement notes, resets the non-call end date,
reinvestment end date, weighted average life test, and 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 trustee
report, to estimate future performance.  "In line with our
criteria, our cash flow scenarios applied forward-looking
assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of defaults, and
recoveries upon default, under various interest rate and
macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition, our analysis considered the
transaction's ability to pay timely interest or ultimate principal,
or both, to each of the rated tranches," S&P said.

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 take rating actions as S&P deems
necessary.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Carlyle Global Market Strategies CLO 2012-4 Ltd.

Replacement class    Rating          Amount (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

RATINGS WITHDRAWN
Carlyle Global Market Strategies CLO 2012-4 Ltd.

                           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.



CITIGROUP 2015-GC35: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Cl. F Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 15 classes of Citigroup Commercial
Mortgage Trust (CGCMT) 2015-GC35 Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2015-GC34.

                        KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are due to overall stable performance.  The stable
performance reflects no material changes to pool metrics since
issuance, therefore the original rating analysis was considered in
affirming the transaction.  As of the October 2016 distribution
date, the pool's aggregate principal balance has been reduced by
0.3% to $1.102 billion million from $1.105 billion at issuance.
Currently, there is one specially serviced loan (3%). Two
additional small loans (0.5%) are considered Fitch Loans of Concern
due to performance issues.  No loans are defeased and all loans are
current.  There is currently a $21,538 interest shortfall affecting
class H related to a special servicing fee and a small
reimbursement for advance interest.  The Fitch debt service
coverage ratio (DSCR) and loan to value (LTV) at issuance were
1.22x and 105.3%, respectively.

Specially Serviced Loan: The 10th largest loan in the pool, Hammons
Hotel Portfolio (3% of the pool), transferred to special servicing
in August 2016 due to the borrower and parent company filing for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The filing was made in connection with
litigation, which was ongoing at issuance, related to a complex
deal made in 2005 to reprivatize Hammons Hotels.  The hotels and
loan are performing better than expected with year-end 2015 NOI
across the collateral properties 10.6% above bank underwriting.
The weighted average RevPAR Penetration for the collateral
properties was 138.3%, as of the June 2016 trailing 12 month
period.  This loan is a non-controlling pari passu loan with the
remaining notes securitized in CGCMT 2015-GC33, GSMS 2015-GS1, and
GSMS 2015-GC34.

Stable Performance with No Material Changes: All loans in the pool
are current as of the October 2016 distribution with property level
performance generally in line with issuance expectations and no
material changes to pool metrics.

It should be noted that, at issuance, 750 Lexington Avenue, the
eighth largest loan in the pool, was facing a large imminent lease
roll; Locke Lord, which occupied 31% of the NRA (22% if revenue),
subsequently vacated the property at lease expiration in June 2016.
The loan includes a $7.75 million upfront leasing reserve related
to this space.  Fitch will continue to monitor the leasing status
of the space.

Above-Average Pool Concentration: The largest 10 loans account for
63% of the pool by balance. This is greater than the year-to-date
(YTD) October 2015 average of 48.5% and the 2014 average of 50.5%.
It was also noted at issuance that the loan concentration index
(LCI) was higher than average for this transaction.

High Hotel Exposure: Approximately 23.4% of the pool by balance
consists of hotel properties, including four of the largest 10
loans.  This is above the YTD 2015 average hotel concentration of
16.3% and the 2014 average of 14.2%; hotels have the highest
probability of default in Fitch's multiborrower CMBS model.

Investment-Grade Credit Opinion Loan: One of the largest loans in
the pool, 590 Madison Avenue (9.1% of the pool), was assigned an
investment grade credit opinion at issuance.

                        RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlooks on all classes remain Stable.  Fitch does not
foresee positive or negative ratings migration until a material
economic or asset-level event changes the transaction's overall
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 these ratings:

   -- $26.7 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $111.6 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $200 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $386.6 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $44.5 million class A-AB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $834.5 million* class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $59.4 million* class X-B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $64.9 million class A-S at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $59.4 million class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $183.7 million class PEZ at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $59.4 million class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $58 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $58 million* class X-D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $29 million class E at 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $11.1 million class F at 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

* Notional amount and interest only.

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

Fitch does not rate the class G or the class H.


COMM 2015-CCRE27: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Cl. F Certificates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 14 classes of Deutsche Bank Securities,
Inc.'s COMM 2015-CCRE27 commercial mortgage trust pass-through
certificates.

                        KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are due to overall stable performance.  The stable
performance reflects no material changes to pool metrics since
issuance, therefore the original rating analysis was considered in
affirming the transaction.  As of the October 2016 distribution
date, the pool's aggregate principal balance has been reduced by
0.5% to $926 million from $931 million at issuance. Currently,
there is one specially serviced loan (0.3%).  The loan transferred
to the special servicer in April 2016 due to imminent default as a
result of extensive damage to the property's roof.  No loans have
been defeased and interest shortfalls are currently affecting class
H.

Stable Performance with No Material Changes: All loans in the pool
are current as of the October 2016 distribution with property level
performance generally in line with issuance expectations with no
material changes to pool metrics.

Below Average Amortization: Eight loans (20.7% of the current
balance) are full-term interest-only, and 30 loans (45.5%) are
partial interest-only.  There are two ARD loans (2.2%).  The
remainder of the pool consists of 27 balloon loans, with loan terms
of five to 10 years.  Based on the scheduled balance at maturity,
the pool will pay down 11.3%.

Multifamily Concentration: The pool has a high percentage of
multifamily properties (36.7%), followed by retail (19.5%), and
office (18.1%).

Investment-Grade Credit Opinion Loan: The largest loan in the pool,
11 Madison Avenue (7.5%) was assigned a credit opinion of 'A-' on a
stand-alone basis at issuance.

                       RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlooks on all classes remain Stable.  Fitch does not
foresee positive or negative ratings migration until a material
economic or asset-level event changes the transaction's overall
portfolio-level metrics.

Fitch has affirmed these ratings:

COMM 2015-CCRE27

   -- $33.7 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $72.5 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $62.5 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $200 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $278.3 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $53.6 million class A-M at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $700.7 million* class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $54.7 million class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $97.8 million* class X-B at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $43.1 million class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $51.2 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $51.2 million* class X-C at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $24.5 million class E at 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $9.3 million class F at 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable;

* Notional amount and interest only.

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


COMM MORTGAGE 2016-COR1: Fitch Assigns B- Rating on Cl. F Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned these ratings on German American Capital
Corp.'s COMM Mortgage Securities Trust 2016-COR1 commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates:

   -- $30,136,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $64,857,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $48,044,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $215,000,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $265,440,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $676,918,000b class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $53,441,000 class A-M 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $54,554,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $41,194,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $54,554,000ab class X-B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $46,761,000ab* class X-C 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $22,267,000ab class X-E ' BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $10,020,000ab class X-F ' B-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $46,761,000a class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $22,267,000a class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $10,020,000a class F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

These classes are not rated:

   -- $38,967,985ab class X-G;
   -- $38,967,985a class G.

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

* Class X-C interest only certificates were previously calculated
by reference to a notional amount equal to the sum of the
certificate balances of class C and class D.  Since the publishing
of the presale, class X-C certificates have changed to calculate by
reference to the notional amount of class D only.  This did not
result in a change in Fitch's ratings.

The ratings are based on information provided by the issuer as of
Oct. 20, 2016.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 42 loans secured by 50
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
$890,681,986 as of the cut-off date.  The loans were contributed to
the trust by German American Capital Corporation and Jefferies
LoanCore LLC.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 82.8% of the properties
by balance and asset summary reviews and cash flow analysis of
84.2% of the pool.

                         KEY RATING DRIVERS

Fitch Leverage: The transaction has slightly lower leverage than
other recent Fitch-rated transactions.  The Fitch debt service
coverage ratio (DSCR) for the trust of 1.21x is better than both
the year-to-date (YTD) 2016 average of 1.18x and the 2015 average
of 1.18x.  The Fitch loan to value (LTV) for the trust of 106.3% is
similar to the YTD 2016 average of 106.2% and lower than the 2015
average of 109.3%.  Excluding the credit opinion loans (4.6% of the
pool), the Fitch DSCR and LTV are 1.19x and 108.8%, respectively.

Limited Amortization: Fifteen loans, representing, 51.8% of the
pool, are full interest-only.  This is higher than the average of
23.3% for 2015 and 30.9% for YTD 2016 for other Fitch-rated U.S.
multiborrower deals.  Additionally, 14 loans comprising 24.3% of
the pool are partial interest only; this share is lower than the
average of 43.1% for 2015 and 37.6% for YTD 2016 of other
Fitch-rated U.S. multiborrower deals.  Overall, the pool is
scheduled to pay down by only 9.4% compared with the averages of
11.7% for 2015 and 10.3% YTD for 2016 for other Fitch-rated U.S.
deals.

Investment-Grade Credit Opinion Loans: Two loans, representing 4.6%
of the pool, have investment-grade credit opinions on a stand-alone
basis; this is below the YTD 2016 average of 7.2% credit opinion
loans.  Westfield San Francisco Centre (2.64% of the pool), the
12th largest loan in the pool, has an investment grade credit
opinion of 'Asf'* on a stand-alone basis.  Further, Grant and Geary
Center (loan #20; 1.94% of the pool), has an investment-grade
credit opinion of 'A+sf*' on a stand-alone basis.

                      RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 5.5% below
the most recent year's net operating income (NOI; for properties
for which a full-year NOI was provided, excluding properties that
were stabilizing during this period).  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 COMM
2016-COR1 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 'BBBsf' 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 'BB+sf'
could result.  


COUNTRYWIDE HOME 2004-SD2: Moody's Confirms Ca Rating on Cl. B Debt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has confirmed the ratings of four
tranches issued by CWABS and backed by Scratch & Dent mortgage
loans.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

   Issuer: Countrywide Home Loan Trust 2004-SD2

   -- Cl. B-1 Certificate, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on Jul

      22, 2016 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

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

   -- Cl. M-2 Certificate, Confirmed at Caa2 (sf); previously on
      Jul 22, 2016 Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
      Upgrade

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2007-SEA1

   -- Cl. 2-A-1 Certificate, Confirmed at Caa2 (sf); previously on

      Jul 22, 2016 Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
      Upgrade

RATINGS RATIONALE

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 confirmation of the rating on Countrywide Home Loan Trust
2004-SD2 Class M-1 is primarily due to the risk of future interest
shortfalls.

The confirmation of the rating on CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates
Trust 2007-SEA1 Class 2-A-1 is primarly due to poor collateral
performance and insufficient credit enhancement compared to
expected losses, despite the settlement money received.

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.


CPS AUTO 2016-D: DBRS Assigns BB Rating on Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. finalized its provisional ratings on the following
classes issued by CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2016-D (2016-D):

   -- $100,170,000 Series 2016-D, Class A rated AAA (sf)

   -- $28,875,000 Series 2016-D, Class B rated AA (high) (sf)

   -- $32,655,000 Series 2016-D, Class C rated A (sf)

   -- $24,570,000 Series 2016-D, Class D rated BBB (low) (sf)

   -- $20,055,000 Series 2016-D, Class E rated BB (low) (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,
      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 capabilities of Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. (CPS)
      with regard to originations, underwriting and servicing.

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

   -- The CPS senior management team has considerable experience
      and a successful track record within the auto finance
      industry, having managed the company through multiple
      economic cycles.

   -- The quality and consistency of provided historical static
      pool data for CPS originations and performance of the CPS
      auto loan portfolio.

   -- The May 29, 2014, settlement of the Federal Trade Commission

      (FTC) inquiry relating to allegedly unfair trade practices.

   -- CPS paid imposed penalties and restitution payments to
      consumers.

   -- CPS has made considerable improvements to the collections
      process, including management changes, upgraded systems and
      software as well as implementation of new policies and
      procedures focused on maintaining compliance.

   -- CPS will be subject to ongoing monitoring of certain
      processes by the FTC.

   -- 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 CPS, 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.

The 2016-D transaction represents the 23rd securitization completed
since 2010 by CPS and offers both senior and subordinate rated
securities. The receivables securitized in 2016-D are subprime
automobile loan contracts secured primarily by used automobiles,
light-duty trucks, vans and minivans.

The rating on the Class A Note reflects the 53.30% of initial hard
credit enhancement provided by the subordinated notes in the pool,
the Reserve Account (1.00%) and overcollateralization (1.75%). The
ratings on the Class B, Class C, Class D and Class E Notes reflect
39.55%, 24.00%, 12.30% and 2.75% of initial hard credit
enhancement, respectively.


CWAB TRUST 2006-1: Moody's Hikes Class AF-3 Notes Rating to Caa1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 20 tranches,
confirmed the ratings of five tranches, and assigns the rating of
four tranche from 6 transactions issued by CWABS, backed by
Subprime mortgage loans.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-1

   -- Cl. AF-3, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. AF-4, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. AF-5, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. AF-6, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. AV-3, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. MF-2, Assigned C (sf); previously on Sep 26, 2014 WR
      (sf)

   -- Cl. MV-1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Sep 17, 2010
      Downgraded to C (sf)

   -- Cl. MV-2, Assigned C (sf); previously on Feb 18, 2014 WR
      (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-5

   -- Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Sep 17, 2010
      Downgraded to C (sf)

   -- Cl. M-3, Assigned C (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 WR (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-6

   -- Cl. 1-A-1, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 1-A-1M, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22,
      2016 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-2, Assigned C (sf); previously on Feb 12, 2014 WR (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-7

   -- Cl. 1-A, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
      Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-8

   -- Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010

      Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-9

   -- Cl. 1-AF-3, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22,
      2016 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 1-AF-4, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 1-AF-5, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
  
      Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 1-AF-6, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22,
      2016 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-AV, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 3-AV-3, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 3-AV-4, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 14,
      2010 Downgraded to C (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating upgrades are primarily due to the receipt of funds from
the CWRMBS settlement and the related increase in the total credit
enhancement available to the bonds.

The rating confirmations are primarily due to the overall levels of
credit enhancement available to the bonds.

The assignment of ratings reflects 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.


CWABS TRUST 2004-AB1: Moody's Assigns C Rating on Cl. M-3 Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 18 tranches,
confirmed the rating of 10 tranches, and assigned ratings to 5
tranches from 7 transactions issued by CWABS, backed by Subprime
mortgage loans.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2004-AB1

   -- Cl. M-1 Certificate, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on
      Jul 22, 2016 B1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
      Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-2 Certificate, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Mar
      17, 2011 Downgraded to C (sf)

   -- Cl. M-3 Certificate, Assigned C (sf); previously on Feb 10,
      2014 WR

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2004-AB2

   -- Cl. M-1 Certificate, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on
      Jul 22, 2016 Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
      Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-2 Certificate, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jul
      22, 2016 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-3 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on
      Mar 17, 2011 Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-7

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

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

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

   -- Cl. MF-2 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on
      Jul 22, 2016 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
      Upgrade

   -- Cl. MV-3 Certificate, Confirmed at Ba1 (sf); previously on
      Jul 22, 2016 Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
      Upgrade

   -- Cl. MV-4 Certificate, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on
      Jul 22, 2016 B1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
      Upgrade

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

   -- Cl. MV-7 Certificate, Assigned C (sf); previously on Nov 6,
      2013 WR

   Issuer: CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-BC2

   -- Cl. M-3 Certificate, Confirmed at Ba1 (sf); previously on
      Jul 22, 2016 Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
      Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-5 Certificate, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Jun
      4, 2012 Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-BC3

   -- Cl. M-2 Certificate, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on
      Jul 22, 2016 Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
      Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-3 Certificate, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jul
      22, 2016 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-4 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on
      Jul 22, 2016 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
      Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-6 Certificate, Assigned to C (sf); previously on May
      1, 2014 WR

   -- Cl. M-7 Certificate, Assigned to C (sf); previously on May
      1, 2014 WR

   Issuer: CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-BC5

   -- Cl. B Certificate, Assigned to C (sf); previously on Nov 14,

      2014 WR

   -- Cl. M-3 Certificate, Confirmed at Ba1 (sf); previously on
      Jul 22, 2016 Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
      Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-4 Certificate, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jul
      22, 2016 B3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-5 Certificate, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Mar
      6, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

   -- Cl. M-6 Certificate, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Mar
      6, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-
   ECC1

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

   -- Cl. M-1 Certificate, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on
      Jul 22, 2016 Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible   
      Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-2 Certificate, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul

      22, 2016 B1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

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

   -- Cl. M-4 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on
      Apr 16, 2012 Downgraded to C (sf)

   -- Cl. M-5 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on
      Apr 16, 2012 Downgraded to C (sf)

   -- Cl. M-6 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on
      Apr 16, 2012 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 confirmation on the CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed
Certificates, Series 2004-7 Class MV-5 is primarily due to its
overall level of credit enhancement. The rating confirmations on
the CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-7 Class MV-3
and Class MV-4 are primarily due to outstanding interest shortfalls
that are unlikely to be reimbursed. The rating confirmations of the
fixed rate senior tranches and the other mezzanine tranches are
primarily due to the risk of future interest shortfalls.

The assignment of 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.


CWABS TRUST: Moody's Takes Action on $2BB of RMBS Issued in 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 38 tranches,
confirmed the rating of 16 tranches, and assigned a rating to 3
tranches from 14 transactions issued by CWABS and backed by
Subprime mortgage loans.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-10

   -- Cl. 1-AF-3, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22,
      2016 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 1-AF-4, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 1-AF-5, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 1-AF-6, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22,
      2016 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-AV, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 3-AV-3, Confirmed at Caa2 (sf); previously on Jul 22,
      2016 Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 3-AV-4, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Apr 14,
      2010 Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-11

   -- Cl. 1-AF-3, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 1-AF-6, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-AV, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      B3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 3-AV-2, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jul 22,
      2016 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 3-AV-3, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Apr 14,
      2010 Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-13

   -- Cl. 1-AF-3, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22,
      2016 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 1-AF-4, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 1-AF-5, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 1-AF-6, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-AV, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 3-AV-2, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 3-AV-3, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
      Downgraded to C (sf)

   -- Cl. MV-3, Assigned to C (sf); previously on Jul 29, 2014 WR

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-14

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

   -- Cl. 2-A-2, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
      Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-16

   -- Cl. 1-A, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-2, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
      Downgraded to C (sf)

   -- Cl. M-2, Assigned C (sf); previously on Feb 24, 2014 WR

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-17

   -- Cl. 1-A Certificate, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jul

      22, 2016 Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-2 Certificate, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on

      Jul 22, 2016 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
      Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-3 Certificate, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on
      Apr 14, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-18

   -- Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-2, Confirmed at Caa2 (sf); previously on Jul 22,
      2016 Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010

      Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-19

   -- Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-2, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010

      Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-ABC1

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

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-BC1

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

   -- Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
      Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-BC2

   -- Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
      Downgraded to C (sf)

   -- Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
      Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-BC3

   -- Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-2, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      B1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      B2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
      Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-BC4

   -- Cl. 1-A Certificate, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on
      Jul 22, 2016 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
      Upgrade
   
   -- Cl. 2-A-2 Certificate, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on
      Jul 22, 2016 Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
      Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-3 Certificate, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on
      Apr 14, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf)

   -- Cl. M-1 Certificate, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Mar
      25, 2009 Downgraded to C (sf)

   Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-BC5

   -- Cl. 1-A Certificate, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on Jul

      22, 2016 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-3 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on
      Jul 22, 2016 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible  
      Upgrade

   -- Cl. 2-A-4 Certificate, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on
      Apr 14, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf)

   -- Cl. M-1 Certificate, Assigned C (sf); previously on Jan
      24,2014 WR

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 in
spite of settlement funds received by those transactions, and
losses already incurred by the bonds.

The assignment of ratings reflects the fact that the prior ratings
had been withdrawn as the tranches were previously written down due
to losses; 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.


DBUBS 2011-LC3: Moody's Hikes Class E Notes Rating to Ba1
---------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on four classes
and affirmed the ratings on six classes in DBUBS 2011-LC3 Mortgage
Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2011-LC3 as follows:

   -- Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 26, 2016
      Affirmed Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 26, 2016
      Affirmed Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. A-M, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 26, 2016
      Affirmed Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. B, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on May 26, 2016
      Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

   -- Cl. C, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on May 26, 2016
      Upgraded to A1 (sf)

   -- Cl. D, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on May 26, 2016
      Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

   -- Cl. E, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on May 26, 2016
      Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

   -- Cl. F, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on May 26, 2016 Affirmed

      B2 (sf)

   -- Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 26, 2016
      Affirmed Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. X-B, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on May 26, 2016
      Affirmed Ba3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on four P&I classes were upgraded based primarily on an
increase in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and
amortization. The deal has paid down 34% since Moody's last
review.

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

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.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 1.5% of the
current balance, compared to 0.9% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 0.6% 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 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 a Herf of 13 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 October 13, 2016 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate pooled balance has decreased by 58% to $591 million from
$1.40 billion at securitization and the aggregate certificate
balance including rake bonds has decreased by 50% to $825 million
from $1.65 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 25 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 18% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 72% of
the pool. One loan, constituting 8% of the pool, has an
investment-grade structured credit assessment. One loan,
constituting 8% of the pool, has defeased and is secured by US
government securities.

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

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for one poorly
performing loan constituting 1.4% of the pool.

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 100% of the
pool and partial year 2016 operating results for 89% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 91%, compared to 93% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 13% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.48X and 1.15X,
respectively, compared to 1.49X and 1.14X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The loan with a structured credit assessment is the Ridgeway
Shopping Center Loan ($44.5 million -- 7.5% of the pool), which is
secured by a grocery-anchored shopping center and five-story
parking structure in Stamford, Connecticut. The property was 96%
leased as of December 2015. The loan metrics have benefitted from
amortization. Moody's structured credit assessment and stressed
DSCR are aa3 (sca.pd) and 2.00X, respectively, compared to aa3
(sca.pd) and 1.98X at the last review.

The top three loans represent 41% of the pool balance. The largest
loan is the Quadrus Office Park Loan ($106.8 million -- 18.1% of
the pool), which is secured by nine Class A office properties
located on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, California. As of June
2016 the properties were 85% leased, up from 69% leased as of
December 2015 and 79% as of December 2014. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 93% and 1.01X, respectively, compared to 94% and 1.01X at
the last review.

The second largest loan is the Dover Mall and Commons Loan ($87.2
million -- 14.7% of the pool), which is secured by a 553,000 square
foot (SF) component of a 886,000 SF single-level enclosed
super-regional mall located in Dover, Delaware. As of December
2015, the property was 95% leased compared to 96% a year earlier in
December 2014. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 104% and 0.96X,
respectively, compared to 105% and 0.95X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Providence Place Mall ($48.6 million
A note -- 8.2% of the pool), which is secured by a 1.2 million SF
regional mall in downtown Providence, Rhode Island. The property
anchors include Macy's and Nordstrom and formerly included anchor
JCPenney. The loan is on the watchlist due to the JCPenney store
closure in September 2015. This loan has non-pooled debt, some of
which is held as rake bonds in this deal. Of the rake bonds, one --
the A-2 note -- is pari passu with the A note for Providence Place
Mall. Moody's A note LTV and stressed DSCR are 41% and 2.31X,
respectively, compared to 41% and 2.29X at the last review.




DRIVE AUTO 2015-B: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on four classes from Drive
Auto Receivables Trust (DRIVE) series 2015-A, 2015-B, 2015-C, and
2015-D and affirmed its ratings on 20 classes from DRIVE series
2015-A, 2015-B, 2015-C, 2015-D, 2016-A, and 2016-B.

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 analyses.  Considering all these factors, S&P
believes the creditworthiness of the notes remains consistent with
the raised and affirmed ratings.

S&P revised its loss expectation for the 2015 series vintages.
These vintages are performing in-line or slightly better than S&P's
initial expectations.  S&P also considered the repurchases and
their levels in its revised loss expectation.  While these
repurchases are common across Santander Consumer USA Inc.'s (SC's)
securitization platforms, the level at which the receivables have
been repurchased out of the DRIVE trusts is slightly higher than in
SC's other platforms (namely Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust
and Chrysler Capital Auto Receivables Trust).  S&P will continue to
monitor the performance of these transactions.

S&P is maintaining its initial loss expectations for series 2016-A
and 2016-B pending further collateral performance, given these
transactions' short performance histories.

Table 1
Collateral Performance (%)
As of the October 2016 distribution date

                       Pool     Current       60+ day
Series     Mo.   factor (%)     CNL (%)   delinq. (%)
2015-A      19        51.00       11.63          8.08
2015-B      17        56.04        9.20          8.27
2015-C      15        58.93        9.61          8.15
2015-D      13        64.45        8.18          7.81
2016-A       9        76.72        5.04          6.69
2016-B       5        88.69        1.43          4.64

Mo.--Month.
CNL--cumulative net loss.

Table 2
CNL Expectations (%)
As of September 2016

                         Original               Revised
                         lifetime              lifetime
Series               CNL exp. (%)          CNL exp. (%)
2015-A                27.00-28.00           27.00-28.00
2015-B                27.00-28.00           27.00-28.00
2015-C                27.00-28.00           27.00-28.00
2015-D                27.00-28.00           27.00-28.00
2016-A                27.00-28.00           No revision
2016-B                27.00-28.00           No revision

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 also has
credit enhancement in the form of a nonamortizing reserve account,
overcollateralization, subordination for the higher-rated tranches,
and excess spread.  The credit enhancement for DRIVE series 2015-A,
2015-B, 2015-C, 2015-D, and 2016-A is at the specified targets, and
each class' credit support continues to increase as a percentage of
the amortizing collateral balance. DRIVE series 2016-B's target
overcollateralization has not been met yet; however, the
overcollateralization is growing as a percentage of the amortizing
pool balance.

In addition, the overcollateralization for all six transactions can
step up to a higher target overcollateralization level if certain
cumulative net loss metrics are breached. Overcollateralization
step-up tests occur every month and are noncurable once breached.
None of these transactions have approached their cumulative net
loss triggers as of the October 2016 distribution date.  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 or affirmed rating.

Table 3
Hard Credit Support (%)
As of the October 2016 distribution date

                        Total hard     Current total hard
                  credit support at        credit support
Series     Class    issuance (%)(i)     (% of current)(i)
2015-A     B                  54.25                 89.85
2015-A     C                  37.00                 56.03
2015-A     D                  27.00                 36.42
2015-B     B                  54.25                 89.41
2015-B     C                  37.00                 58.62
2015-B     D                  27.00                 40.78
2015-B     E                  21.00                 30.07
2015-C     B                  54.25                 86.31
2015-C     C                  37.00                 57.04
2015-C     D                  27.00                 40.07
2015-C     E                  21.00                 29.89
2015-D     A-3                65.50                 98.78
2015-D     B                  52.95                 79.30
2015-D     C                  35.00                 51.45
2015-D     D                  25.00                 35.93
2016-A     A-3                65.70                 87.22
2016-A     B                  52.00                 69.36
2016-A     C                  36.25                 48.83
2016-A     D                  24.00                 32.86
2016-B     A-2                65.85                 77.85
2016-B     A-3                65.85                 77.85
2016-B     B                  54.35                 64.88
2016-B     C                  39.85                 48.53
2016-B     D                  25.50                 32.35

(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 are 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 S&P's revised
base-case loss expectation.

In S&P's view, the results demonstrated that all of the classes
have adequate credit enhancement at the raised or affirmed rating
levels.  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

Drive Auto Receivables Trust
                                 Rating
Series      Class          To             From
2015-A      B              AAA (sf)       AA(sf)
2015-B      B              AAA (sf)       AA (sf)
2015-C      B              AAA (sf)       AA (sf)
2015-D      B              AAA (sf)       AA (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Drive Auto Receivables Trust
                                
Series      Class          Rating
2015-A      C              A (sf)
2015-A      D              BBB (sf)
2015-B      C              A (sf)
2015-B      D              BBB (sf)
2015-B      E              BB (sf)
2015-C      C              A (sf)
2015-C      D              BBB+ (sf)
2015-C      E              BB (sf)
2015-D      A-3            AAA (sf)
2015-D      C              A (sf)
2015-D      D              BBB (sf)
2016-A      A-3            AAA (sf)
2016-A      B              AA (sf)
2016-A      C              A (sf)
2016-A      D              BBB (sf)
2016-B      A-2            AAA (sf)
2016-B      A-3            AAA (sf)
2016-B      B              AA(sf)
2016-B      C              A (sf)
2016-B      D              BBB (sf)


FREMF MORTGAGE 2011-K12: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Cl. X-2 Debt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on two classes
in FREMF Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2011-K12 as follows:

   -- Cl. B, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Nov 13, 2015 Upgraded

      to A2 (sf)

   -- Cl. X-2, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Nov 13, 2015
      Affirmed Ba3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating on P&I class B was affirmed due to key factors,
including LTV, DSCR and Herf, remaining within acceptable ranges.

The rating on IO class X-2 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 1.9% of the
current balance, compared to 1.5% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.0% of the original
pooled balance, compared to 1.7% 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 23, compared to a Herf of 25 at Moody's last
review.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the September 26, 2016 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 9% to $1.10 billion
from $1.21 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 67 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 9% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 40% of
the pool. Fourteen loans, constituting 21% of the pool, have
defeased and are secured by US government securities.

Two loans, constituting 4% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

One loan has been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $3 million (for an average loss severity
of 54%).

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 100% of the
pool and partial year 2016 operating results for 44% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 78%, compared to 80% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 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 1.71X and 1.24X,
respectively, compared to 1.69X and 1.20X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 22% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the 200 Water Street Loan ($98.9 million -- 9.0% of
the pool), which is secured by a 576-unit multifamily high-rise
located in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan, New York
City. The property was 92% leased as December 2014 compared to 95%
as of December 2013. This property was damaged during Hurricane
Sandy, but is now fully operational. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 77% and 1.05X, respectively.

The second largest loan is the Mid-America Portfolio ($79.6 million
-- 7.2% of the pool), which is secured by four cross-collateralized
and cross-defaulted multifamily loans located in Tennessee, Florida
and South Carolina. The portfolio contains 1,312 units in the
aggregate, represented by one, two and three-bedroom floor plans.
The portfolio was 97% leased as of June 2015, compared to 96%
leased as of June 2013. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 68% and
1.39X, respectively, compared to 72% and 1.32X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Summer House Apartments Loan ($66.2
million -- 6.0% of the pool), which is secured by a 615-unit
garden-style multifamily property located in Alameda, California.
The property was 95% leased as of June 2015, the same as at the
last review. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 67% and 1.37X,
respectively, compared to 72% and 1.28X at the last review.



GE COMMERCIAL 2005-C4: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Cl. A-J Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on seven classes
and downgraded the ratings on three classes in GE Commercial
Mortgage Corporation, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2005-C4 as follows:

   -- Cl. A-M, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Oct 23, 2015
      Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-J, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Oct 23, 2015
      Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

   -- Cl. B, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Oct 23, 2015 Affirmed

      B3 (sf)

   -- Cl. C, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct 23, 2015
      Affirmed Caa2 (sf)

   -- Cl. D, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Oct 23, 2015
      Affirmed Caa3 (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. X-W, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Oct 23, 2015
      Downgraded to Ca (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings of two P&I classes were downgraded due to the
anticipated timing of losses of loans in special servicing. Ten
loans, representing 54% of the pool are already real estate owned
(REO).

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

The ratings on the IO class X-W was downgraded as the class is not
receiving interest and has expected future interest payments of
zero.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 39.7% of the
current balance, compared to 21.0% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 13.1% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 13.2% 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.

Moody's analysis incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since 62.7% of the pool is in
special servicing and performing conduit loans only represent 16.8%
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(es) and the recovery as a
pay down of principal to the most senior class(es).

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. 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 11 October, 2016 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 81% to $463.0
million from $2.398 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 17 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 26% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 91% of
the pool.

Three loans, constituting 23% 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 $131 million (for an average loss
severity of 39.6%). Thirteen loans, constituting 63% of the pool,
are currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced
loan is the 123 North Wacker Loan ($120.6 million -- 26.1% of the
pool), which is secured by the a 540,000 SF, 30-story, Class-A
office building located in Chicago's West Loop submarket. The
property, which was originally built in 1986 as the headquarters
for AON Corporation underwent a $29 million renovation in 2005 to
convert the property from single-tenant to multi-tenant use. The
two largest tenants are Morton Salt, Inc. (18% of NRA) and Meckler,
Bulger & Tilson (10.5%). The loan was modified in 2011 to extend
the loan's interest-only period through loan maturity. The loan
most-recently transferred to special servicing in 2013 due to
imminent default. The property was 64% occupied as of 31 December,
2015, compared to 67% at last review.

The remaining 12 specially serviced loans are secured by a mix of
property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $144.3 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (50% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for two poorly
performing loans, constituting 21% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $31.7 million (a 33% expected loss based on a
54% probability default) from these troubled loans.

As of the 11 October, 2016 remittance statement cumulative interest
shortfalls were $26.2 million. Moody's anticipates interest
shortfalls will continue because of the exposure to specially
serviced loans and/or modified loans. Interest shortfalls are
caused by special servicing fees, including workout and liquidation
fees, appraisal entitlement reductions (ASERs), loan modifications
and extraordinary trust expenses.

Moody's received full and partial year 2015 operating results for
100% of the pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results
for 87% of the pool.

The top three performing loans represent 35.7% of the pool balance.
The largest loan is the Design Center of America Loan ($87.7
million -- 19.0% of the pool), which represents a 50% pari passu in
a $175 million first-mortgage. The loan is secured by a
three-building design center complex located in Dania Beach,
Florida. The loan was modified in in 2012 to reduce the loan's
interest rate and extend the loans maturity date. The loan has been
on the watchlist since July 2012 for low DSCR. The property is
currently 69% occupied as of September 2016, compared to 57% at
last review. The sponsor is converting a portion of the collateral
to office space in hopes of increasing property performance and
value. The loan is current, but Moody's has identified the subject
as a troubled loan.

The second largest loan is the Fireman's Fund Loan ($67.2 million
-- 14.5% of the pool), which is secured by a pari passu interest in
a $141 million first mortgage on a 710,000 SF three-building office
complex located in Novato, California. The property is 100% leased
to Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. through November 2018. Fireman's
Fund was purchased by Allianz and announced that it is closing its
offices at this location. Moody's utilized a lit/dark analysis to
account for the single-tenant risk. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 126% and 0.81X, respectively, compared to 125% and 0.82X at the
last review.

The third largest loan is the Memorial Bend Shopping Center A-Note
Loan ($10.5 million -- 2.3% of the pool), which is secured by
177,000 SF anchored retail center located in Stone Mountain,
Georgia. The loan was transferred to the special servicer in 2013
due to Publix vacating the property. The loan was modified in April
2014, which extended the loan's maturity date, interest-only
period, and created a hope note. As of June 30, 2016, the property
was 89% occupied. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 85% and 1.17X,
respectively.


GLOBAL MINISTRIES: S&P Keeps Ratings on 23 Tranches on CreditWatch
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings has maintained its CreditWatch for ratings on 23
affordable multifamily housing bonds issued on behalf of affiliates
of Global Ministries Fellowship (GMF), a Tennessee-based nonprofit
corporation that specializes in the development and preservation of
affordable housing, where they were placed with negative
implications on Aug. 9, 2016.

"We placed the ratings on CreditWatch due to the uncertainty about
the results of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development's (HUD) investigation into the organization's
management of the Section 8 program that it participates in, and
that affects 15 of the 23 bond issues supported by Section 8
subsidized affordable multifamily rental housing projects.  We have
received notification from GMF that documentation on HUD's findings
is forthcoming.  Upon receipt of public documentation on the
likelihood of continued subsidies tied to these properties as it
relates to GMF's contracts with HUD, we will determine if the
ratings are subject to downgrades," S&P said.

"In our view, effective ownership and management are essential to
an affordable housing program's economic feasibility and
sustainability, which warrants a review of the full portfolio,"
said S&P Global Ratings credit analyst Mikiyon Alexander.

RATINGS ON CREDITWATCH

Project Name                     Current Core Rating
------------                     -------------------
Alabama Housing pool             BBB+/Watch Neg
Civic Towers                     BBB+/Watch Neg
Florala pool                     BBB/Watch Neg
Forest Cove                      BBB/Watch Neg
Goodwill Village                 BB/Watch Neg
Indiana 4 pool                   BBB/Watch Neg
JFK Towers                       A-/Watch Neg
Madison Towers                   BB/Watch Neg
Peace Lake Towers                A-/Watch Neg
Serenity Towers                  BBB/Watch Neg
Stonekey                         A-/Watch Neg
Stonybrook                       BBB/Watch Neg
TM Alexander                     BBB+/Watch Neg
Van Rensselaer/Renwyk Place      A-/Watch Neg
Windsor Cove                     BBB/Watch Neg

S&P will continue to monitor and respond to any significant
developments that occur in relation to HUD's investigation of GMF's
bond-financed projects.  If S&P was to receive confirmation from
HUD, GMF, or other reliable sources that any Section 8 properties
are at risk of losing their Housing Assistance Payment funding, S&P
would take appropriate rating action, which could include a
downgrade or withdrawal of the ratings.  S&P will also continue to
evaluate whether it is receiving sufficient information of
satisfactory quality to maintain S&P's ratings.  In addition, S&P
will review GMF's strategy and management of all 23 bonds, based on
S&P's view of GMF's lack of strategic planning in the properties'
current state, and weak operational effectiveness.

S&P will review the CreditWatch within the next 90 days.


GS MORTGAGE 2005-GG4: Fitch Lowers Rating on Cl. F Certs to D
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded one and affirmed nine classes of GS
Mortgage Securities Corporation II, commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates, series 2005-GG4 (GSMSC II 2005-GG4).

                        KEY RATING DRIVERS

The downgrade of the already distressed class F reflects realized
losses sustained by the class from the liquidation of the One HSBC
Center asset, which was reflected in the October 2016 remittance.
The asset, the tallest office property located in Buffalo, NY,
sustained a loss of 109% on the outstanding loan balance when
including fees, expenses and advances.

The affirmation of class E reflects pool concentration and adverse
selection of the remaining collateral.  Only three loans remain,
two of which are specially serviced (64% of pool).  One of the
specially serviced assets (18.5%) is a retail center located in
Tucson, AZ, which became real-estate owned in January 2013.  The
other specially serviced loan (45.5%), which is classified as in
foreclosure, is secured by a hotel property located in Lansdale,
PA.  The only performing loan is secured by a single-tenant office
property located in Wilmington, NC occupied by Verizon Wireless.
The tenant extended its lease for an additional 10 years to
December 2026, which is beyond the loan's March 2017 maturity.

As of the October 2016 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 99.2% to $32.3 million from
$4 billion at issuance.  Cumulative interest shortfalls totaling
$31.5 million are currently affecting classes H through P.

                       RATING SENSITIVITIES

An upgrade of class E is unlikely due to adverse selection of the
remaining collateral.  Class E may be downgraded to 'Dsf' if the
class incurs a loss.  Classes G through O will remain at 'Dsf' due
to incurred losses.

Fitch has downgraded this class:

   -- $11.6 million class F to 'Dsf' from 'Csf'; RE 0%.

In addition, Fitch has affirmed these classes:

   -- $20.8 million class E at 'Csf'; 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%.

Classes A-1, A-1P, A-DP, A-2, A-3, A-ABA, A-ABB, A-4, A-4A, A-4B,
A-1A, A-J, B, C and D have paid in full.  Class P is not rated by
Fitch.  The ratings on the interest-only classes X-P and X-C were
previously withdrawn.


GS MORTGAGE 2015-GC34: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Cl. F Certs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 15 classes of GS Mortgage Securities
Trust (GSMS) commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series
2015-GC34.

                        KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are due to overall stable performance.  The stable
performance reflects no material changes to pool metrics since
issuance; therefore, the original rating analysis was considered in
affirming the transaction.  As of the October 2016 distribution
date, the pool's aggregate principal balance has been reduced by
0.5% to $844.6 million from $848.4 million at issuance. Currently,
there is one specially serviced loan (8.5% of pool).  No loans are
defeased and all loans are current.  There is currently a $46,908
interest shortfall affecting class G related to a special servicing
fee and a small reimbursement for advance interest.  The Fitch debt
service coverage ratio (DSCR) and loan to value (LTV) at issuance
were 1.09x and 112.3%, respectively.

Specially Serviced Loan: The third largest loan in the pool,
Hammons Hotel Portfolio (8.5% of the pool), transferred to special
servicing in July 2016 due to the borrower and its parent company
filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June 2016.  The filing was made
in connection with litigation, which was ongoing at issuance,
related to a complex deal made in 2005 to reprivatize Hammons
Hotels.  The hotels and loan are performing better than expected
with year-end 2015 net operating income (NOI) across the collateral
properties 10.6% above bank underwriting.  The weighted average
RevPAR penetration for the collateral properties was 138.3% as of
the June 2016 trailing 12 month (TTM) period.  This loan is a
non-controlling pari passu loan with the remaining notes
securitized in CGCMT 2015-GC33, GSMS 2015-GS1, and CGCMT
2015-GC35.

Stable Performance With No Material Changes: All loans in the pool
are current as of the October 2016 distribution with property level
performance generally in line with issuance expectations and no
material changes to pool metrics.

It should be noted that, at issuance, 750 Lexington Avenue, the
second largest loan in the pool (10% of pool), was facing a large
imminent lease roll; Locke Lord, which occupied 31% of the net
rentable area (NRA; 22% if revenue), subsequently vacated the
property at lease expiration in June 2016.  The loan includes a
$7.75 million upfront leasing reserve related to this space.  Fitch
will continue to monitor the leasing status of the space.

Above-Average Pool Concentration: The largest 10 loans account for
55.4% of the pool by balance.  This is greater than the
year-to-date (YTD) October 2015 average of 48.5% and the 2014
average of 50.5%.  It was also noted at issuance that the loan
concentration index (LCI) was higher than average for this
transaction.

High Quality Collateral: At issuance, Fitch performed site
inspections for properties that secured loans representing 75.9% of
the total original pool balance.  Of the properties that Fitch
inspected, 39.2% received a property quality grade of 'B+' or
better.  Three properties (750 Lexington Avenue, Parkside at So7
and LA Fitness Powell), comprising 23.3% of the inspected pool,
were assigned property quality grades of 'A-'.  Loans representing
10.6% of the inspected pool were assigned property quality grades
of 'B-' or 'C+', indicating below-average property quality.

                       RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlooks on all classes remain Stable.  Fitch does not
foresee positive or negative ratings migration until a material
economic or asset-level event changes the transaction's overall
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 these classes:

   -- $30,283,000 class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $28,822,000 class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $185,000,000 class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $284,382,000 class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $65,382,000 class A-AB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $634,167,000* class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $48,782,000* class X-B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $40,298,000 class A-S at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $48,782,000 class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $131,499,000 class PEZ at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $42,419,000 class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $51,964,000 class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $51,964,000* class X-D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $23,331,000 class E at 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $8,483,000 class F at 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

*Notional amount and interest-only.

Class A-S, B and C certificates may be exchanged for class PEZ
certificates, and class PEZ certificates may be exchanged for class
A-S, B, and C certificates.  Fitch does not rate the $39,238,739
class G.


GS MORTGAGE 2015-GS1: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Cl. F Certs
------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 14 classes of GS Mortgage Securities
Trust (GSMS) 2015-GS1 commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates.

                        KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are based on the stable performance of the
underlying collateral and no material changes to the pools metrics
since issuance.  As of the October 2016 distribution date, the
pool's aggregate principal balance has been reduced by 0.4% to
$817.3 million from $820.6 million at issuance.  Currently, there
is one specially serviced loan (5.5%).  No loans are defeased and
all loans are current.  There is currently a $25,292 interest
shortfall affecting class G related to special servicing fees and a
small reimbursement for advance interest.  The Fitch debt service
coverage ratio (DSCR) and loan to value (LTV) at issuance were
1.24x and 102.2%, respectively.

Stable Performance With No Material Changes: All loans in the pool
are current as of the September 2016 remittance with property level
performance generally in line with issuance expectations with no
material changes to pool metrics.

Specially Serviced Loan: The sixth largest loan in the pool,
Hammons Hotel Portfolio (5.5% of the pool), transferred to special
servicing in August 2016 due to the borrower and parent company
filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The filing was made in
connection with litigation, which was ongoing at issuance, related
to a complex deal made in 2005 to reprivatize Hammons Hotels.  The
hotels and loan are performing better than expected with year-end
2015 NOI across the collateral properties 10.6% above bank
underwriting.  The weighted average RevPAR Penetration for the
collateral properties was 138.3% as of the June, 2016 trailing
twelve month period.  This loan is a non-controlling pari passu
loan with the remaining notes securitized in CGCMT 2015-GC33, GSMS
2015-GC34, and CGCMT 2015-GC35.

High Pool Concentration: The top 10 loans comprise 65.6% of the
pool, which is much higher than the 2015 and 2014 vintage averages
of 49.3% and 50.5%, respectively.  It was also noted at issuance
that the sponsor and loan concentrations were higher than average
for this transaction.

High Quality Collateral: Two properties, 590 Madison and Element
LA, were assigned Fitch's highest property quality grade of 'A'
(20.8% of the pool) and Deerfield Crossing (3.9% of the pool) was
assigned a grade of 'A-'.  At issuance the majority of the
properties inspected (57.9%) was assigned a property quality grade
of 'B+' or 'B'.  Only 9.3% of the inspected pool was assigned a
property quality of 'B-', indicated below average property
quality.

Investment-Grade Credit Opinion Loan: The largest loan in the pool,
590 Madison Avenue (12.2% of the pool), was assigned an investment
grade credit opinion at issuance.

                       RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlooks on all classes remain Stable.  Fitch does not
foresee positive or negative ratings migration until a material
economic or asset-level event changes the transaction's overall
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 these classes:

   -- $25,811,294 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $200,000,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $297,565,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $47,694,000 class A-AB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $625,710,000b class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $43,082,000b class X-B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $51,288,000c class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $43,082,000c class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $141,554,000c class PEZ 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $47,184,000c class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $42,056,000 class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $42,056,000b class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $20,515,000a class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $8,207,000a class F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

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

Fitch does not rate class G.


JP MORGAN 2006-CIBC17: Moody's Cuts Class A-J Debt Rating to 'Ca'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on two classes
and downgraded the ratings on two classes in J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Corporation, Series 2006-CIBC17 as
follows:

   -- Cl. A-1A, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 1, 2016
      Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-M, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 1, 2016
      Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-J, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Mar 1, 2016
      Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

   -- Cl. X, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Mar 1, 2016
      Downgraded to B2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on Classes A-1A and A-M were upgraded based primarily
on an increase in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and
amortization. The deal has paid down 72% since Moody's last
review.

The ratings on Class A-J was downgraded due to higher anticipated
losses from specially serviced loans.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 20% of the
current balance, compared to 7.9% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 16.2% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 17.5% 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 9, compared to 20 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 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 October 12, 2016 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 82% to $464 million
from $2.54 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 33 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 24% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 66% of
the pool. Six loans, constituting 15% of the pool, have defeased
and are secured by US government securities.

Seventeen loans, constituting 43% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Twenty nine loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $318 million (for an average loss
severity of 52%). Nine loans, constituting 41% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced loan
is the Shoppingtown Independence Loan ($110 million -- 24% of the
pool), which is secured by a 500,000 square foot portion of a one
million square foot (SF) regional mall in Wilmington, North
Carolina. The mall anchors include JC Penney, Dillard's, Belk, and
Sears. JC Penney is the only collateral anchor tenant and they have
recently renewed their lease for five years through 2021. The loan
transferred to the special servicer in October 2014 for weak
performance. As of September 2016 the total mall was 92% leased,
however, the collateral portion was only 83% leased (which includes
temporary tenants representing approximately 11% of the net
rentable area). The property faces significant lease rollover by
the end of 2017 and the servicer has recognized a $61 million
appraisal reduction.

The remaining eight specially serviced loans are secured by a mix
of property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $85.2 million
loss for the specially serviced loans.

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for three poorly
performing loans, constituting 6% of the pool, and has estimated an
aggregate loss of $5.3 million (a 19% expected loss based on a 50%
probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 96% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results for 93% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 92%, compared to
98% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes
loans with structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans,
and specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow
(NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of 11% to the most
recently available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 9.7%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.36X and 1.18X,
respectively, compared to 1.41X and 1.07X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 18.6% of the pool balance.
The largest loan is the Hawaii Kai Shopping Center Loan ($29.5
million -- 6.4% of the pool), which is secured by a 140,000 SF
retail center in Honolulu, HI, ten miles southeast of the downtown
area. It is located adjacent to a marina and was 82% leased as of
March 2016. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 99% and 0.98X,
respectively, compared to 101% and 0.97X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Rio West Business Park Loan ($28.8
million -- 6.2% of the pool), which is secured by a 188,000 SF
industrial property located in Tempe, AZ. As of June 2016, the
property was 100% leased, the same as at last review. Moody's LTV
and stressed DSCR are 104% and 0.97X, respectively, compared to
105% and 0.96X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Magic Valley Mall Loan ($28.0 million
-- 6.0% of the pool), which is secured by a 369,000 SF portion of a
507,000 SF regional mall located in Twin Falls, ID. As of March
2016, the property was 98% leased compared to 94% at the last
review. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 70% and 1.54X,
respectively, compared to 71% and 1.53X at the last review.



LCM XXII: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class D Notes
------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to LCM XXII Ltd./LCM XXII
LLC's $407.40 million floating-rate notes.

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

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

LCM XXII Ltd./LCM XXII LLC
Class                Rating          Amount (mil. $)
X                    AAA (sf)                   2.60
A-1                  AAA (sf)                 277.20
A-2                  AA (sf)                   57.20
B                    A (sf)                    30.80
C                    BBB (sf)                  22.00
D                    BB (sf)                   17.60
Subordinated notes   NR                        41.20

NR--Not rated.



MADISON PARK XXII: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by Madison Park Funding XXII, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

   -- US$516,000,000 Class A Floating Rate Notes Due 2029 (the
      "Class A Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

   -- US$84,000,000 Class B Floating Rate Notes Due 2029 (the
      "Class B Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

   -- US$66,350,000 Class C Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
      2029 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2
      (sf)

   -- US$40,000,000 Class D Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
      2029 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3
      (sf)

   -- US$29,650,000 Class E Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
      2029 (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.

Madison Park XXII is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will
be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90% of the portfolio must consist
of senior secured loans (including participation interests with
respect to senior secured loans), and up to 10% of the portfolio
may consist of second lien loans and senior unsecured loans. The
portfolio is approximately 65% ramped as of the closing date.

Credit Suisse Asset Management, LLC (the "Manager") will direct the
selection, acquisition and disposition of the assets on behalf of
the Issuer and may engage in trading activity, including
discretionary trading, during the transaction's five 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 the following base-case
assumptions:

   -- Par amount: $800,000,000

   -- Diversity Score: 65

   -- Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2778

   -- Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.82%

   -- Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.5%

   -- Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.5%

   -- Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9 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 2778 to 3195)

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 2778 to 3611)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

   -- Class A Notes: -1

   -- Class B Notes: -2

   -- Class C Notes: -4

   -- Class D Notes: -2

   -- Class E Notes: -1


MASTR ADJUSTABLE 2005-4: Moody's Cuts A-X Debt Rating to Caa3
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings of two
tranches and confirmed the rating of eight tranches from five
re-securitization transactions. The re-securitizations are backed
by various Jumbo and Alt-A residential mortgage-backed securities
which underlying pools include mortgages issued by Countrywide
Mortgage (CW).

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

Complete rating actions are as follows:

   Issuer: MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2005-4

   -- Cl. A-1, Confirmed at A3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 A3
  
      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. A-2, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Baa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. A-3, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. A-X, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   Issuer: MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2005-5

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

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

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

      (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   Issuer: MASTR Resecuritization Trust 2007-1

   -- Cl. A1, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   Issuer: MASTR Resecuritization Trust 2008-1

   -- Cl. A-1, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016
      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   -- Cl. A-IO, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016

      Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

   Issuer: Residential Mortgage Securities Funding 2008-6, Ltd.

The Notes, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 Caa1
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating downgrade of the Notes issued by Residential Mortgage
Securities Funding 2008-6 is primarily due to increased loss
expectation and a rating downgrade of the underlying tranche, Class
1A1 issued by CWALT Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series
2005-10CB.

Class A-X of MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2005-4 is an
Interest Only tranche whose notional balance is equal to the sum of
the principal balances of the Class A Notes. The rating downgrade
of class A-X is due to realignment of Class A-X rating with that of
Class A-3 which is rated Caa3. The realignment is due to the
declining share of the Class A-X notional balance linked to Class
A-1 and A-2 owing to the amortization to date and the increase in
the share of the notional balance linked to Class A-3 which
currently represents about 91% of the A notes balance.

The rating confirmations primarily reflect Moody's updated loss
expectation on the underlying bonds, and the bond specific credit
enhancement in the re-securitized transactions.

The rating actions conclude the review actions for these
transactions announced on July 22nd, and consider the recent
performance of the underlying bonds and reflect Moody's updated
loss on the re-securitized bonds together with changes in tranche
level credit enhancement.

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

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

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate fell to 5.0% in September 2016 from 5.1% in
September 2015. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of
4.5% to 5.5% for the 2016 year. Deviations from this central
scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector. House prices
are another key driver of US RMBS performance.

Moody's expects house prices to continue to rise in 2016. Lower
increases than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative
rating actions.

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


ML-CFC COMMERCIAL 2007-9: Fitch Lowers Rating on 2 Certs to 'Csf'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded four and affirmed 13 classes of ML-CFC
Commercial Mortgage Trust, commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates, series 2007-9.

                        KEY RATING DRIVERS

The downgrades reflect higher loss expectations, primarily from
loans in special servicing, as well as the erosion of credit
enhancement from loan dispositions since Fitch's last rating
action.  The affirmation of the remaining classes reflects
sufficient credit enhancement relative to pool expected losses.

As of the October 2016 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 50% to $1.4 billion from $2.8
billion at issuance.  According to servicer reporting, 19 loans
(16%) are defeased, an increase from 11 loans at the last rating
action.  Cumulative interest shortfalls totaling
$24.6 million are currently affecting classes AJ, AJ-A, B through F
and J through T.

Higher Modeled Losses since Last Rating Action: Fitch modeled
losses of 15.6% of the remaining pool; expected losses on the
original pool balance total 16%, including $231 million (7.8% of
original pool balance) in realized losses to date.  This compares
to expected losses of 14.6% of the original pool balance at Fitch's
last rating action.

Loans of Concern: Fitch has designated 72 loans (50.3% of current
pool balance) as Fitch Loans of Concern, which includes 11
specially serviced assets (16.1%).  Four of the top 15 loans
(11.2%) are currently in special servicing.  The specially serviced
assets include six that are real-estate owned (REO; 5.9%), one loan
(3.3%) which is over 90 days delinquent and four loans (6.9%) that
are current.

Maturity Concentration: While defeased collateral has increased,
Fitch remains concerned about a number of highly leveraged loans,
which may have trouble refinancing.  Excluding the specially
serviced assets, 80.5% of the pool is scheduled to mature in 2017.
The majority of the 2017 loan maturities are concentrated during
the third and fourth quarters (48.5% and 25.6% of pool,
respectively).

Largest Contributors to Modeled Losses: The largest contributor to
Fitch-modeled losses is the Northwood Centre loan (3.3% of pool),
which is secured by a 493,746 square foot (sf) office building
located in Tallahassee, FL.  The property was originally
constructed as a regional mall in 1967 and operated as a mall until
1985.  The majority of the property was converted into office
space.

The loan was transferred to special servicing on March 9, 2016
because the State of Florida Legislature voted on March 6, 2016 to
prohibit any further lease payments on the property due to mold
issues.  The State of Florida, which has occupied the property
since 1989, had delivered notices of violations on a few of their
leases at the property.  Subsequently, the borrower failed to make
the April 2016 loan payment and the loan went into default.

Since loan origination, property occupancy has ranged between 90%
and 100%, with the State of Florida occupying the majority of space
(nearly 80% of NRA) and accounting for the majority of the revenues
(over 85% of total revenues).  As of the December 2015 rent roll,
the property was 92% occupied; however, the special servicer has
indicated that all departments of the State of Florida have since
vacated, except for the Department of Economic Opportunity (6.5% of
NRA; 32,258 sf), thus dropping current occupancy to approximately
14%.  Remediation plans with the mold issues are on hold until
litigation regarding a breach of lease is finalized between the
borrower and the State of Florida.  Legal counsel continues to
monitor litigation, while also dual tracking foreclosure with
workout negotiations.  A recent appraisal valuation of the property
indicates significant losses upon liquidation.

The next largest contributor to Fitch-modeled losses is the Morgan
7 RV Park Portfolio asset (2.5%).  The loan, which was transferred
to special servicing in October 2011 for delinquent payments, was
initially secured by a portfolio of seven recreational vehicle (RV)
parks totaling 1,586 RV sites located in Maine (3 parks), New York
(2), Michigan (1), and New Jersey (1).  All seven properties were
foreclosed upon between March 2013 and July 2015.  The Michigan and
New Jersey assets were sold in September 2014 and the Maine assets
were sold in July 2015.  The remaining two New York assets,
American Campgrounds (310 pads; located in Gansevoort, NY) and Camp
Waubeeka (500 pads; located in Copake, NY), only operate seasonally
between May through October.  The special servicer indicated these
two assets were traded in a September 2016 auction with closing
expected in late October.  Significant losses are expected upon
liquidation.

The third largest contributor to Fitch-modeled losses is the 500
East Main Street asset (1.6%), a 230,316 sf office property located
in Norfolk, VA.  The loan was transferred to special servicing in
July 2013 for imminent default and went into monetary default in
July 2014.  The asset became REO in April 2016. Occupancy has
continually declined over the past few years.  As of the August
2016 rent roll, the asset was 58.9% occupied, down from 68.1% at
year-end (YE) 2015, 71.4% at YE 2014 and YE 2013, 74.5% at YE 2012
and 84% at issuance.  The special servicer indicated the asset
traded in a September 2016 auction with closing expected in late
October.  Significant losses are expected upon liquidation.

                      RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Outlooks on classes A-4, AM and AM-A reflects sufficient
credit enhancement and the expectation for continued paydown.  In
the determination of the 'AAAsf' and 'Asf' ratings, Fitch's
analysis considered additional stresses in its base case analysis
to factor in refinancing risks, including a full loss on the
Northwood Centre loan.  The distressed classes (those rated below
'Bsf') may be subject to further downgrades as additional losses
are realized.

Fitch has downgraded these classes:

   -- $168 million class AJ to 'CCsf' from 'CCCsf'; RE 55%;
   -- $56.8 million class AJ-A to 'CCsf' from 'CCCsf'; RE 55%;
   -- $31.6 million class B to 'Csf' from 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $21.1 million class C to 'Csf' from 'CCsf'; RE 0%.

In addition, Fitch has affirmed these classes:

   -- $811.9 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $210 million class AM at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $51.9 million class AM-A at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $28.1 million class D at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $24.6 million class E at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $836,852 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%.

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


MORGAN STANLEY 2007-IQ15: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on 8 Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 15 classes of Morgan Stanley Capital I
Trust, series 2007-IQ15 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2015-GC34.

                       KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmation of the senior classes reflects sufficient credit
enhancement relative to pool expected losses.

As of the September 2016 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 40.7% to $1.2 billion from
$2.05 billion at issuance.  Per the servicer reporting, five loans
(8% of the pool) are defeased.  Interest shortfalls are currently
affecting classes D through P.

Modeled Losses: Fitch modeled losses of 8.8% of the remaining pool;
expected losses on the original pool balance total 13.5%, including
$169.6 million (8.3% of the original pool balance) in realized
losses to date.  Realized losses to the transaction since last
review were minimal at $366,000.

Loans of Concern: Fitch has designated 27 (52%) Fitch Loans of
Concern, including six of the top ten loans in the pool.  There is
one specially serviced loan (0.7%).  The loan, which is secured by
an industrial property located in Dekalb, IL, recently transferred
due to a maturity default; the largest tenant (91% of the NRA) is
expected to vacate the property at the end of the month.

Increasing Concentration: The portfolio is becoming increasingly
concentrated with approximately 97 loans (including two crossed
collateralized pools) remaining in the pool; the top two loans
comprise 32.5% of the remaining pool.  Further, there are
significant upcoming loan maturities with over 90% of the pool
scheduled to mature by August 2017.

Largest Contributors to Modeled Losses: The largest contributor to
expected losses is the First Stamford loan (19.4% of the pool),
which is secured by a 790,000 square foot (sf) suburban office
property located in Stamford, CT.  Property performance has
continued to show improvement with the year-end (YE) 2015
servicer-reported DSCR at 1.13x compared with YE 2014 at 1.08x and
YE 2013 at 0.93x.  The property occupancy, which was reported at
95.5% as of June 2016, continues to outperform the submarket.  Per
Reis, the second quarter 2016 reported vacancy rate for the
Stamford CBD submarket was 27.8%.  Over 40% of the NRA is leased to
nationally recognized tenants with long-term leases expiring in
2019 and beyond.  There is approximately 7.5% tenant roll through
2017.  The loan matures in July 2017.

The next largest contributor to losses is the AES Building loan
(2.6% of the pool), which is secured by a leasehold interest in a
430,000 sf office building located in Akron, OH.  As of the August
2016 rent roll, approximately 65% of the property was leased to
over 15 tenants, including two new tenants (11% of NRA) that have
not yet commenced occupancy.  Property occupancy dropped
significantly after the largest tenant, Advanced Elastomer Systems
(33% of NRA), an ExxonMobil subsidiary, vacated as expected at
lease expiration in 2015.  The borrower continues to try and
re-lease the vacant space.  Fitch will continue to monitor the
property for leasing updates.

The third largest contributor to losses is the 717 Texas Avenue
loan (13.1% of the pool), which is secured by a 696,000-sf LEED
certified 33-sotory office property located in the Houston, TX CBD.
As of June 2016 rent roll, the property remained 99.9% leased with
less than 1% roll through year end 2017.  The property has a
significant concentration of tenants involved in the energy
industry.  The largest tenant is Freeport McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC
(51% of NRA, through August 2018).  Approximately four floors (16%
of NRA) leased to Freeport McMoRan in July 2015 are marked as
'leased but unoccupied' per the rent roll.  While the servicer was
unable to provide an update on the tenant, recent news reporting
stated that the company has placed all its space at the subject for
sub-lease.  Further reporting noted that the company has been
undergoing a re-structure, and per 2016 company statements, it has
been making job cuts over the past year.  Fitch will continue to
monitor the occupancy status of the subject.

                        RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Outlooks on classes A-1A, A-4 and A-M reflect the
class's sufficient credit enhancement and expectation of continued
pay down.  The 'AAAsf' and 'Asf' ratings reflect additional
stresses in its base case analysis to factor in refinancing risks.
Any upgrade to class A-M may be limited due to the increasing
concentration of the pool.  The distressed classes (those rated
below 'Bsf') may be subject to further downgrades as additional
losses are realized.

Fitch has affirmed these ratings:

   -- $546.7 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $225 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $205.4 million class A-M at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $177.1 million class A-J at 'CCCsf'; RE 80%;
   -- $33.4 million class B at 'CCsf'; RE 0%.
   -- $15.4 million class C at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $15.3 million class D at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class E at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class F at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class G at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class H at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

Classes A-1, A-2, and A-3 have paid in full.  Fitch does not rate
the class M, N, O and P certificates.  Fitch previously withdrew
the rating on the interest-only class X certificates.


OHA LOAN 2016-1: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on Cl. E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to OHA Loan
Funding 2016-1 Ltd./OHA Loan Funding 2016-1 LLC's $551.0 floating-
and fixed-rate notes.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 21,
2016.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

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

   -- The diversified collateral pool, which consists primarily of

      broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior secured term
      loans that are governed by collateral quality tests.  The
      credit enhancement provided through the subordination of
      cash flows, excess spread, and overcollateralization.

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

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

OHA Loan Funding 2016-1 Ltd./OHA Loan Funding 2016-1 LLC  

Class                 Rating          Amount
                                    (mil. $)
A                     AAA (sf)        370.00
B-1                   AA (sf)          60.00
B-2                   AA (sf)          24.00
C (deferrable)        A (sf)           36.00
D (deferrable)        BBB (sf)         33.00
E (deferrable)        BB- (sf)         28.00
Subordinated notes    NR               58.00

NR--Not rated.



PRESTIGE AUTO 2015-1: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on seven classes from
Prestige Auto Receivables Trust 2013-1, 2014-1, and 2015-1
transactions, and affirmed its ratings on 12 classes of notes from
PART series 2014-1, 2015-1, and 2016-1.

The rating actions reflect the transactions' collateral performance
to date, S&P's views regarding future collateral performance, the
transactions' structures, and the credit enhancement available.
Additionally, S&P incorporated secondary credit factors, including
credit stability, payment priorities under various scenarios, and
sector- and issuer-specific analyses. Considering all these
factors, S&P believes the creditworthiness of the notes is
consistent with the raised and affirmed ratings.

Series 2013-1, 2014-1, and 2015-1 have been performing worse than
S&P had initially expected.  As a result, S&P raised its loss
expectations for these series because of higher-than-expected
losses and S&P's view of future collateral performance.  S&P is
maintaining its initial loss expectation for series 2016-1 pending
further collateral performance.

Table 1
COLLATERAL PERFORMANCE (%)
(As of the October 2016 distribution date)

                    Pool     Current     60-plus day
Series     Mo.    factor         CNL      delinquent

2013-1     42      18.25       11.08            5.43
2014-1     31      34.22        9.49            4.70
2015-1     19      57.44        5.23            3.83
2016-1     7       86.09        1.25            1.71

Mo.--Month.
CNL--cumulative net loss.

Table 2
CNL EXPECTATIONS (%)

             Original            Prior              Revised
             lifetime         lifetime             lifetime
Series       CNL exp.      CNL exp.(i)             CNL exp.
                                           (As of Oct 2016)

2013-1      7.10-7.40      11.25-11.75          12.25-12.75
2014-1      8.50-9.00      11.25-12.00          13.00-13.75
2015-1    11.25-11.75      N/A                  13.00-13.75
2016-1    12.25-12.75      N/A                  N/A

(i)Revised May 2015. 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.  The sequential
payment structure increases subordination as a percentage of the
amortizing pool for all of the classes except the lowest-rated
subordinate class.  Each transaction also has credit enhancement in
the form of a non-amortizing reserve account,
overcollateralization, and excess spread.  The
overcollateralization for series 2013-1 is at its floor, and the
overcollateralization for series 2014-1 and 2015-1 are at their
targets of 7.8% and 8.5% of current receivables, respectively.
Series 2016-1's overcollateralization is still building to its
target level of 13.15% of current receivables.  The reserve
accounts for all deals are at their floor of 1% of initial
receivables, which increases as a percentage of the pool as the
pool amortizes.

S&P believes the total credit support as a percentage of each
outstanding pool's balance, compared with its current loss
expectations, is adequate for the raised and affirmed ratings.

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)

2013-1      B                    13.60               74.50
2013-1      C                     7.66               41.95
2013-1      D                     2.00               10.96
2014-1      A-3                  22.41               68.58
2014-1      B                    16.21               50.47
2014-1      C                     8.66               28.40
2014-1      D                     2.61               10.72
2015-1      A-2                  33.00               59.86
2015-1      A-3                  33.00               59.86
2015-1      B                    26.00               47.67
2015-1      C                    15.50               29.39
2015-1      D                     6.50               13.72
2015-1      E                     4.50               10.24
2016-1      A-2                  36.20               48.76
2016-1      A-3                  36.20               48.76
2016-1      B                    28.40               39.70
2016-1      C                    16.90               26.34
2016-1      D                     9.10               17.28
2016-1      E                     5.50               13.10

(i)Consists of overcollateralization and a reserve account, as well
as subordination for the higher tranches, and excludes excess
spread that can also provide additional enhancement.

S&P incorporated a cash flow analysis to assess the loss coverage
level, giving credit to excess spread for series 2013-1, 2014-1,
and 2015-1.  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 are
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.

In S&P's view, the results demonstrated that all of the classes
have adequate credit enhancement at the upgraded or affirmed rating
levels.  S&P will continue to monitor the performance of all of the
outstanding transactions to ensure that the credit enhancement
remains sufficient to cover our cumulative net loss expectations
under S&P's stress scenarios for each of the rated classes.

RATINGS RAISED

Prestige Auto Receivables Trust

                                Rating
Series      Class          To            From

2013-1      B              AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)
2013-1      C              AAA (sf)      A+ (sf)
2013-1      D              BBB+ (sf)     BBB (sf)
2014-1      B              AAA (sf)      AA (sf)
2014-1      C              AA (sf)       A+ (sf)
2015-1      B              AAA (sf)      AA (sf)
2015-1      C              A+ (sf)       A (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Prestige Auto Receivables Trust

Series      Class          Rating

2014-1      A-3            AAA (sf)
2014-1      D              BBB (sf)
2015-1      A-2            AAA (sf)
2015-1      A-3            AAA (sf)
2015-1      D              BBB (sf)
2015-1      E              BB (sf)
2016-1      A-2            AAA (sf)
2016-1      A-3            AAA (sf)
2016-1      B              AA (sf)
2016-1      C              A (sf)
2016-1      D              BBB (sf)
2016-1      E              BB (sf)



REGATTA VII: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service assigned ratings to one class of loans
and seven classes of notes issued by Regatta VII Funding Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

   -- US$206,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes
      due 2028 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned

      Aaa (sf)

   -- US$50,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Loans maturing 2028
      (the "Class A-2 Loans "), Assigned Aaa (sf)

   -- Up to US$50,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate
      Notes due 2028 (the "Class A-2 Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

   -- US$34,250,000 Class B-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes
      due 2028 (the "Class B-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned

      Aa2 (sf)

   -- US$13,750,000 Class B-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes
      due 2028 (the "Class B-2 Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

   -- US$24,000,000 Class C Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating
      Rate Notes due 2028 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating
  
      Assigned A2 (sf)

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

      Assigned Baa3 (sf)

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

      Assigned Ba3 (sf)

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

On the closing date, the Class A-2 Notes have a zero principal
balance. At any time, the Class A-2 Loans may be converted in whole
or in part to Class A-2 Notes thereby decreasing the principal
balance of the Class A-2 Loans and increasing, by the corresponding
amount, the principal balance of the Class A-2 Notes. The aggregate
principal balance of the Class A Debt will never exceed
$256,000,000, less the amount of any principal repayments on the
Class A Debt.

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's ratings of the Rated Debt 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.

Regatta VII is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans and eligible investments
representing principal proceeds, and up to 7.5% of the portfolio
may consist of first-lien last-out loans, second lien loans and
unsecured loans. The portfolio is approximately 80% ramped as of
the closing date.

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

In addition to the Rated Debt, the Issuer will issue subordinated
notes, Class S1 Notes, Class S2 Notes and Class P 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: $400,000,000

   -- Diversity Score: 60

   -- Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2816

   -- Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.90%

   -- Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

   -- Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.0%

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

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in 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 Debt is subject to uncertainty. The
performance of the Rated Debt 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 Debt.

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 Debt. 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 Debt
(shown in terms of the number of notch difference versus the
current model output, whereby a negative difference corresponds to
higher expected losses), assuming that all other factors are held
equal:

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2816 to 3238)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

   -- Class A-1 Notes: 0

   -- Class A-2 Loans: 0

   -- Class A-2 Notes: 0

   -- Class B-1 Notes: -2

   -- Class B-2 Notes: -2

   -- Class C Notes: -2

   -- Class D Notes: -1

   -- Class E Notes: 0

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

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

   -- Class A-1 Notes: -1

   -- Class A-2 Loans: -1

   -- Class A-2 Notes: -1

   -- Class B-1 Notes: -3

   -- Class B-2 Notes: -3

   -- Class C Notes: -4

   -- Class D Notes: -2

   -- Class E Notes: -1


RFT 2015-FL1: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class C Notes
--------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on the following
notes issued by RFT 2015-FL1 Issuer, Ltd.:

   -- Cl. A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Oct 22, 2015
      Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

   -- Cl. B, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Oct 22, 2015
      Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

   -- Cl. C, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Oct 22, 2015
      Definitive Rating Assigned B2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's has affirmed ratings on three classes of notes because the
key transaction metrics are commensurate with the existing ratings
as credit quality of the collateral pool is stable as evidenced by
WARF and WARR. The rating action is the result of Moody's on-going
surveillance of commercial real estate collateralized debt
obligation (CRE CDO CLO) transactions.

This is the first review of the transaction since securitization.

RFT 2015-FL1 Issuer, Ltd. is a static cash transaction wholly
backed by a portfolio of commercial real estate loans. As of the
trustee's September 9, 2016 report, the aggregate note balance of
the transaction, including preferred shares, is $428.4 million, the
same as at issuance.

No assets had defaulted as of the trustee's September 9, 2016
report.

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CLO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 4725, the
same as that at securitization. The current distribution of Moody's
rated collateral and assessments for non-Moody's rated collateral
is as follows: B1-B3 and 8.8% compared to 8.8% at securitization,
Caa1-Ca/C and 91.2% compared to 91.2% at securitization.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 3.5 years, compared to 4.5 years at
securitization. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on
the underlying loan collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 56.8%, the same as at
securitization.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 30.7%, compared to 28.5% at
securitization.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs" published in October 2016.

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

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

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for some of the rated
notes, although a change in one key parameter assumption could be
offset by a change in one or more of the other key parameter
assumptions. The rated notes are particularly sensitive to changes
in the ratings of the underlying collateral and credit assessments.
Notching down approximately 30% of the collateral pool by one notch
would result in an average modeled rating movement on the rated
notes of zero notches downward (e.g., one notch down implies a
ratings movement of Baa3 to Ba1). Notching down approximately 30%
of the collateral pool by two notches would result in an average
modeled rating movement on the rated notes of zero to one notches
downward.

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



SHACKLETON II: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned ratings to the class A-1-R, B-1-R,
B-2-R, C-R, and D-R replacement notes from Shackleton II CLO Ltd.,
a U.S. collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by
Alcentra NY LLC.  S&P withdrew its ratings on the transaction's
original class A-1, B-1, B-2, C, and D notes after they were fully
redeemed.  The rating on the class X notes was withdrawn following
the final scheduled payment on the Oct. 20 payment date, and S&P
affirmed its rating on the class E notes, which were not
refinanced.

On the Oct. 20, 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

Shackleton II CLO Ltd.
Replacement class       Rating
A-1-R                   AAA (sf)
B-1-R                   AA+ (sf)
B-2-R                   AA+ (sf)
C-R                     A+ (sf)
D-R                     BBB (sf)

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

Shackleton II CLO Ltd.
Original class              Rating
                        To          From
A-1                     NR          AAA (sf)
A-X                     NR          AAA (sf)
B-1                     NR          AA (sf)
B-2                     NR          AA (sf)
C                       NR          A (sf)
D                       NR          BBB (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Shackleton II CLO Ltd.
Replacement class       Rating
E                       BB (sf)

NR--Not rated.



THL CREDIT 2013-2: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on the class B-1, B-2, C, and
D notes and affirmed its ratings on the class A-1, A-2A, A-2B, A-3,
E, and F notes from THL Credit Wind River 2013-2 CLO Ltd., a U.S.
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction that closed in
November 2013 and is managed by THL Credit Advisors LLC.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance, using data from the Sept. 8, 2016 trustee report.  The
transaction is scheduled to remain in its reinvestment period until
January 2018.

The upgrades primarily reflect an increase in credit support since
S&P's effective date rating affirmations referencing the February
2014 trustee report.

The transaction has also benefited from collateral seasoning, with
the reported weighted average life decreasing to 4.47 years from
5.63 years in February 2014.  This seasoning has decreased the
overall credit risk profile, which, in turn, provided more cushion
to the tranche ratings.

Although there has been a modest increase in assets rated in the
'CCC' category, this factor is offset by the decline in the
weighted average life, which has lowered its credit risk profile.
The portfolio does not hold any defaulted assets.

The overcollateralization (O/C) ratios have also increased slightly
since the effective date:

   -- The class A/B O/C ratio was 132.61%, up from the 131.61%
      reported in February 2014.
   -- The class C O/C ratio was 121.43%, up from 120.50%.
   -- The class D O/C ratio was 114.61%, up from 113.74%.
   -- The class E O/C ratio was 109.25%, up from 108.42%.

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

The affirmations of the ratings on the class A-1, A-2A, A-2B, A-3,
E, and F notes reflect S&P's belief that the credit support
available is commensurate with the current rating levels.

S&P's review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis,
based on the portfolio and transaction as reflected in the
aforementioned trustee report, to estimate future performance.  In
line with S&P's criteria, its cash flow scenarios applied
forward-looking assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of
defaults, and recoveries upon default, under various interest rate
and macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition, S&P's analysis
considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or
ultimate principal to each of the rated tranches.  The results of
the cash flow analysis demonstrated, in S&P's view, that all of the
rated outstanding classes have adequate credit enhancement
available at the rating levels associated with these rating
actions.

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

RATINGS RAISED

THL Credit Wind River 2013-2 CLO Ltd.
                  Rating
Class        To           From
B-1          AA+ (sf)     AA (sf)
B-2          AA+ (sf)     AA (sf)
C            A+ (sf)      A (sf)
D            BBB+ (sf)    BBB (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

THL Credit Wind River 2013-2 CLO Ltd.
Class        Rating
A-1          AAA (sf)
A-2A         AAA (sf)
A-2B         AAA (sf)
A-3          AAA (sf)
E            BB (sf)
F            B (sf)


TIAA REAL 2003-1: S&P Lowers Rating on Class E Notes to D
---------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its rating on the class D notes from TIAA
Real Estate CDO 2003-1 Ltd., a static cash flow collateralized debt
obligation (CDO) of commercial mortgage-backed securities.  At the
same time, S&P lowered its rating on the class E notes from the
same transaction.

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

Since S&P's December 2013 rating actions, the class C-1 and C-2
notes have been completely paid down by $24.07 million, and class D
has been paid down by $11.45 million, resulting in a total paid
down amount of $35.52 million.  

Following the Sept. 29, 2016, payment date, the outstanding balance
of class D is about 15.17% of its original balance, and the notes
are now backed by higher-quality assets.  S&P raised its rating on
the notes to 'BBB+ (sf)' to reflect this increase in credit
support.  The rating is constrained at 'BBB+ (sf)' by the
application of the largest obligor default test.

Although class E received a portion of its current interest on the
Sept. 29, 2016, payment date, its outstanding balance (including
deferred interest) of $16.04 million is about 134% of its original
balance.  Per the September 2016 monthly trustee report, the
transaction has about $7.84 million in performing and defaulted
assets.  Therefore, even if the defaults recover their entire par,
the total asset balance is significantly lower than class E's
current balance.  S&P lowered its rating on the class E notes to 'D
(sf)' to reflect its view that the class is unlikely to be repaid
in full.

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

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

RATINGS RAISED

TIAA Real Estate CDO 2003-1 Ltd.

                Rating
Class       To           From
D           BBB+ (sf)    CCC- (sf)

RATINGS LOWERED

Class           Rating
            To           From
E           D (sf)       CC (sf)


VENTURE X: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to BB+
----------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-R, B-R, C-R,
and D-R notes from Venture X CLO Ltd., a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) originally issued in 2012.  S&P withdrew its
rating on the original class A, B, C, and D notes from this
transaction after they were fully redeemed.  In addition, S&P
upgraded its rating on the class E notes and affirmed its rating on
the class F notes.

On the Oct. 20, 2016, refinancing date, the proceeds from the class
A-R, B-R, C-R, and D-R replacement note issuance were used to
redeem the original class A, B, C, and D notes, respectively, 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.
In addition, S&P raised its rating on the class E notes and
affirmed its rating on the class F notes, which were not
refinanced.

The assigned and raised ratings reflect S&P's view of the stable
collateral performance, the portfolio's reduced weighted average
life, and the fact that the deal has started amortizing the senior
notes after it exited its reinvestment period in July 2016.

Although S&P's cash flow analysis indicated higher ratings for all
classes except the class A-R and E notes, its rating actions
considers additional sensitivity runs that allowed for volatility
in the underlying portfolio.

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

The rating affirmation reflects 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

Venture X CLO Ltd.
Replacement class     Rating     Amount (mil. $)
A-R                   AAA (sf)           243.142
B-R                   AA+ (sf)            55.750
C-R                   AA- (sf)            27.000
D-R                   A- (sf)             18.500

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

Venture X CLO Ltd.
                      Rating
Original class    To           From       Amount (mil. $)
A                 NR           AAA (sf)           263.500
B                 NR           AA (sf)             55.750
C                 NR           A (sf)              27.000
D                 NR           BBB (sf)            18.500

RATING RAISED

Venture X CLO Ltd.
                      Rating
Class             To           From       Amount (mil. $)
E                 BB+ (sf)     BB (sf)             13.750

RATING AFFIRMED

Venture X CLO Ltd.
Class                Rating       Amount (mil.$)
F                    BB- (sf)              5.000

OTHER CLASSES OUTSTANDING

Venture X CLO Ltd.
Class                 Rating     Amount (mil. $)
Subordinated notes    NR                  41.500

NR--Not rated.



WESTLAKE AUTOMOBILE 2016-3: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Cl. E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to Westlake Automobile
Receivables Trust 2016-3's $625.00 million automobile
receivables-backed notes series 2016-3.

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

The ratings reflect:

   -- The availability of approximately 46.94%, 40.05%, 31.45%,
      24.33%, and 21.83% credit support for the class A, B, C, D,
      and E notes, respectively, based on stress cash flow
      scenarios (including excess spread).  These provide
      approximately 3.50x, 3.00x, 2.30x, 1.75x, and 1.50x,
      respectively, of S&P's 12.75%-13.25% expected cumulative net

      loss range.

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

      appropriate for the assigned ratings.

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

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

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

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

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

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Westlake Automobile Receivables Trust 2016-3

                                    Interest            Amount
Class    Rating      Type           rate (i)          (Mil. $)
A-1      A-1+ (sf)   Senior         Fixed               163.00
A-2      AAA (sf)    Senior         Fixed               242.56
B        AA (sf)     Subordinate    Fixed                59.85
C        A (sf)      Subordinate    Fixed                71.48
D        BBB (sf)    Subordinate    Fixed                63.17
E        BB (sf)     Subordinate    Fixed                24.94



WHITEHORSE VI: S&P Assigns Prelim. B Rating on Class B-3L Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to the class
A-1-R, A-2-R, and A-3-R replacement notes from WhiteHorse VI Ltd.,
a U.S. collateralized loan obligation (CLO) originally issued in
2013 that is managed by H.I.G WhiteHorse Capital LLC.

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

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
levels.

On the Nov. 2, 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 its 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.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

WhiteHorse VI Ltd.
Replacement class       Rating         Amount (mil. $)
A-1-R                   AAA (sf)                262.50
A-2-R                   AA (sf)                  36.00
A-3-R                   A (sf)                   36.00

OTHER OUTSTANDING RATINGS

WhiteHorse VI Ltd.
Class                   Rating
B-1L                    BBB (sf)
B-2L                    BB- (sf)
B-3L                    B (sf)
Subordinated notes      NR

NR--Not rated.


[*] Moody's Takes Action on $526MM of RMBS Issued in 2003-2009
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating of eighteen
tranches and downgraded thirteen tranches backed by Prime Jumbo
RMBS loans, issued by miscellaneous issuers.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

   Issuer: Citicorp Mortgage Securities, Inc. 2005-3

   -- Cl. IA-3 Certificate, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on
      Dec 21, 2015 Upgraded to B1 (sf)

   -- Cl. IA-4 Certificate, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on

      Sep 21, 2012 Downgraded to B3 (sf)

   -- Cl. IA-5 Certificate, Downgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on

      Sep 12, 2013 Downgraded to Baa1 (sf)

   -- Cl. IA-7 Certificate, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on
      Sep 21, 2012 Downgraded to B1 (sf)

   -- Cl. IA-PO Certificate, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on
      Sep 21, 2012 Downgraded to B1 (sf)

   Issuer: Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005-6

   -- Cl. A-1 Certificate, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on
      Dec 21, 2015 Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-2 Certificate, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on
      Dec 21, 2015 Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

   -- Cl. A-3 Certificate, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on
      Dec 21, 2015 Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

   -- Cl. M Certificate, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Apr
      2, 2014 Upgraded to Caa3 (sf)

   Issuer: GSMSC Pass-Through Trust 2009-1R

   -- Cl. 23A2 Certificate, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on
      Feb 10, 2016 Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

   Issuer: J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2004-A5

   -- Cl. 1-A-2 Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on
      Apr 29, 2011 Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

   -- Cl. 1-A-1 Certificate, Downgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously
      on Apr 29, 2011 Downgraded to Baa2 (sf)

   -- Cl. 2-A-1 Certificate, Downgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously
      on Apr 29, 2011 Downgraded to Baa2 (sf)

   -- Cl. 2-A-3 Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on
      Apr 29, 2011 Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

   -- Cl. 3-A-1 Certificate, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on

      Apr 29, 2011 Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

   -- Cl. 4-A-1 Certificate, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on

      Apr 29, 2011 Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

   -- Cl. 4-A-4 Certificate, Downgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously
      on Apr 29, 2011 Downgraded to Baa2 (sf)

   -- Cl. 4-A-5 Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on
      Apr 29, 2011 Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

   Issuer: Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust MLCC 2003-G

   -- Cl. A-4B Certificate, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on
      Apr 18, 2011 Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

   Issuer: Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities 2005-AR16 Trust

   -- Cl. III-A-1 Certificate, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on

      Jul 24, 2013 Confirmed at B3 (sf)

   -- Cl. III-A-2 Certificate, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously
      on Jul 24, 2013 Confirmed at Ba2 (sf)

   -- Cl. III-A-3 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously
      on Aug 5, 2015 Confirmed at Caa3 (sf)

   -- Cl. IV-A-2 Certificate, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on
      Jul 24, 2013 Confirmed at Caa1 (sf)

   -- Cl. IV-A-3 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on

      Jul 24, 2013 Confirmed at Ca (sf)

   -- Cl. VI-A-1 Certificate, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on
      Aug 5, 2015 Confirmed at Caa1 (sf)

   -- Cl. VI-A-2 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on

      Jul 24, 2013 Confirmed at Ca (sf)

   -- Cl. VI-A-3 Certificate, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on
      Jul 24, 2013 Confirmed at B3 (sf)

   -- Cl. VI-A-4 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on

      Jul 24, 2013 Confirmed at Ca (sf)

   Issuer: Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities 2005-AR3 Trust

   -- Cl. I-A-1 Certificate, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on
      Jul 28, 2014 Upgraded to B1 (sf)

   -- Cl. I-A-2 Certificate, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on
      Jul 28, 2014 Upgraded to Caa1 (sf)

   -- Cl. II-A-1 Certificate, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on

      Dec 21, 2015 Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The actions are a result of the recent performance of the
underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on
the pools. The ratings downgraded are due to the weaker performance
of the underlying collateral and the erosion of enhancement
available to the bonds. The ratings upgraded are a result of the
improving performance of the related pools and build-up in credit
enhancement. The rating upgrade on the GSMSC Pass-Through Trust
2009-1R Cl. 23A2 is due to improved performance of the underlying
assets and subsequent rating upgrades on the underlying tranches.

For all transactions except GSMSC Pass-Through Trust 2009-1R, The
principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in November 2013. For GSMSC
Pass-Through Trust 2009-1R, The principal methodology used in this
rating was "Moody's Approach to Rating Resecuritizations" published
in February 2014.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the 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.



                            *********

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 ***