TCR_Public/170625.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, June 25, 2017, Vol. 21, No. 175

                            Headlines

1345 AVENUE 2005-1: S&P Affirms 'BB+' Rating on Cl. F Certificates
ALM LTD XII: Fitch Affirms 'B-sf' Rating on Class E Notes
ALM LTD XII: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class D-R Notes
APIDOS CLO XVI: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
APIDOS CLO XXVII: Moody's Assigns (P)B3(sf) Rating to Cl. E Notes

ATLAS SENIOR VIII: S&P Assigns Prelim. 'B' Rating on Cl. F Notes
BAIN CAPITAL 2017-1: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on Cl. F Debt
BANC OF AMERICA 2006-1: S&P Lowers Rating on Class F Certs to D
BARINGS CLO 2017-I: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating to Class F Notes
BATTALION CLO VIII: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Cl. D-2-R Notes

BAYVIEW COMMERCIAL 2005-1: Moody's Cuts Class B-2 Debt Rating to B1
BAYVIEW OPPORTUNITY 2017-SPL5: Fitch to Rate Class B5 Notes 'Bsf'
BCC FUNDING X: DBRS Hikes Class F Notes Rating to BB(sf)
BEAR STEARNS 2005-PWR7: Fitch Cuts Class B Certs Rating to BBsf
BENEFIT STREET II: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on Cl. D-R Notes

BUSINESS LOAN 2001-2: Fitch Affirms Then Withdraws Ratings
BXP TRUST 2017-GM: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba2 Rating to Cl. E Certs
CARLYLE US 2017-3: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on Cl. D Notes
CGDB COMMERCIAL 2017-BIO: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Cl. E Certs
CITIGROUP 2006-C5: Moody's Cuts Class A-J Debt Rating to Caa1

COLONY MULTIFAMILY 2014-MF1: Moody's Affirms B1 on Class X Debt
COMM 2013-CCRE10: Moody's Cuts Rating on Class F Debt to B3(sf)
COMM 2013-CCRE8: Moody's Affirms B3(sf) Rating on Cl. X-C Debt
CSAIL 2017-C8: DBRS Assigns Prov. BB(sf) Ratings to Class E Debt
CSMC TRUST 2017-CHOP: S&P Assigns Prelim. B- Rating on Cl. F Certs

CSMC TRUST 2017-HL1: Fitch to Rate Class B-5 Certificates 'Bsf'
DEUTSCHE BANK 2011-LC3: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class F Certs
DRIVE AUTO 2015-C: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Cl. E Notes
DRIVE AUTO 2017-1: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Cl. E Notes
ELLINGTON CLO I: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class C Notes

FIGUEROA CLO 2013-2: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Cl. D-R Notes
FRANKLIN CLO VI: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Class E Notes
GE BUSINESS 2007-1: S&P Raises Rating on Cl. D Notes to 'BB+'
GLS AUTO 2017-1: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Class D Notes
GOLDMAN SACHS 2011-GC5: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class F Certs

HIGHBRIDGE LOAN 5-2015: S&P Affirms 'B' Rating on Class F Notes
HPS LOAN 3-2014: S&P Assigns Prelim. 'B-' Rating on Cl. E-R Notes
IMSCI 2012-2: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class G Certificates
JAMESTOWN CLO X: Moody's Assigns (P)B3(sf) Rating to Cl. E Notes
JP MORGAN 2007-LDP12: Moody's Cuts Rating on Class X Certs to Ca

JP MORGAN 2013-C14: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class G Certs
JP MORGAN 2017-JP6: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Rating to Cl. G-RR Certs
JPMBB 2014-C22: DBRS Confirms Bsf Rating on Class X-D Certs
LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2008-C1: Moody's Cuts Cl. A-J Certs Rating to C
LIME STREET: Moody's Affirms B2(sf) Rating on Class E Notes

LNR CDO 2002-1: Moody's Affirms C(sf) Rating on 3 Tranches
MADISON PARK XVII: Moody's Assigns B3(sf) Rating to Class F-R Notes
MCA FUND I: DBRS Confirms BB Rating on Class C Deferrable Notes
MCA FUND II: DBRS Assigns Prov. BB(sf) Rating to Class C Notes
MERRILL LYNCH 2005-MCP1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 2 Tranches

MERRILL LYNCH 2006-C1: Fitch Affirms CCC Rating on Class A-J Certs
MFA 2017-RPL1: DBRS Finalizes B(sf) Rating on Class B-2 Debt
MILL CITY 2017-2: Fitch Assigns 'Bsf' Rating to Class B2 Notes
MILL CITY 2017-2: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class B1 Notes
MORGAN STANLEY 2000-PRIN: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Cl. X Debt

MORGAN STANLEY 2002-IQ3: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 2 Tranches
MORGAN STANLEY 2007-TOP25: Fitch Hikes Cl. A-J Certs Rating to Bsf
MORGAN STANLEY 2008-TOP29: S&P Raises Rating on Cl. E Certs to BB+
MORGAN STANLEY 2012-C5: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on 2 Tranches
MP CLO IV: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3(sf) Rating to Class E-R Notes

N-STAR REAL IX: S&P Lowers Rating on 3 Classes to 'CC'
NEW RESIDENTIAL 2017-3: DBRS Finalizes BB Ratings on 7 Tranches
NORTHWOODS CAPITAL XV: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Cl. E Notes
PALMER SQUARE 2016-2: S&P Hikes Class D Notes Rating to 'BB+'
PREFERRED TERM XIII: Moody's Hikes Rating on 3 Tranches to Ba1

PREFERRED TERM XVII: Moody's Affirms Ba2(sf) Rating on Cl. B Notes
REALT 2017-1: DBRS Assigns Prov. BB(sf) Ratings to Class F Debt
REALT 2017-1: Fitch to Rate Class G Certificates 'Bsf'
ROSSLYN PORTFOLIO 2017-ROSS: S&P Gives Prelim B- to 2 Tranches
SAGUARO ISSUER: Moody's Hikes Rating on 2 Tranches to Ba3

SOVEREIGN COMMERCIAL 2007-C1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 3 Classes
SPRINGLEAF FUNDING 2017-A: S&P Gives Prelim BB Rating to D Notes
STACR 2017-HQA2: Fitch Assigns Bsf Rating on 12 Tranches
STONEY LANE I: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Class D Notes
THL CREDIT 2017-2: Moody's Assigns B3(sf) Rating to Class F Notes

TRINITAS CLO VI: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Cl. E Notes
UNITED AUTO 2017-1: S&P Assigns 'BB-' Rating on Class E Notes
WACHOVIA BANK 2007-C33: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Class J Certs
WELLS FARGO 2015 LC22: Fitch Affirms 'B-sf' Rating on 2 Tranches
WELLS FARGO 2017-C38: Fitch to Rate Class F Notes 'B-sf'

[*] Fitch Lowers 122 Bonds in 89 US RMBS Transactions to D(sf)
[*] Moody's Hikes $256.9MM of Subprime RMBS Issued 2003-2004
[*] Moody's Hikes $740MM of Subprime RMBS Issued 2004-2007
[*] Moody's Lowers $852.6MM of Puerto Rican RMBS Loans
[*] Moody's Takes Action on $112.7MM of Alt-A Issued 2003-2004

[*] Moody's Takes Action on $255.2MM of RMBS Issued 2004-2007
[*] Moody's Takes Action on $85.4MM of Alt-A RMBS Issued 2003-2005
[*] Moody's Takes Action on $94MM of RMBS Issued 2003-2004
[*] S&P Completes Review of 30 Classes From 8 US RMBS Deals
[*] S&P Completes Review of 46 Classes From 13 US RMBS Deals

[*] S&P Completes Review on 18 Classes From 7 RMBS Deals

                            *********

1345 AVENUE 2005-1: S&P Affirms 'BB+' Rating on Cl. F Certificates
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings affirmed its ratings on eight classes of
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from 1345 Avenue of
the Americas and Park Avenue Plaza Trust's series FB 2005-1, a U.S.
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction.

The affirmations on the principal- and interest-paying certificate
classes follow S&P's analysis of the transaction primarily using
its criteria for rating U.S. and Canadian CMBS transactions and
S&P's review of the office collateral securing the transaction, the
deal structure, and liquidity available to the trust.  The
affirmations also reflect S&P's expectation that the available
credit enhancement for the classes will be within its estimate of
the necessary credit enhancement required for the current ratings
and S&P's views regarding the current and future performance of the
office collateral in the trust.

The affirmed 'BB+ (sf)' rating on the class F certificates,
specifically, reflects S&P's criteria for rating U.S. and Canadian
CMBS transactions, which applies a credit enhancement minimum equal
to 1% of the transaction or loan amount to address the potential
for unexpected trust expenses that may incur during the life of the
loan or transaction.  These potential unexpected trust expenses may
include servicer fees, servicer advances, workout or corrected
mortgage fees, and potential trust legal fees.

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

The analysis of large-loan transactions is predominantly a
recovery-based approach that assumes a loan default.  Using this
approach, S&P's property-level analysis included a revaluation of
the office properties that secure the mortgage loans in the trust.
S&P also considered the stable servicer-reported net operating
income (NOI) and occupancy for both office properties since
issuance.

According to the June 12, 2017, trustee remittance report, the
trust consisted of participation interests in two fixed-rate
partial IO mortgage loans with a $520.1 million aggregate pooled
trust balance, down from $548.7 million at issuance.  To date, the
trust has not incurred any principal losses.

S&P based its analysis partly on a review of each office property's
historical NOI for the years ended Dec. 31, 2016, 2015, 2014 and
2013, and the Feb. 1, 2017, rent-rolls provided by the master
servicer to determine our opinion of a sustainable cash flow for
the office properties.

The 1345 Avenue of the Americas loan, the larger of the two loans
in the pool, has a whole-loan balance of $608.7 million that
consists of senior A, subordinate B, and subordinate C notes.  The
$392.2 million senior A note is further divided into five pari
passu notes (two of which have been repaid in full).  The 1-A3 and
1-A4 notes ($316.1 million in aggregate) are in this transaction
and the remaining pari passu component is held outside the trust.
The $116.5 million B note, which is subordinate to the A note, is
split into three pari passu pieces, two of which--the 1-B1 and 1-B2
notes, totaling $98.0 million--are in thistransaction.  The $100.0
million C note, which is subordinate to the A and B notes, is
divided into four pari passu notes, all of which are held outside
the trust.

The 1345 Avenue of the Americas whole loan pays interest at 5.36%
per year, matures on Aug. 8, 2025, amortizes on a constant monthly
interest and principal payment, and is IO for the first two and the
last three years of the loan term.  The amortization amount is
currently used to pay down the A notes on a pro rata basis.  In
addition, the equity interests in the mortgage borrower secure
mezzanine debt totaling $151.3 million.  The whole loan is secured
by a 1,896,140-sq.-ft. office property in midtown Manhattan.  The
master servicer, Wells Fargo Bank N.A., reported a debt service
coverage (DSC) of 1.72x on the whole loan for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2016, and an occupancy of 90.6% according to the Feb. 1,
2017, rent-roll.  S&P's expected case valuation, using a 6.25%
capitalization rate, yielded a 38.0% loan-to-value (LTV) ratio on
the whole loan.

The Park Avenue Plaza loan, the smaller of the two loans, has a
whole-loan balance of $200.4 million that consists of senior A and
subordinate B notes.  The $198.2 million senior A note was split
into five pari passu notes (two of which were repaid in full).  The
1-A3 and 1-A4 notes ($104.7 million in aggregate) are in this
transaction, and the remaining pari passu piece is held outside the
trust.  The $2.2 million B note, which is subordinate to the A
note, is divided into three pari passu pieces, of which the 1-B1
and 1-B2 notes, totaling $1.3 million, are in this transaction. The
Park Avenue Plaza whole loan pays interest at 5.39% per year,
matures on Aug. 8, 2025, amortizes on a constant monthly interest
and principal payment, and is IO for the first 30 months and the
last three years of the loan term.

The amortization amount is currently used to pay down the A notes
on a pro rata basis.  In addition, the equity interests in the
mortgage borrower secure mezzanine debt totaling $225.0 million.
The whole loan is secured by a 1,137,452-sq.-ft. office property in
midtown Manhattan.  Wells Fargo reported a 2.90x DSC on the whole
loan for the year ended Dec. 31, 2016, and an occupancy of 99.7%
according to the Feb. 1, 2017, rent-roll.  S&P's expected case
valuation, using a 6.25% capitalization rate, yielded a 40.6% LTV
ratio on the whole loan.

RATINGS LIST

1345 Avenue of the Americas and Park Avenue Plaza Trust
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series FB 2005-1

                                    Rating
Class             Identifier        To                  From
A-2               68275CAB4         AAA (sf)            AAA (sf)
A-3               68275CAC2         AAA (sf)            AAA (sf)
X                 68275CAJ7         AAA (sf)            AAA (sf)
B                 68275CAD0         AAA (sf)            AAA (sf)
C                 68275CAE8         AAA (sf)            AAA (sf)
D                 68275CAF5         AAA (sf)            AAA (sf)
E                 68275CAG3         AAA (sf)            AAA (sf)
F                 68275CAH1         BB+ (sf)            BB+ (sf)


ALM LTD XII: Fitch Affirms 'B-sf' Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following rating and Rating Outlook
to the refinancing notes issued by ALM XII, Ltd./LLC (ALM XII):

-- $492,750,000 class A-1-R notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch has also affirmed the following rating:

--  $11,500,000 class E notes at 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

The class A-1 notes have been marked 'PIF'.

Fitch does not rate the class A-2a-R, A-2b-R, B-R, C-1-R, C-2-R,
D-R or subordinated notes.

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

ALM XII issued class A-1-R, A-2a-R, A-2b-R, B-R, C-1-R, C-2-R and
D-R notes (collectively, the refinancing notes), and applied the
net issuance proceeds thereof to redeem the existing class A-1,
A-2a, A-2b, B, C-1, C-2 and D notes at par (plus accrued interest)
on the refinancing date of June 20, 2017. The class E and
subordinated notes were not refinanced. Fitch originally rated the
class A-1 and E notes.

The refinancing notes generally have the same terms as the
previously outstanding classes except that the stated coupons have
changed and the refinancing notes may not be subsequently
refinanced or repriced. Spreads over LIBOR on the class A-1-R,
A-2a-R, A-2b-R, B-R, C-1-R, C-2-R and D-R notes were reduced to
1.05%, 1.60%, 1.60%, 2.05%, 3.20%, 3.20% and 5.40%, respectively,
from 1.55%, 2.35%, 2.35%, 3.25%, 3.75%, 4.50% and 5.50%.

KEY RATING DRIVERS
The reduction in the cost of the liabilities is viewed as credit
positive, and no other material changes were made to the capital
structure as a result of the refinancing. The transaction remains
in its reinvestment period (ending April 2019) and continues to
display stable performance since Fitch's last review in January
2017. All coverage tests continue to pass, and the rating default
rate (RDR) and rating loss rate (RLR) for the current portfolio,
plus losses to date, remain lower than the RDR and RLR modelled for
the Fitch stressed portfolio at close. As a result, the modelled
Fitch stressed portfolio at close continues to serve as a proxy,
and an updated cash flow model analysis was not conducted for this
rating action. Fitch has determined that the class A-1-R notes
shall be assigned the same rating as the original class A-1 notes
('AAAsf'/Outlook Stable), and that the class E notes will be
affirmed at their current rating ('B-sf'/Outlook Stable).

The current portfolio, including $15.2 million of principal cash
and $4 million of defaulted assets, totals approximately $773.5
million as of the May 2017 trustee report. All collateral quality
tests and concentration limitations are in compliance. The current
weighted average spread (WAS) is at 3.82% versus a minimum WAS
trigger of 3.70%. Fitch currently considers 4.4% of the collateral
assets to be rated in the 'CCC' category or below, based on Fitch's
Issuer Default Rating (IDR) Equivalency Map. The current weighted
average Fitch rating factor is 33.5 ('B/B-') compared to 34.0
('B/B-') at last review. Additionally, approximately 93.5% of the
portfolio has strong recovery prospects or a Fitch-assigned
Recovery Rating of 'RR2' or higher.

The Stable Outlook on the class A-1-R and E notes reflects the
expectation that the classes have a sufficient level of credit
protection to withstand potential deterioration in the credit
quality of the portfolio in stress scenarios commensurate with such
class's rating.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The ratings of the class A-1-R and E notes may be sensitive to the
following: asset defaults, significant credit migration, and lower
than historically observed recoveries for defaulted assets. Fitch
conducted rating sensitivity analysis on the closing date of ALM
XII, Ltd./LLC, incorporating increased levels of defaults and
reduced levels of recovery rates, among other sensitivities.


ALM LTD XII: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class D-R Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned the following ratings to the
following notes (the "Refinancing Notes") issued by ALM XII, Ltd:

US$492,750,000 Class A-1-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2027 (the "Class A-1-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$64,750,000 Class A-2a-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2027 (the "Class A-2a-R Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$20,000,000 Class A-2b-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2027 (the "Class A-2b-R Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$39,750,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2027 (the "Class B-R Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$40,000,000 Class C-1-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2027 (the "Class C-1-R Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$10,000,000 Class C-2-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2027 (the "Class C-2-R Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$41,000,000 Class D-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2027 (the "Class D-R Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

The Issuer is a managed cash flow collateralized loan obligation
(CLO). The issued notes are collateralized primarily by a portfolio
of senior secured, broadly syndicated corporate loans.

Apollo Credit Management (CLO), LLC (the "Manager") manages the
CLO. It directs the selection, acquisition, and disposition of
collateral on behalf of the Issuer.

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's ratings on the Refinancing 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 Refinancing Notes on June 20, 2017 (the
"Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of certain
classes of notes (the "Refinanced Original Notes") previously
issued on the Original Closing Date. On the Refinancing Date, the
Issuer used the proceeds from the issuance of the Refinancing Notes
to redeem in full the Refinanced Original Notes.

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 each class of the Issuer's notes is subject to
uncertainty relating to certain factors and circumstances, and this
uncertainty could lead to either an upgrade or downgrade of Moody's
ratings:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: CLO performance is subject to
uncertainty about credit conditions in the general economy.

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

3) Collateral credit risk: Investing in collateral of better credit
quality, or better than Moody's expected credit performance of the
assets collateralizing the transaction can lead to positive CLO
performance. Conversely, a negative shift in the credit quality or
performance of the collateral can have adverse consequences for CLO
performance.

4) Deleveraging: During the amortization period, the pace of
deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds is an important
source of uncertainty. Deleveraging of the CLO could accelerate
owing to high prepayment levels in the loan market and/or
collateral sales by the Manager, which could have a significant
impact on the ratings. Note repayments that are faster than Moody's
current expectations will usually have a positive impact on CLO
notes, beginning with those notes having the highest payment
priority.

5) Recovery of defaulted assets: Fluctuations in the market value
of defaulted assets could result in volatility in the deal's
overcollateralization levels. Further, the timing of recovery
realization and whether the Manager decides to work out or sell
defaulted assets create additional uncertainty. Realization of
recoveries that are either materially higher or lower than assumed
in Moody's analysis would impact the CLO positively or negatively,
respectively.

6) Weighted average life: The notes' ratings can be sensitive to
the weighted average life assumption of the portfolio, which could
lengthen owing to any decision by the Manager to reinvest into new
issue loans or loans with longer maturities, or participate in
amend-to-extend offerings. Life extension can increase the default
risk horizon and assumed cumulative default probability of CLO
collateral.

7) Weighted Average Spread (WAS): CLO performance can be sensitive
to WAS, which is a key factor driving the amount of excess spread
available as credit enhancement when a deal fails its
over-collateralization or interest coverage tests. A decrease in
excess spread, including as a result of losing the net interest
benefit of LIBOR floors, or because market conditions make it
difficult for the deal to source assets of appropriate credit
quality in order to maintain its WAS target, would reduce the
effective credit enhancement available for the notes.

Together with the set of modeling assumptions described below,
Moody's conducted additional sensitivity analyses, which were
considered in determining the rating(s) assigned to the rated
notes. In particular, in addition to the base case analysis,
Moody's conducted sensitivity analyses to test the impact of a
number of default probabilities on the rated notes relative to the
base case modeling results. Below is a summary of the impact of
different default probabilities, expressed in terms of WARF level,
on the rated notes (shown in terms of the number of notches
difference versus the base case model output, where a positive
difference corresponds to a lower expected loss):

Moody's Assumed WARF - 20% (2632)

Class A-1-R: 0

Class A-2a-R: +1

Class A-2b-R: +1

Class B-R: +3

Class C-1-R: +3

Class C-2-R: +3

Class D-R: +1

Moody's Assumed WARF + 20% (3948)

Class A-1-R: 0

Class A-2a-R: -3

Class A-2b-R: -3

Class B-R: -2

Class C-1-R: -1

Class C-2-R: -1

Class D-R: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

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

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score, weighted average
recovery rate, and weighted average spread, 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: $767,875,732

Defaulted par: $4,248,537

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 3290 (corresponding to a
weighted average default probability of 27.5%)

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.8%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.5%

Moody's incorporates the default and recovery properties of the
collateral pool in cash flow model analysis where they are subject
to stresses as a function of the target rating on each CLO
liability reviewed. Moody's derives the default probability from
the credit quality of the collateral pool and Moody's expectation
of the remaining life of the collateral pool. The verage recovery
rate for future defaults is based primarily on the seniority of the
assets in the collateral pool. In each case, historical and market
performance and the collateral manager's latitude for trading the
collateral are also factors.


APIDOS CLO XVI: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
--------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-1R, A-2AR,
A-2BR, B-R, and C-R replacement notes from Apidos CLO XVI, a U.S.
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) originally issued in 2014 that
is managed by CVC Credit Partners LLC.  S&P withdrew its ratings on
the transaction's original class A-1, A-2A, A-2B, B, and C notes
following payment in full on the June 19, 2017, refinancing date.
At the same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on the class D and E
notes, which were not part of the refinancing.

On the June 19, 2017, refinancing date, the proceeds from the class
A-1R, A-2AR, A-2BR, B-R, and C-R replacement note issuances were
used to redeem the original class A-1, A-2A, A-2B, B, and C 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 we assigned ratings to the
transaction's replacement notes.

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 S&P's
criteria, its cash flow scenarios applied forward-looking
assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of defaults, and
recoveries upon default, under various interest rate and
macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition, S&P's analysis considered
the transaction's ability to pay timely interest or ultimate
principal, or both, to each of the rated tranches.

The 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

Apidos CLO XVI

Replacement class    Rating          Amount (mil. $)
A-1R                 AAA (sf)                 383.00
A-2AR                AA (sf)                   34.50
A-2BR                AA (sf)                   30.00
B-R                  A (sf)                    46.00
C-R                  BBB (sf)                  31.25

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

Apidos CLO XVI
                        Rating
Original class      To          From
A-1                 NR          AAA (sf)
A-2A                NR          AA (sf)
A-2B                NR          AA (sf)
B                   NR          A (sf)
C                   NR          BBB (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Apidos CLO XVI
Class                Rating
D                    BB (sf)
E                    B (sf)

OUTSTANDING CLASS

Apidos CLO XVI
Class                   Rating
Subordinated notes      NR

NR--Not rated.


APIDOS CLO XXVII: Moody's Assigns (P)B3(sf) Rating to Cl. E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to six
classes of notes to be issued by Apidos CLO XXVII.

Moody's rating action is:

US$320,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$57,500,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class A-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

US$28,750,000 Class B Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

US$31,250,000 Class C Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

US$22,500,000 Class D Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

US$7,500,000 Class E Junior Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)B3 (sf)

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

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Apidos XXVII 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 and eligible investments, and up to 10% of
the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and unsecured loans.
Moody's expects the portfolio to be approximately 75% ramped as of
the closing date.

CVC Credit Partners U.S. CLO 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 will issue subordinated
notes.

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

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

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

Par amount: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2970

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.60%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.0%

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 2970 to 3416)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2 Notes: -2

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: 0

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2970 to 3861)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2 Notes: -3

Class B Notes: -4

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -2


ATLAS SENIOR VIII: S&P Assigns Prelim. 'B' Rating on Cl. F Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Atlas Senior
Secured Loan Fund VIII Ltd./Atlas Senior Secured Loan Fund VIII
LLC's $375.30 million floating-rate notes.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of June 21,
2017.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary 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.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Atlas Senior Secured Loan Fund VIII Ltd./Atlas Senior Secured Loan
Fund VIII LLC  

Class                 Rating          Amount (mil. $)
X                     AAA (sf)                   4.10
A                     AAA (sf)                 246.00
B                     AA (sf)                   53.80
C (deferrable)        A (sf)                    26.50
D (deferrable)        BBB (sf)                  20.30
E (deferrable)        BB- (sf)                  17.70
F (deferrable)        B (sf)                     6.90
Subordinated notes    NR                        38.10

NR--Not rated.


BAIN CAPITAL 2017-1: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on Cl. F Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Bain Capital
Credit CLO 2017-1 Ltd./Bain Capital Credit CLO 2017-1 Corp.'s
$452.30 million floating-rate notes.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of June 16,
2017.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary 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.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Bain Capital Credit CLO 2017-1 Ltd./Bain Capital Credit CLO 2017-1
Corp.

Class                   Rating      Amount (mil. $)
X                       AAA (sf)               5.00
A-1                     AAA (sf)             298.00
A-2                     NR                    19.50
B                       AA (sf)               65.50
C-1                     A (sf)               18.725
C-2                     A (sf)                9.475
D                       BBB- (sf)             28.00
E                       BB- (sf)              20.60
F                       B- (sf)                7.00
Subordinated notes      NR                    38.50

NR--Not rated.


BANC OF AMERICA 2006-1: S&P Lowers Rating on Class F Certs to D
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its rating on the class C commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates from Banc of America Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2006-1, a U.S. commercial mortgage-backed securities
(CMBS) transaction.  In addition, S&P lowered its rating on class F
and affirmed its ratings on two other classes from the same
transaction.

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

S&P raised its rating on class C to reflect its expectation of the
available credit enhancement for the class, which S&P believes is
greater than its most recent estimate of necessary credit
enhancement for the rating level, and the reduced trust balance.

S&P lowered its rating on class F to 'D (sf)' because it expects
the accumulated interest shortfalls, which have affected the
certificates for the past four months, to remain outstanding for
the foreseeable future.

According to the June 12, 2017, trustee remittance report, the
current monthly interest shortfalls totaled $141,730 and resulted
primarily from:

   -- Appraisal subordinate entitlement reduction amounts totaling

      $129,470;

   -- Special servicing fees totaling $9,901; and

   -- Workout fees totaling $2,359.

The current interest shortfalls affected classes subordinate to and
including class F.

The affirmations on classes D and E reflect S&P's expectation that
the available credit enhancement for these classes will be within
its estimate of the necessary credit enhancement required for the
current ratings.

While available credit enhancement levels suggest further positive
rating movement on class C and positive rating movement on classes
D and E, S&P's analysis also considered the certificates
susceptibility to reduced liquidity support from the specially
serviced Medical Mutual Headquarters loan ($45.9 million, 41.3%).
In addition, S&P's analysis considered the performance of the
remaining five nondefeased loans, particularly the Plaza Antonio
loan ($35.7 million, 32.1%), which has been with the special
servicer twice and has returned to the master servicer with no
modifications, and the Mitsuwa Marketplace loan ($14.9 million,
13.4%), which is on the master servicer's watchlist because the
single tenant, Mitsuwa Market, has not yet renewed or extended its
lease expiring on Sept. 2, 2017.  The loan matures on Sept. 1,
2017.

                        TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the June 12, 2017, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $111.1 million, which is 5.5% of the pool balance
at issuance.  The pool currently includes seven loans, down from
192 loans at issuance.  One of these loans, one ($45.9 million,
41.3%) is with the special servicer, one ($1.0 million, 0.9%) is
defeased, and two ($23.6 million, 21.2%) are on the master
servicer's watchlist.  The master servicer, KeyBank Real Estate
Capital, reported financial information for 58.3% of the
nondefeased loans in the pool, of which 86.5% was year-end 2016
data, and the remainder was year-end 2015 data.

S&P calculated a 1.06x S&P Global Ratings weighted average debt
service coverage (DSC) and 85.4% S&P Global Ratings weighted
average loan-to-value (LTV) ratio using a 7.05% S&P Global Ratings
weighted average capitalization rate.  The DSC, LTV, and
capitalization rate calculations exclude the specially serviced and
defeased loans.

To date, the transaction has experienced $130.6 million in
principal losses, or 6.4% of the original pool trust balance.  S&P
expects losses to reach approximately 7.8% of the original pool
trust balance in the near term, based on losses incurred to date
and additional losses S&P expects upon the eventual resolution of
the specially serviced loan.

                       CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the June 12, 2017, trustee remittance report, the Medical
Mutual Headquarters loan, the largest loan in the pool, was the
sole loan with the special servicer Torchlight Loan Services LLC.
The loan has a reported nonperforming matured balloon payment
status and has a total reported exposure of $50.4 million.  The
loan is secured by a 381,176-sq.-ft. medical office building in
Cleveland, Ohio.  The loan was transferred to the special servicer
on Dec. 23, 2015, because of imminent default after the borrower
reached out to the master servicer indicating that it would not be
able to pay off or refinance the loan at its Jan. 1, 2016, maturity
date.  The special servicer indicated that foreclosure process is
currently ongoing.  The property is occupied by a single tenant,
and no recent performance metrics are available.  An appraisal
reduction amount of $26.7 million is in effect against this loan.

S&P expects a moderate loss (between 26% and 59%) upon its eventual
resolution.

RATINGS LIST

Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Trust 2006-1
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-1

                                  Rating
Class            Identifier       To                   From
C                05947U7R3        BBB+ (sf)            BBB- (sf)
D                05947U7S1        BB- (sf)             BB- (sf)
E                05947U6C7        B (sf)               B (sf)
F                05947U6E3        D (sf)               B- (sf)


BARINGS CLO 2017-I: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating to Class F Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to seven
classes of notes to be issued by Barings CLO Ltd. 2017-I.

Moody's rating action is:

US$300,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$30,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2029
(the "Class A-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$37,500,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2029
(the "Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

US$37,500,000 Class C Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

US$28,250,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

US$26,750,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

US$10,000,000 Class F Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class F Notes"), Assigned (P)B3 (sf)

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

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Barings CLO 2017-I is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes
will be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien
senior secured corporate loans. At least 96% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans and eligible investments
representing principal proceeds, and up to 4% of the portfolio may
consist of second lien loans and senior unsecured loans. Moody's
expects the portfolio to be approximately 75% ramped as of the
closing date.

Barings 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 will issue one class of
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: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2820

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.35%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9.0 years.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

Factors That Would Lead to 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 2820 to 3243)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2 Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -1

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -1

Class F Notes: -2

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2820 to 3666)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2 Notes: -2

Class B Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1

Class F Notes: -4


BATTALION CLO VIII: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Cl. D-2-R Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned the following ratings to the
following notes (the "Refinancing Notes") issued by Battalion CLO
VIII Ltd.:

US$1,750,000 Class X Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2030
(the "Class X Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$321,400,000 Class A-1-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
2030 (the "Class A-1-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$45,000,000 Class A-2-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
2030 (the "Class A-2-R Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$27,900,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes Due 2030 (the "Class B-R Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$30,700,000 Class C-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes Due 2030 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$30,520,000 Class D-1-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
Due 2030 (the "Class D-1-R Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

US$880,000 Class D-2-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
2030 (the "Class D-2-R Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

The Issuer is a managed cash flow collateralized loan obligation
(CLO). The issued notes are collateralized primarily by a portfolio
of senior secured, broadly syndicated corporate loans.

Brigade Capital Management, LP (the "Manager") manages the CLO. It
directs the selection, acquisition, and disposition of collateral
on behalf of the Issuer.

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's ratings on the Refinancing 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 Refinancing Notes on June 21, 2017 (the
"Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of all
classes of secured notes (the "Refinanced Original Notes")
previously issued on April 9, 2015 (the "Original Closing Date").
On the Refinancing Date, the Issuer used proceeds from the issuance
of the Refinancing Notes to redeem in full the Refinanced Original
Notes.

In addition to the issuance of the Refinancing Notes, a variety of
other changes to transaction features will occur in connection with
the refinancing. These include: extension of the reinvestment
period; extensions of the stated maturity and non-call period;
changes to certain collateral quality tests; and changes to comply
with the Volcker Rule.

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 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: $497,514,984

Defaulted par: $1,511,305

Diversity Score: 56

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 3216

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.60%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.0%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 49.8%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9.1 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 Refinancing Notes is subject to uncertainty.
The performance of the Refinancing 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 Refinancing 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 Refinancing 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 Refinancing
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 3216 to 3699)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-1-R Notes: -1

Class A-2-R Notes: -2

Class B-R Notes: -2

Class C-R Notes: -1

Class D-1-R Notes: -1

Class D-2-R Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 3216 to 4181)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-1-R Notes: -2

Class A-2-R Notes: -4

Class B-R Notes: -4

Class C-R Notes: -2

Class D-1-R Notes: -1

Class D-2-R Notes: -1


BAYVIEW COMMERCIAL 2005-1: Moody's Cuts Class B-2 Debt Rating to B1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service downgraded eleven tranches from two
transactions issued by Bayview Commercial Asset Trust due to the
release or expected future release of significant amounts of funds
from the reserve funds of these transactions to the residual
interest holders. The Bayview transactions are backed by small
business loans secured primarily by small commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. owned by small businesses and investors.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Bayview Commercial Asset Trust 2004-3

Cl. A-1, Downgraded to A1 (sf); previously on May 31, 2012
Downgraded to Aa2 (sf)

Cl. A-2, Downgraded to A1 (sf); previously on May 31, 2012
Downgraded to Aa2 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Downgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jan 14, 2016 Upgraded
to A1 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Downgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Jan 14, 2016
Upgraded to A3 (sf)

Cl. B-1, Downgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Nov 22, 2016
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Issuer: Bayview Commercial Asset Trust 2005-1

Cl. A-1, Downgraded to A3 (sf); previously on May 31, 2012
Downgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Cl. A-2, Downgraded to A3 (sf); previously on May 31, 2012
Downgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Downgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on May 31, 2012
Downgraded to A3 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Downgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on May 31, 2012
Downgraded to Baa1 (sf)

Cl. B-1, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on May 31, 2012
Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. B-2, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Nov 22, 2016 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's has learned that the master servicer for the Bayview
2004-1, 2004-2, 2004-3 and 2005-1 transactions applies a different
interpretation than Moody's as to the application of the credit
test provisions specified in the respective transaction documents.
The credit test determines whether the overcollateralization and
reserve fund targets will be at their higher or lower thresholds,
as defined in the respective transaction documents.

Moody's interpretation of the transaction documents was that once
the credit test is breached, both the overcollateralization and the
reserve fund have to build up to their higher thresholds before
they are allowed to step down. However, Moody's has learned that
subsequent to a February 2010 Omnibus Amendment, the master
servicer made an internal decision to assume that the credit test
is satisfied when calculating the initial overcollateralization and
reserve fund targets. The effect of this assumption is that the
overcollateralization target is at the lower rather than the higher
threshold, which increases the risk of a release of a significant
amount of funds from the reserve fund to the residual interest
holders. Moody's has adjusted its analysis to take into account
this risk stemming from the master servicer's approach to the
credit test.

The downgrade action on the Bayview Commercial Asset Trust 2005-1
transaction is prompted by the step down of the reserve fund target
which led to a release of funds to the residual interest holders in
the amount of $4.8 million as of the March 2017 distribution date.
This reduced the reserve fund balance to 4.3% of the outstanding
pool balance as of the March 2017 distribution date from 16.9% of
the outstanding pool balance as of the February 2017 distribution
date. Moody's had not anticipated the release of funds from the
reserve fund in March 2017 under its interpretation of the
transaction documents.

The downgrade action on the Bayview Commercial Asset Trust 2004-3
transaction is due to the adjustment of Moody's analysis to
incorporate the master servicer's assumption that the initial
credit test is satisfied, when calculating the OC and RF targets.
Moody's expectation is that the reserve fund which is currently at
27.7% of the outstanding pool balance as of the May 2017
distribution date could be allowed to step down in the future to a
target of 6.5% of the outstanding pool balance as of that future
distribution date, causing a release of funds from the reserve
account to the residual interest holders.

The Bayview Commercial Asset Trust 2004-1 and 2004-2 transactions
are not impacted by the adjustment of Moody's analysis to
incorporate the master servicer's assumption, as outlined above.

METHODOLOGY

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating SME Balance Sheet Securitizations" published in
October 2015.

Moody's evaluated the sufficiency of credit enhancement by first
analyzing the loans to determine an expected remaining net loss for
each collateral pool. Moody's compared these expected net losses
with the available credit enhancement, consisting of
overcollateralization, subordination, excess spread, and a reserve
account if any.

To forecast expected losses for the Bayview small business ABS
collateral pools, Moody's evaluated each pool according to the
delinquency and modification status of the underlying loans,
applying different roll rates to default to loans according to each
status. In order to determine the roll rates to default, Moody's
assessed historical roll rate behavior according to their
delinquency status.

Other methodologies and factors that Moody's may have considered in
the process of rating these transactions appear on Moody's website.
More information on Moody's analysis of this transaction is
available at www.moodys.com.

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

Up

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

Down

Levels of credit protection that are insufficient to protect
investors against expected losses could drive the ratings down.
Losses above Moody's expectations as a result of an increase in
seriously delinquent loans and higher severities than expected on
liquidated loans.


BAYVIEW OPPORTUNITY 2017-SPL5: Fitch to Rate Class B5 Notes 'Bsf'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings expects to rate Bayview Opportunity Master Fund IVa
Trust 2017-SPL5 (BOMFT 2017-SPL5):

-- $252,972,000 class A notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $252,972,000 class A-IOA notional notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $252,972,000 class A-IOB notional notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $26,830,000 class B1 notes 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $26,830,000 class B1-IOA notional notes 'AAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $26,830,000 class B1-IOB notional notes 'AAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $16,482,000 class B2 notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $16,482,000 class B2-IO notional notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $18,781,000 class B3 notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $18,781,000 class B3-IOA notional notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $18,781,000 class B3-IOB notional notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $16,481,000 class B4 notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $16,481,000 class B4-IOA notional notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $16,481,000 class B4-IOB notional notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $13,032,000 class B5 notes 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

The following classes will not be rated by Fitch:

-- $38,713,271 class B6 notes;
-- $38,713,271 class B6-IO notional notes.

The notes are supported by a pool of 8,003 seasoned performing and
re-performing loans (RPL) totaling $383.29 million, which excludes
$11.2 million in non-interest-bearing deferred principal amounts,
as of the cutoff date. Of the total interest-bearing pool balance,
96.4% are daily simple interest mortgage loans. Distributions of
principal and interest and loss allocations are based on a
sequential pay, senior subordinate structure.

The 'AAAsf' rating on the class A, A-IOA and A-IOB notes reflects
the 34.00% subordination provided by the 7.00% class B1, 4.30%
class B2, 4.90% class B3, 4.30% class B4, 3.40% class B5, and
10.10% class B6 notes.

Fitch's ratings on the notes reflect the credit attributes of the
underlying collateral, the quality of the servicer (Bayview Loan
Servicing, LLC, rated 'RSS2+'), the representation (rep) and
warranty framework, minimal due diligence findings, and the
sequential pay structure.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Clean Current Loans (Positive): The loans are seasoned
approximately 11 years with 95.5% paying on time for the past 24
months and 92.0% for the past three years. In addition, 31.7% have
been modified due to performance issues, while the remaining loans
were either not modified (35.7%) or had their interest rates
reduced due to a rate reduction rider at origination (32.6%).

Low Property Values (Concern): Based on Fitch's analysis, the
average current property value of the pool is approximately
$93,000, which is much lower than the average of other Fitch-rated
RPL transactions of over $150,000. Historical data from CoreLogic
Loan Performance indicate that recently observed loss severities
(LS) have been higher for much lower property values than implied
by Fitch's loan loss model. For this reason, LS floors were applied
to loans with property values below $99,000, which increased the
'AAAsf' loss expectation by roughly 280bps.

Daily Simple Interest Loans (Concern):
Approximately 96% of the pool consists of daily simple interest
loans that accrue interest on a daily basis from the date of the
borrower's last payment. While the monthly payment is fixed, if a
borrower pays earlier than the due date, less of the payment is
applied to interest and more is applied to principal. If the
borrower pays late, more of the payment is applied to interest and
less goes to principal.

Because the bonds pay on a 30/360 day schedule, Fitch analyzed the
risk of a disproportionate number of borrowers paying earlier than
scheduled, which could cause the bonds to become
undercollateralized solely due to the mismatch in application of
payments between the loans and the bonds. Fitch analyzed pay dates
of the borrowers and found that roughly the same number of
borrowers pay either earlier or later than the due date. In
addition, approximately 47% of the borrowers are on autopay, which
mitigates the payment date risk. Furthermore, Fitch believes the
excess interest generated by the later-pay borrowers that is
available to pay down principal should offset the risk of
undercollateralization.

Portfolio Loans from a Single Originator (Positive): This
transaction consists of a portfolio of loans that Bayview Asset
Management (BAM) purchased from CitiFinancial Credit Company and
its lending subsidiaries (CitiFinancial). Given that roughly 94% of
the loans were originated and serviced by a single originator prior
to sale to BAM, Fitch believes that the approximately 21%
compliance, data integrity and pay history sample is sufficient to
capture the potential risk of incomplete files that could accompany
portfolios traded in the secondary market. A full custodial file
review was conducted on 100% of the pool, and a tax and title
search was conducted on over 99% of the pool. In addition, BAM,
with the guidance of Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (BLS; as servicer
and rated 'RSS2+' by Fitch), reconstructed the past three years of
pay histories for 100% of the loans.

No Servicer P&I Advances (Mixed): The servicer will not be
advancing delinquent monthly payments of P&I, which reduces
liquidity to the trust. However, as P&I advances made on behalf of
loans that become delinquent and eventually liquidate reduce
liquidation proceeds to the trust, the loan-level LS are less for
this transaction than for those where the servicer is obligated to
advance P&I. Structural provisions and cash flow priorities,
together with increased subordination, provide for timely payments
of interest to the 'AAAsf' and 'AAsf' rated classes.

Sequential-Pay Structure (Positive): The transaction's cash flow is
based on a sequential-pay structure, whereby the subordinate
classes do not receive principal until the senior classes are
repaid in full. Losses are allocated in reverse-sequential order.
In addition, 40bps from the interest remittance amount will be used
to pay down principal as well as any excess interest allocation
from the loan-level daily interest accrual calculation. The
provision to re-allocate principal to pay interest on the 'AAAsf'
and 'AAsf' rated notes prior to other principal distributions, as
well as the application of excess interest to the notes, is highly
supportive of timely interest payments to those classes, in the
absence of servicer advancing.

Potential Interest Deferrals (Mixed):
To address the lack of an external P&I advance mechanism, principal
otherwise distributable to the notes may be used to pay monthly
interest. While this helps to provide stability in the cash flows
to the high investment-grade-rated bonds, the lower-rated bonds may
experience long periods of interest deferral and will generally not
be repaid until the note becomes the most senior outstanding.

Per Fitch's criteria, Fitch may assign ratings of up to 'Asf' on
notes that incur deferrals if such deferrals are permitted under
terms of the transaction documents, provided such amounts are fully
recovered well in advance of the legal final maturity under the
relevant rating stress.

Tier I Representation Framework (Positive): Fitch considers the
transaction's representation, warranty and enforcement (RW&E)
mechanism framework to be consistent with Tier I quality. The
transaction benefits from life-of-loan representations and
warranties (R&Ws), as well as a backstop by BAM in the event the
sponsor, Bayview Opportunity Master Fund IVa, L.P., is liquidated
or terminated.

Solid Alignment of Interest (Positive): The sponsor, Bayview
Opportunity Master Fund IVa, L.P., will acquire and retain a 5%
vertical interest in each class of the securities to be issued. In
addition, the sponsor will also be the rep provider until at least
January 2024. If the fund is liquidated or terminated, BAM will be
obligated to provide a remedy for material breaches of R&Ws.

CRITERIA APPLICATION

Fitch's analysis incorporated three criteria variations from 'U.S.
RMBS Seasoned, Re-Performing and Non-Performing Loan Criteria,'
which are described below.

The first variation is the less than 100% third-party review (TPR)
due diligence review for regulatory compliance, data integrity and
pay history. Tax and title review was conducted on approximately
99% of the pool, and a custodial file review was conducted on 100%
of the pool. The remaining tax and title review will be performed
post-close. The less than 100% TPR review is consistent with
Fitch's criteria for seasoned performing pools. However, because
Fitch's criteria state Fitch views pools as seasoned-performing if
they consist of loans that were never modified, a criteria
variation was made. Without this variation, the pool would have had
to have 100% compliance, data integrity and pay history TPR review
to achieve a 'AAAsf' rating.

Fitch is comfortable with the reduced due diligence sample because
roughly 94% of the loans were originated by a single lender and the
sample provided is sufficient to provide a reliable indication of
the operational quality of the lender.

The second variation is the use of Clear Capital's HDI valuation
product as updated property values instead of an automated
valuation model (AVM). Fitch's criteria allow for the use of an AVM
product as updated values if there are sufficient compensating
factors. Clear Capital's HDI product is not an AVM but, rather, an
indexation product. Clear Capital is a reputable third-party vendor
that provides valuation services.

A review of the HDI product's white paper indicates values are
based on a robust data set that goes down to the neighborhood level
and incorporates REO sales. Fitch believes the HDI product to be an
adequate alternative to an AVM. The HDI product was only used for
loans that were clean-current for the prior 24 months and had an
LTV


BCC FUNDING X: DBRS Hikes Class F Notes Rating to BB(sf)
--------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. on June 14 reviewed eight ratings from two U.S.
structured finance asset-backed securities transactions: SCF
Equipment Trust 2016-1 LLC and BCC Funding X LLC Equipment Contract
Backed Notes, Series 2015-1. Of the eight outstanding publicly
rated classes reviewed, one was confirmed and seven were upgraded.
For the rating that was confirmed, performance trends are such that
credit enhancement levels are sufficient to cover DBRS's expected
losses at their current respective rating levels. For the ratings
that were upgraded, performance trends are such that credit
enhancement levels are sufficient to cover DBRS's expected losses
at their new respective rating levels.

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

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

-- The transaction parties' capabilities with regard to
    origination, underwriting and servicing.

-- The credit quality of the collateral pool and historical
    performance.

The Affected Ratings are:

BCC Funding X LLC Equipment Contact Backed Notes Series 2015-1

  Class A-2 Notes     Confirmed         AAA(sf)
  Class B Notes       Upgraded          AAA(sf)
  Class C Notes       Upgraded          AA(sf)
  Class D Notes       Upgraded          A(sf)
  Class E Notes       Upgraded          BBB(sf)
  Class F Notes       Upgraded          BB(sf)
  
SCF Equipment Trust 2016-1 LLC

  Class A Notes       Upgraded          AA(sf)
  Class B Notes       Upgraded          A(low)(sf)


BEAR STEARNS 2005-PWR7: Fitch Cuts Class B Certs Rating to BBsf
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded two and affirmed 11 classes of Bear
Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust (BSCMS) commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The downgrades reflect the significant concentration and adverse
selection of the remaining pool, as well as uncertainty surrounding
the ultimate timing and resolution of the specially serviced loans.
Fitch modeled losses of 44% of the remaining pool; expected losses
based on the original pool balance are 6.7%, including $29.6
million (2.6% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to
date. Of the original 124 loans, 10 remain, five of which have been
designated (85.2% of the pool balance) as a Fitch Loan of Concern
(FLOC), and includes two specially serviced loans (75%).

Pool Concentration: The pool is highly concentrated with only 10 of
the original 124 loans remaining. As of the June 2017 distribution
date, the pools' aggregate principal balance has been reduced by
90.8% to $103.7 million from $1.1 billion at issuance. Three loans
are fully defeased (2.4%). The non-specially serviced loans' final
maturity dates are in 2019 (1.9%), 2020 (14.1%), and 2023 (6.8%).
Three loans are currently on the servicer watchlist (10.4%).

Loans of Concern / Specially Serviced: Five loans (85.2% of the
pool balance) have been identified as Fitch Loans of Concern
(FLOCs), including the top two loans which are both in special
servicing (75%). Risks associated with the non-specially serviced
FLOCs include low debt service coverage ratios (DSCR), retail
properties in secondary markets and/or with single tenant risks,
and previously modified loans.

The largest loan in the pool is the Shops at Boca Park (46.7%),
secured by a 247,472-square foot (sf) anchored retail center
located in Las Vegas, NV, approximately 10 miles west of downtown.
The property has experienced cash flow issues due to a significant
decline in occupancy, which was reported at 48% per the March 2017
rent roll. The loan had originally transferred to special servicing
in October 2009 for imminent default, and the borrower subsequently
filed for bankruptcy in June 2010. The loan was modified in
November 2012, which included an extension of the interest-only
period and maturity, and a reduction in interest rate. The loan
matured in January 2016 without repayment and transferred back to
special servicing in February 2016. According to the servicer, an
agreement for forbearance or additional extensions has not yet been
reached and the servicer continues to evaluate the property and its
legal options. Fitch continues to monitor the status of any
negotiations and/or loan resolution.

The second largest loan in the pool is the real estate owned (REO)
Quintard Mall, a 375,486 sf retail center located in Oxford, AL (28
of the pool balance%). The property experienced cash flow issues
starting in 2012 due to occupancy declines and an increase in
expenses associated with renewing a number of large tenants. The
property was transferred to the special servicer in May 2013 for
payment default and the special servicer completed the foreclosure
process in October 2014. As of April 2017, the mall's total
occupancy was 75%, which is down from the high of 96% in 2011. The
special servicer's marketing plan started in 2Q17 and will focus on
tenant retention and new leasing.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch analysis included conservative loss assumptions on the
specially serviced loans. The Rating Outlooks on classes B and C
are considered Stable due to high credit enhancement. Upgrades are
unlikely due to adverse selection of the remaining collateral and
high percentage of specially serviced loans.

Downgrades to the distressed classes are possible if additional
loans transfer to special servicing and/or expected losses increase
significantly.}

Fitch has downgraded and revised the Outlooks as indicated:

-- $27.7 million class B to 'BBsf' from 'BBBsf'; Outlook to
    Stable from Negative;
-- $8.4 million class C to 'Bsf' from 'BBsf'; Outlook to Stable
    from Negative.

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:

-- $15.5 million class D at 'CCCsf'; RE 100%;
-- $11.2 million class E at 'CCsf'; RE 65%
-- $11.2 million class F at 'Csf'; RE 0%
-- $9.8 million class G at 'Csf'; RE 0%.
-- $12.7 million class H at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $4.2 million class J at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $2.7 million class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

The classes A-1, A-2, A-AB, A-3, and A-J certificates have paid in
full. Fitch does not rate the class Q certificates. Fitch
previously withdrew the ratings on the interest-only class X-1 and
X-2 certificates.


BENEFIT STREET II: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on Cl. D-R Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to the class X,
A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, and D-R replacement notes from Benefit
Street Partners CLO II Ltd., a collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
originally issued in 2013 that is managed by Benefit Street
Partners LLC.  The replacement notes will be issued via a proposed
supplemental indenture.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of June 19,
2017.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

On the June 29, 2017, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
issuance of the replacement notes are expected to redeem the
original notes.  At that time, S&P anticipates withdrawing the
ratings on the original notes and assigning ratings to the
replacement notes.  However, if the refinancing doesn't occur, S&P
may affirm the ratings on the original notes and withdraw its
preliminary ratings on the replacement notes.

The replacement notes are being issued via a proposed supplemental
indenture.  Based on the provisions in the amended and restated
indenture:

   -- The replacement class A-1-R, C-R, and D-R notes are expected

      to be issued at a higher spread than the original notes.

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

      a lower spread than the original notes.

   -- The replacement class A-2-R notes are expected to be issued
      at a floating spread, replacing the current A-2A floating
      rate notes and A-2B fixed coupon notes.  The stated maturity

      and reinvestment period, and weighted average life test date

      will both be extended four years.

   -- The issuer is also now issuing a class X note.

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 S&P's
criteria, its cash flow scenarios applied forward-looking
assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of defaults, and
recoveries upon default, under various interest rate and
macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition, S&P's analysis considered
the transaction's ability to pay timely interest or ultimate
principal, or both, to each of the rated tranches.

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

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Benefit Street Partners CLO II Ltd.
Replacement class         Rating      Amount (mil. $)
X                         AAA (sf)               5.00
A-1-R                     AAA (sf)             307.50
A-2-R                     AA (sf)               61.90
B-R (deferrable)          A (sf)                40.00
C-R (deferrable)          BBB- (sf)             28.10
D-R (deferrable)          BB- (sf)              22.50


BUSINESS LOAN 2001-2: Fitch Affirms Then Withdraws Ratings
----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings affirms & withdraws the ratings for Business Loan
Express SBA loan-backed adjustable-rate notes, series 2001-2
(2001-2) and series 2002-1 (2002-1) as follows:

Business Loan Express SBA Loan-Backed Adjustable-Rate Notes, Series
2001-2
-- Class A at 'CCsf', RE 100%;
-- Class M at 'Csf', RE 100%.

Business Loan Express SBA Loan-Backed Adjustable-Rate Notes, Series
2002-1
-- Class A at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Class M at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

BLX 2001-2's affirmation reflects the recent stable performance of
the transaction as hard credit enhancement (CE) has built for class
A and M notes since the prior review. However, the transaction
remains under-collateralized and late-stage delinquencies remain
elevated. For these reasons, default is considered a real
possibility. Class A and M notes are expected to have a 100%
recovery of their current note balances.

BLX 2002-1's affirmation for the class A and M is largely
attributable to both classes benefiting from a fully funded spread
account. The Outlooks remain Stable as the available CE is expected
to provide sufficient protection from losses and future obligor
concentrations.

Fitch has withdrawn the ratings as they are no longer considered
relevant to the agency's coverage, because Fitch is no longer
maintaining criteria for transactions backed by small business loan
receivables.

METHODOLOGY

In reviewing the transaction, Fitch utilized its 'Bespoke
Assumptions: Small Business Loan ABS Rating Methodology'. This
methodology took into account analytical considerations outlined in
Fitch's 'Global Structured Finance Rating Criteria', issued June
27, 2016, including asset quality, credit enhancement, financial
structure, legal structure, and originator and servicer quality and
is outlined below.

Fitch's analysis focused on concentration risks within the pool, by
evaluating the impact of the default of the largest performing
obligors. The obligor concentration analysis is consistent with
Fitch's 'Criteria for Rating US Equipment Lease and Loan ABS',
dated Dec. 29, 2016. The analysis compares expected loss coverage
relative to the default of a certain number of the largest
obligors. The required net obligor coverage varies by rating
category. The required number of obligors covered ranges from 20 at
'AAA' to five at 'B'.

Fitch applied loss and recovery expectations based on collateral
type and historical recovery performance to the largest performing
obligors commensurate with the individual rating category. The
expected loss assumption was then compared to the loss coverage
available to the outstanding notes given Fitch's expected losses on
the currently delinquent loans. Fitch also applied Appendix Four of
the 'Global Structured Finance Rating Criteria' dated May 3, 2017
in determining the ratings. The ratings within this sector are
capped at 'Asf' given the potential for high obligor
concentrations.

Additionally, Fitch's analysis incorporated a review of collateral
characteristics, in particular, focusing on delinquent and
defaulted loans within the pool. All loans over 60 days delinquent
were deemed defaulted loans. The defaulted loans were applied loss
and recovery expectations based on collateral type and historical
recovery performance to establish an expected net loss assumption
for the transaction. Fitch stressed the cashflow generated by the
underlying assets by applying its expected net loss assumption.
Furthermore, Fitch applied a loss multiplier to evaluate break-even
cash flow runs to determine the level of expected cumulative losses
the structure can withstand at a given rating level. The loss
multiplier scale utilized is consistent with that of other
commercial ABS transactions.

While the obligor concentration approach was the primary driver,
its results were compared to the stresses loss approach and
qualitative factors such the results of these approaches compared
to prior reviews, recent performance, and available credit
enhancement. The rating actions taken were ultimately the result of
a combination of these factors.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Unanticipated increases in the frequency of defaults and loss
severity could produce loss levels higher than the current
projected losses and impact available loss coverage and obligor
coverage. Lower loss coverage could impact ratings and Rating
Outlooks, depending on the extent of the decline in coverage.
Should performance materially deteriorate, the decline in loss
coverage could negatively impact current ratings.

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

Form ABS Due Diligence-15E was not provided to, or reviewed by,
Fitch in relation to this rating action.


BXP TRUST 2017-GM: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba2 Rating to Cl. E Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to seven
classes of CMBS securities, issued by BXP Trust 2017-GM, Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2017-GM:

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

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

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

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

Cl. E, Assigned (P)Ba2 (sf)

Cl. X-A*, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. X-B*, Assigned (P)Aa3 (sf)

* Reflects interest-only class

RATINGS RATIONALE

The Certificates are collateralized by a beneficial ownership in a
portion of an interest-only, 10-year, fixed-rate, first-lien whole
loan with an outstanding Cut-off Date principal balance of
$2,300,000,000 (the "Whole Loan"). The Whole Loan will be secured
by the Borrower's fee simple interest in the General Motors
Building, a 1,989,983 square foot, Class A, office property located
at 767 Fifth Avenue in New York City.

More specifically, the trust assets primarily consist of eight
promissory notes, including four senior promissory notes (the
"Senior Trust Notes") and four junior promissory notes (the "Junior
Notes", and together with the Senior Trust Notes, the "Mortgage
Loan"), which combined, have an aggregate principal balance of
$1,350,000,000 as of the Cut-off Date. The aggregate Senior Trust
Notes and the aggregate Junior Notes have principal balances of
$520,000,000 and $830,000,000, respectively. The Mortgage Loan is
part of a split loan structure comprised of (i) the Mortgage Loan
and (ii) the "Companion Loans" (not assets of the trust fund)
including 25 promissory notes with an aggregate initial principal
balance of $950,000,000 that are pari passu in right of payment
with each other and with the Senior Trust Notes and senior in right
of payment with the Junior Notes. The Mortgage Loan and the
Companion Loans are primarily secured by a first priority mortgage
on the Property.

The Borrower, 767 Fifth Partners LLC, is a Delaware limited
liability company that is indirectly owned (in part) and controlled
by affiliates of Boston Properties Limited Partnership. The
Borrower is a single purpose entity whose primary business is the
performance of the obligations under the Loan Documents and the
ownership and/or operation of the Property. Boston Properties
Limited Partnership acts as the Loan Sponsor.

Developed in 1968, the Property is a 50-story high-rise office
building that occupies the entire city block bound by 58th Street,
59th Street, Madison Avenue and Fifth Avenue on the southeast
corner of Central Park. The Property features 188,000 SF of retail
space on the first two stories and the below-grade concourse.

As of June 1, 2017, the Property was 95.0% occupied and features a
diverse tenant roster, including the global headquarters for Weil,
Gotshal & Manges (24.6% of NRA), Aramis/Estee Lauder's headquarter
(15.1% of NRA), a flagship retail location for Under Armour (2.5%
of NRA), BAMCO (5.3% of NRA) and Apple's flagship retail store
(5.3% of NRA), among others.

Moody's approach to rating this transaction involved the
application of both Moody's Large Loan and Single Asset/Single
Borrower CMBS methodology and Moody's IO Rating methodology. The
rating approach for securities backed by a single loan compares the
credit risk inherent in the underlying collateral with the credit
protection offered by the structure. The structure's credit
enhancement is quantified by the maximum deterioration in property
value that the securities are able to withstand under various
stress scenarios without causing an increase in the expected loss
for various rating levels. In assigning single borrower ratings,
Moody's also consider a range of qualitative issues as well as the
transaction's structural and legal aspects.

The credit risk of commercial real estate loans is determined
primarily by two factors: 1) the probability of default, which is
largely driven by the DSCR, and 2) and the severity of loss in the
event of default, which is largely driven by the LTV of the
underlying loan.

The Whole Loan first mortgage balance of $2,300,000,000 represents
a Moody's LTV of 91.4%. The Moody's Whole Loan First Mortgage
Actual DSCR is 2.35X and Moody's Whole Loan First Mortgage Stressed
DSCR is 0.87X.

Moody's also grades properties on a scale of 0 to 5 (best to worst)
and considers those grades when assessing the likelihood of debt
payment. The factors considered include property age, quality of
construction, location, market, and tenancy. The Property's
property quality grade is 0, reflecting the superior quality of
this trophy asset.

Notable strengths of the transaction include: trophy asset, asset
quality, high investor liquidity, property location, transport
access, recent tenant renewals and an experienced and committed
Sponsor.

Notable credit challenges of the transaction include: lack of
diversity for this single asset transaction, the lack of loan
amortization, tenant rollover risk, and the pipeline of New York
City Class A new office supply under construction.

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.

Additionally, the methodology used in rating Cl. X-A and Cl. X-B
was "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only
(IO) Securities" published in June 2017.

Moody's approach for single borrower and large loan multi-borrower
transactions evaluates 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. These
aggregated proceeds are then further adjusted for any pooling
benefits associated with loan level diversity, other concentrations
and correlations.

Moody's analysis considers the following inputs to calculate the
proposed IO rating based on the published methodology: original and
current bond ratings and credit estimates; original and current
bond balances grossed up for losses for all bonds the IO(s)
reference(s) within the transaction; and IO type corresponding to
an IO type as defined in the published methodology.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: If Moody's value of the collateral
used in determining the initial rating were decreased by 5%, 15.7%,
and 25.2%, the model-indicated rating for i) the currently rated
(P)Aaa (sf) classes would be Aa1 (sf), A2 (sf), and Baa1 (sf),
respectively, ii) the currently rated (P)Aa3 (sf) classes would be
A3 (sf), Baa2 (sf), and Ba2 (sf), respectively, iii) the currently
rated (P)A3 (sf) classes would be Baa2 (sf), Ba2 (sf), and B1 (sf),
respectively, iv) the currently rated (P)Baa3 (sf) classes would be
Ba1 (sf), B1 (sf), and B3 (sf), respectively, and v) the currently
rated (P)Ba2 (sf) classes would be Ba3 (sf), B3 (sf), and Caa2
(sf), respectively. Parameter Sensitivities are not intended to
measure how the rating of the security might migrate over time;
rather they are designed to provide a quantitative calculation of
how the initial rating might change if key input parameters used in
the initial rating process differed. The analysis assumes that the
deal has not aged. Parameter Sensitivities only reflect the ratings
impact of each scenario from a quantitative/model-indicated
standpoint. Qualitative factors are also taken into consideration
in the ratings process, so the actual ratings that would be
assigned in each case could vary from the information presented in
the Parameter Sensitivity analysis.

These ratings: (a) are based solely on information in the public
domain and/or information communicated to Moody's by the issuer at
the date it was prepared and such information has not been
independently verified by Moody's; (b) must be construed solely as
a statement of opinion and not a statement of fact or an offer,
invitation, inducement or recommendation to purchase, sell or hold
any securities or otherwise act in relation to the issuer or any
other entity or in connection with any other matter. Moody's does
not guarantee or make any representation or warranty as to the
correctness of any information, rating or communication relating to
the issuer. Moody's shall not be liable in contract, tort,
statutory duty or otherwise to the issuer or any other third party
for any loss, injury or cost caused to the issuer or any other
third party, in whole or in part, including by any negligence (but
excluding fraud, dishonesty and/or willful misconduct or any other
type of liability that by law cannot be excluded) on the part of,
or any contingency beyond the control of Moody's, or any of its
employees or agents, including any losses arising from or in
connection with the procurement, compilation, analysis,
interpretation, communication, dissemination, or delivery of any
information or rating relating to the issuer.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the 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 may
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or weaker
than Moody's had previously anticipated. Factors that may cause an
upgrade of the ratings include significant loan pay downs or
amortization, an increase in the pool's share of defeasance or
overall improved pool performance. Factors that may cause a
downgrade of the ratings include a decline in overall performance
and Property income, increased expected losses from a specially
serviced and troubled loan or interest shortfalls.

Moody's ratings address only the credit risks associated with the
transaction. Other non-credit risks have not been addressed and may
have a significant effect on yield to investors.

The ratings do not represent any assessment of (i) the likelihood
or frequency of prepayment on the mortgage loans, (ii) the
allocation of net aggregate prepayment interest shortfalls, (iii)
whether or to what extent prepayment premiums might be received, or
(iv) in the case of any class of interest-only certificates, the
likelihood that the holders thereof might not fully recover their
investment in the event of a rapid rate of prepayment of the
mortgage loans.


CARLYLE US 2017-3: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on Cl. D Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Carlyle US
CLO 2017-3 Ltd./Carlyle US CLO 2017-3 LLC's $519.00 million
floating-rate notes.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of June 19,
2017.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary 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.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Carlyle US CLO 2017-3 Ltd. /Carlyle US CLO 2017-3 LLC

Class                 Rating          Amount
                                    (mil. $)
A-1a                  AAA (sf)        360.00
A-1b                  NR               33.00
A-2                   AA (sf)          63.00
B (deferrable)        A (sf)           37.00
C (deferrable)        BBB- (sf)        35.00
D (deferrable)        BB- (sf)         24.00
Subordinated notes    NR               61.00

NR--Not rated.


CGDB COMMERCIAL 2017-BIO: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Cl. E Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to CGDB Commercial Mortgage
Trust 2017-BIO's $330.0 million commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2017-BIO.

The certificate issuance is backed by a two-year, floating-rate
commercial mortgage loan totaling $330.0 million, with three
one-year extension options, secured by a first lien on the
borrowers' fee and leasehold interests in a portfolio of 18 life
science, office, laboratory, and medical properties totaling 1.44
million sq. ft.  The properties are located in California,
Colorado, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and
Washington.

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

RATINGS ASSIGNED

CGDB Commercial Mortgage Trust 2017-BIO  
Class       Rating(i)             Amount ($)
A           AAA (sf)             154,356,000
X-CP        BBB- (sf)             69,517,700(ii)
X-NCP       BBB- (sf)             99,311,000(ii)
B           AA- (sf)              37,196,000
C           A- (sf)               27,896,000
D           BBB- (sf)             34,219,000
E           BB- (sf)              46,493,000
F           B+ (sf)               13,340,000
RR(iii)     NR                    16,500,000

(i)The rating on each class of securities is subject to change at
any time.  The issuer will issue the certificates to qualified
institutional buyers in line with Rule 144A of the Securities Act
of 1933.  
(ii)Notional balance.  The notional amount of the class X-CP
certificates will be equal to the aggregate of the portion balances
of the class B portion 2, class C portion 2, and class D portion 2
at certain times.  The notional amount of the class X-NCP
certificates will be equal to the aggregate of the certificate
balances of the class B, class C, and class D certificates at
certain times.  
(iii)Non-offered vertical interest certificate.
LTV--Loan-to-value ratio, based on S&P Global Ratings' values.
N/A--Not applicable.
NR--Not rated.


CITIGROUP 2006-C5: Moody's Cuts Class A-J Debt Rating to Caa1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings on two and
affirmed the ratings on three classes in Citigroup Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2006-C5:

Cl. A-J, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jun 23, 2016
Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. B, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Jun 23, 2016 Downgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jun 23, 2016 Downgraded to C
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jun 23, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. XC, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017 Downgraded to C
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on two P&I Classes (A-J & B) were downgraded because
realized and anticipated losses from specially serviced loans were
higher than Moody's had previously expected.

The ratings on two P&I Classes (C & D) were affirmed due to Moody's
expected loss.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 13.5% of the
current balance, compared to 13.4% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 52.7% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 13.2% at Moody's last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

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

Additionally, the methodology used in rating Cl. XC was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017.

Moody's analysis incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since 96% of the pool is in
special servicing. In this approach, Moody's determines a
probability of default for each specially serviced and troubled
loan that it expects will generate a loss and estimates a loss
given default based on a review of broker's opinions of value (if
available), other information from the special servicer, available
market data and Moody's internal data. The loss given default for
each loan also takes into consideration repayment of servicer
advances to date, estimated future advances and closing costs.
Translating the probability of default and loss given default into
an expected loss estimate, Moody's then applies the aggregate loss
from specially serviced loans to the most junior classes and the
recovery as a pay down of principal to the most senior classes.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the May 17, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 89.8% to $215.9
million from $2.1 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 11 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 53% of the pool.

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 3, compared to 38 at Moody's last review.

There are no loans on the master servicer's watchlist. Fifty three
loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an aggregate
realized loss of $172 million (for an average loss severity of
42.9%). Eight loans, constituting 96% of the pool, are currently in
special servicing. The largest specially serviced loan is the IRET
Portfolio ($115.7 million -- 53.6% of the pool), which is secured
by a portfolio of seven cross-collateralized and cross-defaulted
suburban office properties located in Nebraska, Minnesota and
Kansas. The loan transferred to special servicing in July 2014 and
the properties became REO in January 2016. At securitization, the
portfolio originally consisted of nine properties, but two located
in Missouri were sold in March 2017.

The remaining specially serviced loans are secured by a mix of
property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $114 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (55% expected loss on average).

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results for 79% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 69%, compared to
92% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes
loans with structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans,
and specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow
(NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of 15% to the most
recently available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 9.0%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.35X and 1.42X,
respectively, compared to 1.54X and 1.34X 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 3.8% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is Laurel Point Senior Apartments Loan ($4.49 million
-- 2.1% of the pool), which is secured by a by a 148 unit seniors
only, garden style multifamily property located 20 miles west of
Houston, Texas and 9 miles north of Sugar Land. The Property was
99% occupied as of March 2017 and remains the same since December
2016. The property was listed in good condition as per the master
servicer's December 2016 inspection report. The Loan has amortized
12.9% and is scheduled to mature in August 2021. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 71.4% and 1.36X, respectively, compared to 73.2%
and 1.33X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Killeen Stone Ranch Apartments Loan
($2.89 million -- 1.3% of the pool), which is secured by a 152 unit
garden style multifamily apartment property located in Killeen,
Texas approximately 3 south of Fort Hood military base. The
Property was 95% occupied as of March 2017 compared to 94% in
December 2016. The master servicer's October 2016 inspection report
listed the property in good condition with no deferred maintenance.
The Loan has amortized 12.9% and is scheduled to mature in
September 2021. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 62.5% and 1.56X,
respectively, compared to 63.7% and 1.53X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Thornton Hall Apartments Loan ($0.81
million -- 0.4% of the pool), which is secured 40 unit multifamily
apartment property located in Georgetown, South Caroline
approximately 37 miles south of Myrtle Beach. The property was 100%
occupied as of December 2016. No deferred maintenance was noted in
the master servicer's August 2016 property inspection report. The
loan has amortized 14.2% and is scheduled to mature in October
2021. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 78.4% and 1.23X,
respectively, compared to 78.9% and 1.22X at the last review.


COLONY MULTIFAMILY 2014-MF1: Moody's Affirms B1 on Class X Debt
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on two classes
and affirmed the ratings on five classes in Colony Multifamily
Mortgage Trust 2014-1:

Cl. A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 16, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Sep 16, 2016 Affirmed
Aa3 (sf)

Cl. C, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Sep 16, 2016 Affirmed A3
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Sep 16, 2016 Affirmed Baa3
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Sep 16, 2016 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Sep 16, 2016 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. X, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017 Downgraded to B1
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on Classes B and C were upgraded based primarily on an
increase in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and
amortization. The deal has paid down 28% since Moody's last review
and 51% since securitization.

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

The rating on the IO class, Class X, was affirmed based on the
credit quality of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 9.9% of the
current balance, compared to 9.3% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 5.2% of the original
pooled balance, compared to 6.4% at the last review. Moody's
provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit and
fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION:

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

Additionally, the methodology used in rating Cl. X was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the May 22, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 51% to $154 million
from $316 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 166 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 2% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding defeasance)
constituting 17% of the pool. One loan, constituting 2% of the
pool, has defeased and is secured by US government securities.

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 112, compared to 144 at Moody's last review.

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

Five loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $1 million (for an average loss severity
of 34%). Six loans, constituting 5% of the pool, are currently in
special servicing. The largest specially serviced loan is the Elm
Grove Garden Apartments ($2.4 million -- 1.5% of the pool), which
is secured by an 84-unit apartment complex located in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. The special servicer indicated that the loan transferred
to special servicing in November 2014 due to delinquent payments.
The property operates under the Louisiana Housing Finance Authority
Housing Assistance Payment Contract. The servicer noted that in
April 2017 the borrower indicated a potential buyer and contract,
but has failed to provide further information.

The remaining five specially serviced loans are secured by
multifamily and manufactured housing properties. Moody's estimates
an aggregate $2.6 million loss for the specially serviced loans
(33% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for 32 poorly
performing loans, constituting 17% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $6.3 million (a 24% expected loss based on a
50% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 80% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results for 57% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 98%, compared to 101% 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 23% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 10.4%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.34X and 1.27X,
respectively, compared to 1.27X and 1.21X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 6% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Cedar Ridge Apartments Loan ($3.6 million --
2.3% of the pool), which is secured by a 117-unit multifamily
complex located in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, which is a tertiary
market approximately 52 miles south of Pittsburgh. The collateral
includes eight garden-style apartment buildings. The property was
91% occupied in December 2016, compared to 95% in December 2015 and
100% at securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 93.0% and
1.13X, respectively, compared to 91.8% and 1.15X at the last
review.

The second largest loan is the Saddle Creek Apartments Loan ($3.1
million -- 2.0% of the pool), which is secured by a 107-unit
multifamily complex located in Cincinnati, Ohio. The property was
86% occupied as of December 2015, compared to 84% in December 2014.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 126% and 0.84X, respectively,
compared to 128% and 0.82X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Orchard Apartments Loan ($3.0 million
-- 1.9% of the pool), which is secured a 97-unit multifamily
property located in Tehachapi, California. The property was 98%
occupied at securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 74%
and 1.54X, respectively, compared to 76% and 1.50X at the last
review.


COMM 2013-CCRE10: Moody's Cuts Rating on Class F Debt to B3(sf)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on thirteen
classes and downgraded the ratings on two classes in COMM
2013-CCRE10 Mortgage Trust:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-SB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-3FL, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3FX, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-M, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aa3
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed A3
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Baa3
(sf)

Cl. E, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed
Ba2 (sf)

Cl. F, Downgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed
B2 (sf)

Cl. PEZ, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed A1
(sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The ratings on two P&I classes, Classes E and F, were downgraded
due to higher anticipated losses as a result of the further decline
in performance of the loan in special servicing.

The rating on the IO class, Class X-A, was affirmed based on the
credit quality of the referenced classes.

The rating on the PEZ class was affirmed based on the weighted
average rating factor (WARF) of the exchangeable classes..

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 5.2% of the
current balance, compared to 4.2% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 5.3% of the original
pooled balance, compared to 4.1% at the last review. Moody's
provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit and
fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Approach to
Rating US and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in December
2014. The principal methodology used in rating the exchangeable
class, Cl. PEZ was "Moody's Approach to Rating Repackaged
Securities" published in June 2015.

Additionally, the methodology used in rating Cl. X-A was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the June 12, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 4.9% to $961.2
million from $1.01 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 59 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 10.4% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 49.2% of the pool. Two loans, constituting
15.4% of the pool, have investment-grade structured credit
assessments. Two loans, constituting 2.4% of the pool, have
defeased and are secured by US government securities.

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 27, compared to 28 at Moody's last review.

Eleven loans, constituting 22.5% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

One loan, constituting 1.8% of the pool, is currently in special
servicing. The specially serviced loan is the Strata Estate Suites
Loan ($17.1 million -- 1.8% of the pool), which is secured by two
multifamily properties located in North Dakota, one in Williston,
ND and one in Watford, ND. The two properties, which total
134-units were transferred to the special servicer in February 2014
for payment default. Prior to the special servicer taking over the
asset, the prior sponsor was operating the assets like extended
stay hotels. Class G (not rated by Moody's) has already experienced
a $2.9 million realized loss as a result of reimbursement from
principal proceeds of non-receoverable advances related to this
loan. Moody's anticipates a significant loss on this specially
serviced loan.

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 86% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results for 94% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 96%, compared to 95% 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 14% 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 1.56X and 1.13X,
respectively, compared to 1.62X and 1.16X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The largest loan with a structured credit assessment is the One
Wilshire Loan ($100.0 million -- 10.4% of the pool), which
represents a pari passu component of a $180.0 million first
mortgage loan. The loan is secured by a 663,000 square-foot (SF)
Class A office building and colocation center located in Los
Angeles, California. The building operated as a traditional office
building until 1992, when the building was converted to a
telecommunications building through installation of infrastructure
necessary to attract telecommunication companies. The building is
recognized as the primary communications hub connecting North
America and Asia, the most significant point of interconnection in
the western United States, and one of the top three network
interconnections points in the world. Moody's structured credit
assessment and stressed DSCR are a1 (sca.pd) and 1.59X,
respectively.

The second largest loan with a structured credit assessment is the
Raytheon & DirectTV Buildings Loan ($48.4 million -- 5.0% of the
pool), which is secured by three office buildings located in El
Segundo, California, in close proximity to Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX). Two of the three buildings are 100%
leased to Raytheon and one building is 100% leased to DirectTV.
Raytheon operates their Space and Airborne Systems (SAS) testing
facility at the properties and DirectTV's space is part of their
corporate headquarters complex. Moody's structured credit
assessment and stressed DSCR are baa1 (sca.pd) and 1.63X,
respectively.

The top three conduit loans represent 15.4% of the pool balance.
The largest loan is the RHP Portfolio IV Loan ($53.6 million --
5.6% of the pool), which is secured by a portfolio of five
manufactured housing communities located across four states:
Florida (2), Kansas (1), New York (1), and Utah (1). The sponsors
for the loan are Northstar Realty Finance Corporation and RHP. RHP
is one of the largest operators of manufactured housing communities
in the United States. The portfolio was 85% leased as of December
2016. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 112% and 0.88X,
respectively, compared to 114% and 0.87X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the RHP Portfolio V Loan ($52.1 million
-- 5.4% of the pool), which is secured by a portfolio of seven
manufactured housing communities located across four states:
Florida (2), Kansas (1), New York (1), and Utah (3). The sponsors
for the loan are Northstar Realty Finance Corporation and RHP. The
portfolio was 75% leased as of December 2016. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 110% and 0.89X, respectively, compared to 112%
and 0.87X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Brighton Town Square Loan ($42.6
million -- 4.4% of the pool), which is secured by a 328,000 SF
mixed-use power center located in Brighton, Michigan, approximately
20 miles north of Ann Arbor and 45 miles northwest of Detroit. The
property is comprised of a 236,000 SF retail component and 91,500
SF office component. Major tenants at the property include Home
Depot, MJR Theatre, and the University of Michigan, which operates
a medical office at the property. The collateral is also
shadow-anchored by a Target. The property was 95% leased as of
December 2016. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 112% and 0.95X,
respectively, compared to 105% and 1.01X at the last review.


COMM 2013-CCRE8: Moody's Affirms B3(sf) Rating on Cl. X-C Debt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on fifteen
classes in COMM 2013-CCRE8 Mortgage Trust:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 28, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 28, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 28, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 28, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-5, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 28, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-M, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 28, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-SBFL, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 28, 2016 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-SBFX, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 28, 2016 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Apr 28, 2016 Affirmed Aa3
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on Apr 28, 2016 Affirmed A3
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Apr 28, 2016 Affirmed Baa3
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Apr 28, 2016 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Apr 28, 2016 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 28, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. X-C, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Apr 28, 2016 Affirmed B3
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The ratings on the IO classes were affirmed based on the credit
quality of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 2.5% of the
current balance, compared to 2.7% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.4% of the original
pooled balance, compared to 2.7% at the last review. Moody's
provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit and
fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

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

Additionally, the methodology used in rating Cl. X-A and Cl. X-C
was "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only
(IO) Securities" published in June 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the June 12, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 5% to $1.32 billion
from $1.38 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 59 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 16% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 56% of the pool. Two loans, constituting
20% of the pool, have investment-grade structured credit
assessments. Five loans, constituting 8% of the pool, have defeased
and are secured by US government securities.

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 17, compared to 19 at Moody's last review.

Two loans, constituting 2% 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.

There have been no loans liquidated from the pool. Three loans,
constituting 2% of the pool, are currently in special servicing.
The largest specially serviced loan is the Georgetown MHC Portfolio
($9.6 million), which is secured by a 502-pad manufactured housing
community in Georgetown, Kentucky, located just outside the city of
Lexington. The loan transferred to special servicing in March 2014
due to delinquency. The property was 73% occupied as of February
2017, down from 97% at securitization. The loan is currently REO.

The remaining two specially serviced loans are secured by a mix of
property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $8.1 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (55% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for two poorly
performing loans, constituting 2% of the pool, and has estimated an
aggregate loss of $4.2 million (a 20% 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 92% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 100%, compared to 101% at Moody's
last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 15% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.1%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.60X and 1.04X,
respectively, compared to 1.59X and 1.03X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The largest loan with a structured credit assessment is the 375
Park Avenue Loan ($209 million -- 16% of the pool), which
represents a participation interest in a $418 million senior
mortgage loan. The loan is secured by the Seagram Building, a class
A trophy, landmark office tower located in Midtown Manhattan. The
building has 38 stories with a net rentable area (NRA) of
approximately 830,928 square feet. The property was 94% leased as
of November 30, 2016, compared to 88% leased at December 2015. The
loan is also encumbered by a $364.8 million B note and $217.3
million of mezzanine debt. Moody's structured credit assessment and
stressed DSCR are aaa (sca.pd) and 1.64X, respectively.

The second largest loan with a structured credit assessment is the
Paramount Building Loan ($55 million -- 4% of the pool), which
represents a participation interest in a $130 million mortgage
loan. The loan is secured by a 31-story, Class A office property in
the Times Square section of Midtown Manhattan. The property was
originally constructed in 1926 and received a major overhaul in
2006. The property incudes ground floor retail space leased to
national retail and restaurant tenants. Moody's structured credit
assessment and stressed DSCR are aaa (sca.pd) and 1.67X.

The top three conduit loans represent 19% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Moffett Towers Phase II Loan ($115 million --
9% of the pool), which is secured by three, eight-story, Class A
suburban office properties in Sunnyvale, California. The properties
were 100% occupied as of October 2016, the same as at last review
and compared to 91% at securitization. The two tenants occupying
the property are the Hewlett-Packard Company and a subsidiary of
Amazon.com, Inc. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 107% and 0.94X,
respectively, unchanged from the prior review.

The second largest loan is the 175 Park Avenue Loan ($71 million --
5% of the pool). The loan is secured by a 270,000 square foot,
Class A, suburban office property in Madison, New Jersey. The
property was originally built in 1971 and was extensively renovated
into the headquarters office for Realogy Holdings Corporation, a
real estate conglomerate. Realogy occupies 100% of the property
under a lease set to expire in March 2030, six years after
scheduled loan maturity. After an initial interest-only period, the
loan is now amortizing. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 101% and
1.05X, respectively, compared to 100% and 1.03X at the last
review.

The third largest loan is the Westin San Diego Loan ($65.6 million
-- 5% of the pool). The loan is secured by a 27-story, 436-room,
full service hotel property in downtown San Diego, California. The
hotel property is part of a larger, mixed use development which
contains non-collateral components, including condominium
residences and offices. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 92% and,
1.2X, respectively, compared to 94% and, 1.17X at the last review.


CSAIL 2017-C8: DBRS Assigns Prov. BB(sf) Ratings to Class E Debt
----------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. on June 14, 2017, assigned provisional ratings to the
followings classes of Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2017-C8 (the Certificates) to be issued by
CSAIL 2017-C8 Commercial Mortgage Trust:

-- Class A-1 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-2 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-3 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-4 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-SB at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-A at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-S at AAA (sf)
-- Class B at AA (sf)
-- Class X-B at A (high) (sf)
-- Class C at A (sf)
-- Class D at BBB (sf)
-- Class E at BB (sf)
-- Class F at B (high) (sf)
-- Class 85BD-A at AA (low) (sf)
-- Class 85BD-B at A (low) (sf)
-- Class 85BD-X at BBB (sf)
-- Class 85BD-C at BBB (low) (sf)

All trends are Stable.

Classes D, E, F, NR, 85BD-A, 85BD-B, 85BD-X and 85BD-C will be
privately placed. The Class X-A, X-B and 85BD-X balances are
notional.

Classes 85BD-A, 85BD-B, 85BD-X and 85BD-C are non-pooled rake bonds
backed by the non-pooled $72.0 million 85 Broad Street A-B note.
The loan's non-pooled $58.8 million B-A note and $58.8 million B-B
note are subordinate to both the rake bonds and the $169.0 million
pooled A-note.

The collateral consists of 32 fixed-rate loans secured by 55
commercial and multifamily properties. The transaction is a
sequential-pay pass-through structure. Trust assets contributed
from four loans, representing 27.6% of the pool, are shadow-rated
investment grade by DBRS. Proceeds for each shadow-rated loan are
floored at their respective rating within the pool. When 27.6% of
the pool has no proceeds assigned below the rated floor, the
resulting pool subordination is diluted or reduced below the rated
floor. The conduit pool was analyzed to determine the provisional
ratings, reflecting the long-term probability of loan default
within the term and its liquidity at maturity. When the cut-off
loan balances were measured against the DBRS Stabilized NCF and
their respective actual constants, three loans, representing 4.9%
of the total pool, had a DBRS Term debt service coverage ratio
(DSCR) below 1.15 times (x), a threshold indicative of a higher
likelihood of mid-term default. Additionally, to assess refinance
risk given the current low interest rate environment, DBRS applied
its refinance constants to the balloon amounts. This resulted in 15
loans, representing 59.1% of the pool, having refinance DSCRs below
1.00x, and ten loans totaling 47.3% of the pool with refinance
DSCRs below 0.90x.

Four loans, representing 27.6% of the transaction balance, exhibit
credit characteristics consistent with an investment-grade shadow
rating: 85 Broad Street (AA (low)), Apple Sunnyvale ("A"), Urban
Union Amazon (AAA) and 71 Fifth Avenue (AAA). Additionally, 14
loans, totaling 61.0% of the pool, have a DBRS Term DSCR in excess
of 1.50x. This includes seven of the largest ten loans. Based
solely on A-note balances, the DBRS Term DSCR significantly
increases to a robust 1.93x. Even when excluding the four loans
shadow-rated investment grade, the majority of which have large
pieces of subordinate mortgage debt held outside the trust, the
deal continues to display a favorable DBRS Term DSCR of 1.59x.
Eight loans, representing 44.9% of the pool, are located in urban
markets, which benefit from consistent investor demand and
increased liquidity even in times of stress. Furthermore, five of
these loans, totaling 32.6% of the transaction balance, are
considered to be located in Super Dense Urban markets that DBRS
defines as gateway locations with extremely high liquidity and low
cap rates. Urban markets represented in the deal include New York,
Los Angeles, Seattle and Portland. Only four loans, comprising 3.6%
of the pool, are considered to be located in tertiary/rural
markets.

The pool is concentrated based on loan size, property type and
geography. The largest five and ten loans total 41.3% and 62.9% of
the pool, respectively, and the pool has a concentration profile
equivalent to that of 18.7 equal-sized loans. Furthermore, 52.4% of
the properties (by allocated loan balance) are concentrated in just
two states: New York and California. Lastly, the pool is highly
concentrated by property type, as the office concentration is high
at 47.8% of the pool, based on DBRS classification, which does not
break out mixed-use assets. A concentration penalty was applied
given the pool's lack of diversity, which increases each loan's
probability of default. While the transaction is concentrated in
the largest ten loans, three of these loans (85 Broad Street, Apple
Sunnyvale and Urban Union Amazon), totaling 24.5% of the pool and
just over half of the office concentration, are shadow-rated
investment grade by DBRS. In addition, six of the top ten loans, or
39.3% of the pool, are located in Urban or Super Dense Urban
markets that benefit from steep investor demand.

The transaction's weighted-average (WA) DBRS Refi DSCR of 0.97x
indicates higher refinance risk at an overall pool level. There is
an elevated concentration of loans that exhibit refinance risk.
Fifteen loans, representing 59.1% of the pool, have DBRS Refi DSCRs
below 1.00x. Ten of these loans, comprising 47.3% of the pool, have
DBRS Refi DSCRs below 0.90x. However, these credit metrics are
based on whole loan balances. Four of the loans with a DBRS Refi
DSCR below 0.90x (85 Broad Street, 245 Park Avenue, Apple Sunnyvale
and Urban Union Amazon), representing 34.3% of the pool, have large
pieces of subordinate mortgage debt outside the trust. Based on
A-note balances only, the deal's WA DBRS Refi DSCR increases
drastically to 1.15x, and the concentration of loans with DBRS Refi
DSCRs below 1.00x and 0.90x reduces to 34.7% and 22.8%,
respectively. The DBRS Refi DSCRs for these loans are based on a WA
stressed refinance constant of 9.67%, which implies an interest
rate of 9.09% amortizing on a 30-year schedule. This represents a
significant stress of 4.60% and is more than double the WA
contractual interest rate of the loans in the pool.

The DBRS sample included 22 of the 32 loans in the pool. Site
inspections were performed on 32 of the 55 properties in the
portfolio (85.9% of the pool by allocated loan balance). The DBRS
sample had an average NCF variance of -8.7% and ranged from -18.6%
(245 Park Avenue) to +14.1% (71 Fifth Avenue).


CSMC TRUST 2017-CHOP: S&P Assigns Prelim. B- Rating on Cl. F Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to CSMC Trust
2017-CHOP's $780.0 million commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2017-CHOP.

The issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed securities transaction
backed by one two-year, floating-rate commercial mortgage loan
totaling $780.0 million, with three one-year extension options,
secured by the fee simple interest in 28 limited-service and 18
extended-stay hotels and leasehold interests in one limited-service
and one extended-stay hotel property.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of June 15,
2017.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

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

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

CSMC Trust 2017-CHOP  

Class       Rating          Amount ($)
A           AAA (sf)       210,500,000
X-CP        AAA sf)         54,500,000(i)
X-EXT       AAA (sf)        54,500,000(i)
B           AA- (sf)        69,000,000
C           A- (sf)         51,200,000
D           BBB- (sf)       67,800,000
E           BB- (sf)        81,500,000
F           B- (sf)        119,900,000
G           NR              70,400,000
H           NR              70,400,000
HRR         NR              39,300,000

(i)Notional balance.  The notional amount of the class X-CP and
X-EXT certificates will be reduced by the aggregate amount of
principal distributions and realized losses allocated to the class
A2 portion of the class A certificates.  
NR--Not rated.



CSMC TRUST 2017-HL1: Fitch to Rate Class B-5 Certificates 'Bsf'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings expects to rate CSMC 2017-HL1 Trust (CSMC 2017-HL1)
as follows:

-- $435,178,000 class A-1 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $435,178,000 class A-2 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $326,383,000 class A-3 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $326,383,000 class A-4 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $21,758,000 class A-5 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $21,758,000 class A-6 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $87,037,000 class A-7 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $87,037,000 class A-8 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $49,406,000 class A-9 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $49,406,000 class A-10 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $348,141,000 class A-11 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $108,795,000 class A-12 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $348,141,000 class A-13 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $108,795,000 class A-14 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $484,584,000 class A-IO1 notional certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $435,178,000 class A-IO2 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $326,383,000 class A-IO3 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $21,758,000 class A-IO4 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $87,037,000 class A-IO5 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $49,406,000 class A-IO6 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $7,936,000 class B-1 certificates 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $8,960,000 class B-2 certificates 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $5,119,000 class B-3 certificates 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $2,304,000 class B-4 certificates 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $1,741,000 class B-5 certificates 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

The following class will not be rated by Fitch:

-- $1,331,048 class B-6 certificates.

The notes are supported by one collateral group that consists of
850 prime fixed-rate mortgages (FRMs) acquired by subsidiaries of
American International Group, Inc. (AIG) from various mortgage
originators with a total balance of approximately $511.98 million
of the cut-off date.

The 'AAAsf' rating on the class A notes reflects the 5.35%
subordination provided by the 1.55% class B-1, 1.75% class B-2,
1.00% class B-3, 0.45% class B-4, 0.34% class B-5 and 0.26% class
B-6 notes.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

High-Quality Mortgage Pool (Positive): The collateral attributes
are among the strongest of those rated by Fitch. The pool consists
of 30-year fixed-rate fully amortizing Safe Harbor Qualified
Mortgage (SHQM) loans to borrowers with strong credit profiles,
relatively low leverage and large liquid reserves. The loans are
seasoned an average of 15 months.

The pool has a weighted average (WA) original FICO score of 779
which is higher than any transaction rated by Fitch post crisis and
is indicative of very high credit-quality borrowers. Approximately
53% of the borrowers have original FICO scores at or above 780. In
addition, the original WA CLTV ratio of 73.8% represents
substantial borrower equity in the property and reduced default
probability.

New Aggregator (Neutral): AIG is a global insurance corporation
that previously has not participated in the issuance of RMBS. In
2013, AIG established the Residential Mortgage Lending (RML) group
to establish relationships with mortgage originators and acquire
prime jumbo loans on behalf of funds owned by AIG. Fitch conducted
a full review of AIG's aggregation processes and believes that AIG
meets industry standards needed to aggregate mortgages for
residential mortgage-backed securitization. In addition to the
satisfactory operational assessment, a due diligence review was
completed on 100% of the pool.

Third-Party Due Diligence Results (Positive): A loan-level due
diligence reviews was conducted on 100% of the pool in accordance
with Fitch's criteria, and focused on credit, compliance and
property valuation. 22% of the loans received an 'A' grade, and the
remainder were graded 'B' (77.3%) and 'C' (0.7%). The loans that
were graded 'B' and 'C' were due to nonmaterial findings and
contained compensating factors such as large reserves, low LTV, low
DTIs and high FICOs. In Fitch's view, the results of the diligence
indicate acceptable controls and adherence to underwriting
guidelines, and no adjustment was made to the expected losses.

Top Tier Representation and Warranty Framework (Positive): Fitch
considers the transaction's representation, warranty and
enforcement (RW&E) mechanism framework to be consistent with Tier I
quality. As a result of the Tier I RW&E framework and the 'A'
Fitch-rated counterparty supporting the repurchase obligations of
the RW&E providers, the pool received a PD credit of 43 basis
points at the 'AAAsf' level.

Straightforward Deal Structure (Positive): The mortgage cash flow
and loss allocation are based on a senior-subordinate,
shifting-interest structure, whereby the subordinate classes
receive only scheduled principal and are locked out from receiving
unscheduled principal or prepayments for five years. The lockout
feature helps maintain subordination for a longer period should
losses occur later in the life of the deal. The applicable credit
support percentage feature redirects subordinate principal to
classes of higher seniority if specified credit enhancement (CE)
levels are not maintained.

CE Floor (Positive): To mitigate tail risk, which arises as the
pool seasons and fewer loans are outstanding, a subordination floor
of 1.00% of the original balance will be maintained for the
certificates. Additionally, there is no early stepdown test that
might allow principal prepayments to subordinate bondholders
earlier than the five-year lockout schedule.

Geographic Concentration (Neutral): Approximately 36.7% of the pool
is located in California, which is in line or slightly lower than
recent Fitch rated transactions. In addition, the Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) concentration is minimal, as the top three
MSAs account for only 28% of the pool. As a result, no geographic
concentration penalty was applied.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch's analysis incorporates sensitivity analyses to demonstrate
how the ratings would react to steeper market value declines (MVDs)
than assumed at both the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and
national levels. The implied rating sensitivities are only an
indication of some of the potential outcomes and do not consider
other risk factors that the transaction may become exposed to or be
considered in the surveillance of the transaction.

Fitch conducted sensitivity analysis determining how the ratings
would react to steeper MVDs at the national level. The analysis
assumes MVDs of 10%, 20%, and 30%, in addition to the
model-projected 5.8%. The analysis indicates there is some
potential rating migration with higher MVDs, compared with the
model projection.

Fitch also conducted sensitivities to determine the stresses to
MVDs that would reduce a rating by one full category, to
non-investment grade, and to 'CCCsf'.


DEUTSCHE BANK 2011-LC3: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class F Certs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed Deutsche Bank Securities (DBUBS)
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2011-LC3.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations reflect overall stable performance of the pool
since issuance and increased credit enhancement in light of
increasing concentrations. As of the May 2017 distribution date,
the pooled aggregate principal balance has been reduced by 58.2% to
$584.9 million. Six loans (27.1% of the pool) are on the master
servicer's watchlist due to declining performance due to tenants
vacating and or deferred maintenance; five (12.3%) are considered
Fitch Loans of Concern. Five loans (8.4%) are defeased.

Increased Credit Enhancement: Overall stable pool performance since
issuance. The transaction has paid down 58.2% and credit
enhancement continues to increase. Two loans (8%) are fully
defeased.

Retail Concentration: The transaction has a high retail
concentration (52% of the pool), which includes nine of the top 15
loans (three of which are regional malls). Overall, cash flow has
been relatively stable for the majority of the retail properties in
the pool; however, the three regional malls have shown recent
declines in performance. There are growing concerns that
sustainability of present cash flow levels may become increasingly
difficult given current pressures on the retail sector.
Additionally, many of the retail properties in the pool have
exposure to anchor tenants Macy's JC Penney's and Sears, are
located in secondary/suburban markets, and have near-term rollover,
and single tenant exposure. Fitch analysis reflects concerns
surrounding the pool's retail component.

Pool Concentrations: Of the original pool of 43 loans, 25 loans
remain as of the May 2017 distribution date. The largest loan
represents 18% of the pool; the largest three loans, 41%; the
largest 10 loans, 77%; and the largest 15 loans, 89.6%

Limited Upcoming Maturities: One loan (8%) of the pool matures in
October 2017. The remaining loans (92% of the pool) mature in
2021.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Rating Outlooks on the remaining classes are Stable due to the
overall stable performance. Although credit enhancement has
increased, upgrades may be limited due increasing pool
concentrations and higher retail exposure. Fitch's analysis
included an additional sensitivity test to address the
concentration and retail exposure. Downgrades are considered
unlikely, but are possible should there be any significant
performance declines.

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:

-- $53.2 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $112.1 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $127.6 million class A-M at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Interest-only class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $75.2 million class B at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $54.2 million class C at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $73.4 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $19.2 million class E at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $19.2 million class F at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $122.0 million class PM-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Interest-only class PM-X at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $32.9 million class PM-2 at 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $28.9 million class PM-3 at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $26.5 million class PM-4 at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $20.9 million class PM-5 at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable.

Classes PM-1 through PM-5 are secured by Providence Place Mall on a
stand-alone basis. Performance of the mall has been stable since
issuance. The class A-1 and A-2 certificates have paid in full.
Fitch does not rate the class G certificates.


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

The rating actions reflect the 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 expectations down for series 2015-A and 2015-B
as these vintages are performing slightly better than its 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 our initial loss expectations for series 2015-C
and 2015-D as these vintages are performing in line with its
initial expectations.

Table 1
Collateral Performance (%)
As of the June 2017 distribution date

                   Pool   Current    60+ day
Series     Mo.   factor       CNL    delinq.
2015-A     27     36.34     15.67       8.67
2015-B     25     39.93     13.47       8.00
2015-C     23     41.62     14.77       8.65
2015-D     21     45.79     13.77       8.16

CNL--Cumulative net loss.

Table 2
CNL Expectations (%)

             Initial expected        Revised expected
Series       lifetime CNL (%)        lifetime CNL (%)
2015-A            27.00-28.00             26.50-27.50
2015-B            27.00-28.00             26.00-27.00
2015-C            27.00-28.00             27.00-28.00
2015-D            27.00-28.00             27.00-28.00

CNL--Cumulative net loss.

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 non-amortizing reserve account,
overcollateralization, subordination for the higher-rated tranches,
and excess spread.  The credit enhancement for each of the
transactions is at the specified target, and each class' credit
support continues to increase as a percentage of the amortizing
collateral balance.

In addition, the overcollateralization for all four 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 June 2017
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 June 2017 distribution date

                    Total hard               Current
                        credit            total hard
                    support at     credit support(i)
Series    Class    issuance(i)        (% of current)
2015-A    C              37.00                 65.52
2015-A    D              27.00                 38.00
2015-B    C              37.00                 71.59
2015-B    D              27.00                 46.54
2015-B    E              21.00                 31.51
2015-C    C              37.00                 69.74
2015-C    D              27.00                 45.72
2015-C    E              21.00                 31.30
2015-D    B              52.95                 99.18
2015-D    C              35.00                 59.98
2015-D    D              25.00                 38.14

(i)Calculated as a percentage of the total 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 S&P's stress scenarios for each of the rated
classes.

RATINGS RAISED

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

RATINGS AFFIRMED

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


DRIVE AUTO 2017-1: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Cl. E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Drive Auto
Receivables Trust 2017-1's $1.110 billion automobile
receivables-backed notes series 2017-1.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of June 15,
2017.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

   -- The availability of 65.9%, 59.3%, 49.3%, 39.0% and 36.3% of
      credit support for the class A (consisting of classes A-1,
      A-2, and A-3), B, C, D, and E notes, respectively, based on
      stressed cash flow scenarios (including excess spread),
      which provide coverage of more than 2.35x, 2.10x, 1.70x,
      1.35x, and 1.25x for S&P's 27.00%-28.00% expected cumulative

      net loss (CNL).  These break-even scenarios cover total
      cumulative gross defaults of 94%, 85%, 70%, 60% and 56%,
      respectively.

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

   -- The expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
      scenario (1.35x S&P's expected loss level), all else being
      equal, its ratings on the class A and B notes ('AAA (sf)'
      and 'AA (sf)', respectively) will remain at the assigned
      preliminary ratings, S&P's rating on the class C notes ('A
      (sf)') will remain within one category of the assigned
      preliminary rating, and S&P's rating on the class D notes
      ('BBB (sf)') will remain within two rating categories of the

      assigned preliminary rating while they are outstanding.  The

      class E 'BB (sf)' rated notes will remain within two rating
      categories of the assigned preliminary rating during the
      first year, but will eventually default under the 'BBB'
      stress scenario, after having received 46%-86% of their
      principal.  These rating movements are within the limits
      specified by our credit stability criteria.

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

   -- S&P's analysis of 10 years of static pool data on Santander
      Consumer USA Inc.'s (SC's) lending programs.

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

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2017-B  
Class    Rating       Type            Interest   Prelim. amount
                                      rate(i)       (mil. $)(i)
A-1      A-1+ (sf)    Senior          Fixed              141.00
A-2-A    AAA (sf)     Senior          Fixed              120.00
A-2-B    AAA (sf)     Senior          Float              120.00
A-3      AAA (sf)     Senior          Fixed              111.92
B        AA (sf)      Subordinate     Fixed              159.00
C        A (sf)       Subordinate     Fixed              207.40
D        BBB (sf)     Subordinate     Fixed              187.36
E        BB (sf)      Subordinate     Fixed               63.60

(i)The tranches' coupons and sizing will be determined on the
pricing date.


ELLINGTON CLO I: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class C Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to three classes of
notes issued by Ellington CLO I, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

US$187,500,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2027
(the "Class A Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$56,000,000 Class B Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2027 (the "Class B Notes"), Assigned Baa2 (sf)

US$41,250,000 Class C Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2027 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

The Class A Notes, the Class B Notes, and the Class C Notes are
referred to herein 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.

Ellington CLO I is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will
be collateralized primarily by senior secured corporate loans. At
least 82.5% of the portfolio must consist of senior secured loans,
and up to 17.5% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans
and unsecured loans. The portfolio is approximately 83% ramped as
of the closing date.

Ellington CLO 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 two year
reinvestment period. After the end of the reinvestment period, no
additional asset purchases are permitted. Proceeds from the sale
and prepayment of assets will be used to amortize the notes in
sequential order. This is the Manager's first CLO.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer issued one class of
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: $375,000,000

Diversity Score: 28

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 4575

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 5.20%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 38.5%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 6.0 years.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

Factors That Would Lead to 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 4575 to 5261)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: 0

Class C Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 4575 to 5948)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -2

Class B Notes: -1

Class C Notes: 0


FIGUEROA CLO 2013-2: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Cl. D-R Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class X-R, A-1R,
A-2R, B-R, C-R, and D-R replacement notes from Figueroa CLO 2013-2
Ltd., a U.S. collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction
managed by TCW Asset Management Co.  S&P withdrew its ratings on
the original class A-1, A-2, B, C, and D notes following payment in
full on the June 20, 2017, refinancing date.

On the June 20, 2017, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
replacement note issuances were used to redeem the original class
A-1, A-2, B, C, and D 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 are assigning ratings
to the replacement notes.

The replacement notes are being issued via a supplemental indenture
and a restated indenture.  In addition to outlining the terms of
the replacement notes, the restated indenture outlines these:

   -- The replacement class A-1R, A-2R, and B-R notes will be
      issued at lower spreads than the original notes, and the
      replacement class C-R and D-R notes will be issued at higher

      spreads than the original notes.

   -- The class X-R note will be paid down by $250,000 per quarter

      from the interest waterfall.  The proceeds of the X-R note
      issuance will be used to reinvest.

   -- The non-call period, the reinvestment period, and the stated

      maturity will be extended to June 2018, June 2019, and June
      2027, respectively.  The weighted average life test has also

      been extended.

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 S&P's
criteria, its cash flow scenarios applied forward-looking
assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of defaults, and
recoveries upon default, under various interest rate and
macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition, S&P's analysis considered
the transaction's ability to pay timely interest or ultimate
principal, or both, to each of the rated tranches.

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

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

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Figueroa CLO 2013-2 Ltd.

Replacement class    Rating          Amount (mil $)
X-R                  AAA (sf)                  2.00
A-1R                 AAA (sf)                245.00
A-2R                 AA (sf)                  48.00
B-R                  A (sf)                   25.50
C-R                  BBB (sf)                 20.50
D-R                  BB (sf)                  18.00
Equity               NR                       43.00

RATINGS WITHDRAWN
Figueroa CLO 2013-2 Ltd.

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

NR--Not rated.


FRANKLIN CLO VI: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on the class B, C, and D
notes from Franklin CLO VI Ltd.  S&P also removed the class B and C
ratings from CreditWatch, where S&P placed them with positive
implications on March 2017.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its
ratings on the class A and E notes from the same transaction.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the April 2017 trustee report.

The upgrades reflect the transaction's $204.43 million in paydowns
to the class A notes since S&P's June 2014 rating actions.  These
paydowns resulted in improved reported overcollateralization (O/C)
ratios since the May 2014 trustee report, which S&P used for its
last rating actions:

   -- The class A/B O/C ratio improved to 158.85% from 124.74%.
   -- The class C O/C ratio improved to 133.53% from 116.28%.
   -- The class D O/C ratio improved to 117.88% from 110.05%.
   -- The class E O/C ratio improved to 108.51% from 105.89%.

The collateral portfolio's credit quality has deteriorated since
S&P's last rating actions.  Collateral obligations with ratings in
the 'CCC' category have increased, with $13.53 million reported as
of the April 2017 trustee report, compared with $4.61 million
reported as of the May 2014 trustee report.  However, despite the
slightly larger concentrations in the 'CCC' category, the
transaction has benefited from a drop in the weighted average life
due to underlying collateral's seasoning, with 2.69 years reported
as of the April 2017 trustee report, compared with 4.51 years
reported at the time of S&P's May 2014 rating actions.

On a standalone basis, the results of the cash flow analysis
indicated higher ratings on the class C, D and E notes.  However,
in addition to having increased exposure to 'CCC' rated collateral
obligations, the transaction's exposure to long-dated (i.e., assets
that mature after the CLO's stated maturity) has increased
significantly.  According to the April 2017 trustee report, the
balance of collateral with a maturity date after the transaction's
stated maturity totaled $29.09 million (19.27% of the portfolio).
S&P's analysis took into account the potential market value risk
and settlement-related risk arising from the possible liquidation
of the remaining securities on the transaction's legal final
maturity date.

S&P's ratings on the class C, D, and E notes are constrained at
'AA+ (sf)','BB+ (sf)', and 'CCC+ (sf)', respectively, by the
application of the largest obligor default test from S&P's
corporate collateralized debt obligation criteria.  The test is
intended to address event and model risks that might be present in
rated transactions.  The top five-largest obligors in the
transaction currently account for more than 24% of the portfolio's
performing collateral balance.  Also, there are only 29 unique
obligors remaining in the portfolio indicating significant
concentration risk.  Despite this test capping the rating on the
class E notes at 'CCC+ (sf)', S&P do not feel that this class
currently demonstrates S&P's definition of CCC credit risk.

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

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

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

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH POSITIVE

Franklin CLO VI Ltd
                  Rating
Class         To          From
B             AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C             AA+ (sf)    A+ (sf)/Watch Pos

RATING RAISED

Franklin CLO VI Ltd
                  Rating
Class         To          From
Class D       BBB+ (sf)   BBB (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Franklin CLO VI Ltd
Class         Rating
A             AAA (sf)
E             B+ (sf)


GE BUSINESS 2007-1: S&P Raises Rating on Cl. D Notes to 'BB+'
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its ratings on two classes, raised its
rating on one class, and affirmed its rating on one class from GE
Business Loan Trust 2007-1.

The deals are asset-backed securities transactions backed by
payments from small business loans primarily collateralized by
first liens on commercial real estate.  The transactions distribute
principal payments on a pro rata basis, with principal payments
distributed to the rated classes based on set percentages.

The downgrades reflect insufficient credit enhancement at their
respective rating levels.  The decreasing portfolio size and
increase in obligor concentrations contributed to a higher
projected default rate while pool performance has been stable.

In addition to supplemental tests, S&P's analysis also considered
the increased concentration in loans greater than $5 million and
balloon loans in the underlying portfolio.  S&P ran additional
scenarios to address these factors.

The affirmed ratings reflect the adequate credit support available
at the current rating levels.  The raised ratings reflect the
increased credit support available.

Since S&P's May 2014 rating actions, this transaction has paid down
to approximately 20.4% of its original outstanding balance. There
are 97 loans remaining in the pool, according to the April 2017
servicer report.  The five largest obligors represent approximately
20% of the pool, up from 14% in the March 2014 servicer report, and
the 10 largest represent approximately 34% of the pool, up from
approximately 22%.  There were no delinquent or defaulted loans in
the pool as of the April 2017 servicer report, down from 1.9% in
the March 2014 servicer report.  The reserve account's current
balance is $14.9 million, which is its requisite amount. Pool
performance has been stable with a cumulative realized loss to the
trust of approximately 2.3% of the original pool balance.

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

RATINGS LOWERED

GE Business Loan Trust 2007-1
Class         To         From
A             A- (sf)    A+ (sf)
B             A- (sf)    A (sf)

RATING RAISED

GE Business Loan Trust 2007-1
Class         To         From
D             BB+ (sf)   B+ (sf)

RATING AFFIRMED

GE Business Loan Trust 2007-1
Class         Rating       
C             BBB+ (sf)


GLS AUTO 2017-1: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Class D Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to GLS Auto
Receivables Trust 2017-1's $181.65 million automobile
receivables-backed notes series 2017-1.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of June 15,
2017.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

   -- The availability of approximately 49.6%, 41.5%, 33.7%, and
      28.1% of credit support (preliminary pricing) for the class
      A, B, C, and D notes, respectively, based on stressed cash
      flow scenarios (including excess spread, post haircut).
      These credit support levels provide coverage of
      approximately 1.90x, 1.77x, 1.50x, and 1.25x, S&P's 21.00%-
      22.00% expected cumulative net loss (ECNL) for the class A,
      B, C, and D notes, respectively.

   -- The expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
      scenario (1.50x S&P's expected loss level), all else being
      equal, its ratings on the class A notes will remain at the
      assigned preliminary ratings ('A (sf)'), S&P's ratings on
      the B notes will remain within one rating category of the
      assigned preliminary 'A- (sf),' and S&P's ratings on the C
      notes will remain within two rating categories of the
      assigned preliminary 'BBB (sf).'  The class D notes will
      remain within two rating categories of the assigned
      preliminary 'BB (sf)' rating during the first year, but will

      eventually default under the 'BBB' stress scenario, after
      having received 25% of their principal.  These rating
      movements are within the limits specified by S&P's credit
      stability criteria.

   -- S&P's analysis of over four years of origination static pool

      data and performance data on GLS' two securitizations.

   -- The collateral characteristics of the subprime automobile
      loans securitized in this transaction, including the
      representations in the transaction documents that all
      contracts in the pool have made a least one payment.

   -- The notes' underlying credit enhancement in the form of
      subordination, overcollateralization (O/C), a reserve
      account, and excess spread for the class A, B, C, and D
      notes.

   -- The timely interest and principal payments made to the notes

      under S&P's stressed cash flow modeling scenarios, which S&P

      believes is appropriate for the assigned ratings.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

GLS Auto Receivables Trust 2017-1

Class    Rating       Type            Interest   Prelim. amount
                                      rate(i)       (mil. $)(i)
A-1      NR           Senior          Fixed               27.00
A-2      A (sf)       Senior          Fixed              105.63
B        A- (sf)      Subordinate     Fixed               29.23
C        BBB (sf)     Subordinate     Fixed               25.73
D        BB (sf)      Subordinate     Fixed               21.06

(i)The interest rates and actual sizes of these tranches will be
determined on the pricing date.


GOLDMAN SACHS 2011-GC5: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class F Certs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed nine classes of Goldman Sachs Commercial
Mortgage Capital, L.P., series 2011-GC5 commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates.

Fitch has issued a focus report on this transaction. The report
provides a detailed and up-to-date perspective on key credit
characteristics of the GSMS 2011-GC5 transaction and property-level
performance of the related trust loans.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are based on the stable performance of the
underlying collateral. As of the June 2017 distribution date, the
pool's aggregate principal balance has been reduced by 32.5% to
$1.18 billion from $1.75 billion at issuance.

Stable Performance: Overall pool performance remains stable from
issuance. As of YE2016, aggregate pool-level NOI improved 3.4% from
2015. One REO asset representing 1.2% of the pool is in special
servicing.

Paydown and Defeasance: The transaction has paid down 32.5% from
issuance, including the payoff of the third largest loan, Copper
Beech Portfolio. Additionally, six loans (10.7%) have been
defeased, including the fifth largest loan, Shoppes at Chino Hills
(4.7%).

High Retail Concentration and Mall Exposure: Loans backed by retail
properties represent 68.1% of the pool, including seven within the
top 15. Five loans (31.1%) are secured by regional malls with
locations in tertiary markets including Beaumont, TX, Ashland, KY,
and Plattsburgh, NY. Of the five malls, four have exposure to
Sears, JCPenney or Macy's as an anchor tenant.

Transaction Amortization: Of the pool, 75% is structured with
amortization, including 42 amortizing balloon loans (72.5%) and
four partial interest-only loans (2.1%), all of which have
commenced amortization. Four loans (25.3%) are full interest-only
throughout the term including the second largest loan, 1551
Broadway (15.3%).

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Rating Outlooks for all classes remain Stable due to overall stable
performance of the pool and continued amortization. Upgrades may
occur with improved pool performance and additional paydown or
defeasance, although this possibility may be limited due to the
high retail concentration and exposure to regional malls in
tertiary markets. Fitch's analysis includes additional stress
scenarios applied to the regional malls based on sales productivity
where potential losses would be absorbed by the non-rated class.
Downgrades to the classes are possible should a material
asset-level or economic event adversely affect pool performance.

Fitch has affirmed the following classes as indicated:

-- $86.2 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $568.2 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $181.1 million class A-S at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $96 million class B at 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $69.8 million class C at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $74.2 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $28.4 million class E at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $24 million class F at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $835.5 million* class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable.

*Notional amount and interest only.

Classes A-1 and A-2 have paid in full. Fitch does not rate the
class G and X-B certificates.


HIGHBRIDGE LOAN 5-2015: S&P Affirms 'B' Rating on Class F Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-R, B-1-R,
B-2-R, C-1-R, C-2-R, D-1-R, and D-2-R replacement notes from
Highbridge Loan Management 5-2015 Ltd., a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) originally issued in 2015 that is managed by
Highbridge Principal Strategies LLC.  S&P withdrew its ratings on
the original class A, B-1, B-2, C-1, C-2, D-1, and D-2 notes
following payment in full on the June 16, 2017, refinancing date.
At the same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on the class E and F
notes.

On the June 16, 2017, refinancing date, the proceeds from the class
A-R, B-1-R, B-2-R, C-1-R, C-2-R, D-1-R, and D-2-R replacement note
issuances were used to redeem the original class A, B-1, B-2, C-1,
C-2, D-1, and D-2 notes as outlined in the transaction document
provisions.  Therefore, S&P withdrew its ratings on the original
notes in line with their full redemption, and S&P assigned ratings
to the replacement notes.

The replacement notes were issued via a supplemental indenture.
Based on the supplemental indenture and the information provided to
S&P Global Ratings in connection with this review, the replacement
notes were issued at a lower spread over LIBOR than the
corresponding original notes.  There was no change to the
reinvestment period duration, which ends in January 2019, or to the
transaction's legal final maturity date, scheduled for January
2026.  The supplemental indenture did not make other substantive
changes to the transaction.

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 S&P's
criteria, its cash flow scenarios applied forward-looking
assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of defaults, and
recoveries upon default, under various interest rate and
macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition, S&P's analysis considered
the transaction's ability to pay timely interest or ultimate
principal, or both, to each of the rated tranches.

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

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

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Highbridge Loan Management 5-2015 Ltd.
Replacement class          Rating        Amount (mil $)
A-R                        AAA (sf)      309.00
B-1-R                      AA (sf)       60.50
B-2-R                      AA (sf)       8.00
C-1-R                      A (sf)        30.00
C-2-R                      A (sf)        4.00
D-1-R                      BBB (sf)      23.75
D-2-R                      BBB (sf)      4.00

RATINGS AFFIRMED
Highbridge Loan Management 5-2015 Ltd.

Class                      Rating
E                          BB (sf)
F                          B (sf)

RATINGS WITHDRAWN
Highbridge Loan Management 5-2015 Ltd.
                           Rating
Original class       To              From
A                    NR              AAA (sf)
B-1                  NR              AA (sf)
B-2                  NR              AA (sf)
C-1                  NR              A (sf)
C-2                  NR              A (sf)
D-1                  NR              BBB (sf)
D-2                  NR              BBB (sf)

OTHER NOTES OUTSTANDING
Highbridge Loan Management 5-2015 Ltd.
Original class       Rating        Amount (mil $)
Subordinated notes   NR            46.25



HPS LOAN 3-2014: S&P Assigns Prelim. 'B-' Rating on Cl. E-R Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to the class
A-1R, A-2R, B-R, C-R, D-R, and E-R replacement notes from HPS Loan
Management 3-2014 Ltd., a collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
originally issued in 2014 that is managed by HPS Investment
Partners CLO (U.S.) LLC (see list).  The replacement notes will be

issued via a proposed amended indenture.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of June 19,
2017.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

On the July 18, 2017, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
issuance of the replacement notes are expected to redeem the
original notes.  At that time, S&P anticipates withdrawing the
ratings on the original notes and assigning ratings to the
replacement notes.  However, if the refinancing doesn't occur, S&P
may affirm the ratings on the original notes and withdraw its
preliminary ratings on the replacement notes.

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

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

HPS Loan Management 3-2014 Ltd./HPS Loan Management 3-2014 LLC
Replacement class         Rating      Amount (mil. $)
X-R                       NR                     4.00
A-1R                      AAA (sf)             310.00
A-2R                      AA (sf)               68.00
B-R                       A (sf)                32.00
C-R                       BBB (sf)              30.00
D-R                       BB (sf)               20.00
E-R                       B- (sf)                6.00

NR--Not rated.


IMSCI 2012-2: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class G Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed nine classes of Institutional Mortgage
Capital, commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series
2012-2 (IMSCI 2012-2). All currencies are denominated in Canadian
dollars (CAD).

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Overall Stable Performance and Increase in Credit Enhancement: The
pool performance has been stable since Fitch's last rating action.
As of the June 2017 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced 31.4% to $164.7 million from
$240.2 million at issuance with 19 loans remaining. The transaction
paid down by $38.3 million in June 2017, including the payoff of
five defeased loans. There are no full or partial interest only
loans in the pool. There are currently no delinquent or specially
serviced loans and there are four loans (20.2%) on the servicer's
watch list.

Pool Concentrations: The top five, 10 and 15 loans account for
42.6%, 75% and 88.2% of the pool, respectively. There is sponsor
concentration with three loans in the top five (29.5%) with the
same sponsor group, 2668921 Manitoba Ltd and related entities.
Additionally, the pool has three loans (28.8%) backed by properties
in Alberta, which has experienced volatility from the energy sector
in the past few years. Multifamily properties back 42.4% of the
pool while retail-backed loans comprise 36% of the pool.
Canadian Loan Attributes: The ratings reflect strong Canadian
commercial real estate loan performance, including a low
delinquency rate and low historical losses of less than 0.1%, as
well as positive loan attributes such as short amortization
schedules, recourse to the borrower, and additional guarantors.

Loans with Recourse: Of the remaining pool, 81.8% of the loans
feature full or partial recourse to the borrowers and/or sponsors.

The largest Fitch Loan of Concern is Lakewood Apartments (10.2%),
which is secured by a 111-unit apartment building located in Fort
McMurray, Alberta. The loan transferred to special servicing in
February 2016 due to the downturn in the energy markets which is
the main driver of the Fort McMurray economy. In May 2016, the Fort
McMurray area was evacuated due to wildfires. The building did not
sustain structural damage and the sponsor is working to stabilize
operations. However, property level performance remains
significantly below 2012-2013 levels. The loan returned to master
servicing in January 2017 and is scheduled to mature in August
2017. Fitch has requested an update from the servicer regarding
payoff. The loan has full recourse to the borrower, sponsor and
manager.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlook on classes E, F and G are Negative. Downgrades
could be possible if the volatility in energy markets has a
prolonged impact on loan performance and property values and the
ability for loans to refinance. However, any potential losses could
be mitigated by loan recourse provisions. Additionally, if the
Lakewood Apartments loan pays in full, the Outlooks may be revised
to Stable. The Rating Outlooks on the senior classes remain Stable
as the classes have benefited from an increase in credit
enhancement from loan payoffs though upgrades may be limited as the
pool is becoming more concentrated.

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $65.7 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $63 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Interest-only class XP at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $6 million class B at 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $8.4 million class C at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $7.2 million class D at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $3.6 million class E at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $3 million class F* at 'BBsf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $2.4 million class G* at 'Bsf'; Outlook Negative.

* Non-offered certificates.

Fitch does not rate the $5.4 million class H or the interest-only
class XC.


JAMESTOWN CLO X: Moody's Assigns (P)B3(sf) Rating to Cl. E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to eight
classes of notes to be issued by Jamestown CLO X Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

US$4,000,000 Class X Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2029
(the "Class X Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$384,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$72,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2029
(the "Class A-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

US$13,370,000 Class B-1A Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class B-1A Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

US$16,630,000 Class B-1B Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class B-1B Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

US$42,000,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2029 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

US$24,000,000 Class D Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2029 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

U.S.$9,000,000 Class E Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)B3 (sf)

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

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Jamestown CLO X is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will
be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90% of the portfolio must consist
of senior secured loans, cash and eligible investments, and up to
10% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and unsecured
loans. Moody's expects the portfolio to be approximately 80% ramped
as of the closing date.

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

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer will issue one class of
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: $600,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2810

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.60%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

Factors That Would Lead to 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 2810 to 3232)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2 Notes: -2

Class B-1A Notes: -2

Class B-1B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: 0

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2810 to 3653)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2 Notes: -3

Class B-1A Notes: -3

Class B-1B Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -2


JP MORGAN 2007-LDP12: Moody's Cuts Rating on Class X Certs to Ca
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on one class and
downgraded one class in J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage
Securities Trust 2007-LDP12, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-LDP12:

Cl. A-M, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Jun 24, 2016 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Cl. X, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017 Downgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 30.6% of the
current balance, compared to 11.8% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 13.1% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 12.6% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

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

Additionally, the methodology used in rating Cl. X was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the June 15, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 77% to $575.5
million from $2.5 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 68 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 11% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 55% of
the pool. Four loans, constituting 2% of the pool, have defeased
and are secured by US government securities.

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 28 at Moody's last review.

Twenty-eight loans, constituting 51% 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.

Thirty-one loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $151.5 million (for an average loss
severity of 27%). Thirty loans, constituting 43% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced loan
is the Liberty Plaza Loan ($43 million -- 4.8% of the pool), which
is secured by a 372,000 square foot (SF) power center in northeast
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The loan transferred to special
servicing in January 2013 for imminent default. The property became
REO via a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure accepted in July 2013. In
2015 the property lost two major tenants, Walmart and Pathmark. As
of March 2017, the property was 45% leased, the same as in March
2016 and compared to 62% at year-end 2015 and 94% at year-end 2014.
A November 2016 appraisal valued the property at $13 million.

The remaining 29 specially serviced loans are secured by a mix of
property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $153.9 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (61.9% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for one poorly
performing loans, constituting less than 1% of the pool, and has
estimated an aggregate loss of $576 thousand (a 15% expected loss
based on a 50% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results for 100% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 106% compared to
102% 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 14% to the most
recently available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 9.4%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.24X and 1.04X,
respectively, compared to 1.43X and 1.06X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 22% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Pacific Coast Plaza Loan ($62.9 million --
10.9% of the pool), which is secured by an anchored retail property
consisting of twelve buildings across 312,313 SF in Oceanside, CA.
Anchors include Lucky Stores, Best Buy, Bed Bath and Beyond while
shadow anchored by a WalMart. Sports Authority vacated in May 2016
lowering the occupancy at the property to 79%. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 134% and 0.71X, respectively, compared to 127%
and 0.74X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Chula Vista II Retail Portfolio Loan
($34.5 million -- 6.0% of the pool), which is secured by six-retail
properties located in Chula Vista, CA. The portfolio was 78%
occupied as of September 2016 compared to 76% at year-end 2015 and
79% at year-end 2014. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 119% and
0.84X, respectively compared to 119% and 0.79X at the last review.

The third largest loan is secured by the Bentley Mall Loan ($27.0
million -- 4.7% of the pool), which is secured by an enclosed
regional mall located in Fairbanks, AK. The property is anchored by
Safeway, Michael's and Office Max. The property was 96% occupied as
of June 2016 the same as at year-end 2015 and compared to 95% at
year-end 2014. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 96% and 1.04X,
respectively compared to 106% and 0.94X at the last review.


JP MORGAN 2013-C14: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class G Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 12 classes of J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust (JPMBB) commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2013-C14.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations reflect the relatively stable performance of the
pool, and sufficient credit enhancement (CE) relative to Fitch's
loss expectations for the pool. Fitch modeled losses of 3.60% of
the remaining pool; expected losses based on the original pool
balance are 3.14%. The pool has experienced no realized losses to
date since issuance; there is one loan currently in special
servicing (0.89%).

Stable Performance: The pool has had relatively stable performance
since issuance. As of the May 2017 remittance reporting, the pool's
aggregate principal balance has paid down by 12.7% to $1 billion
from $1.15 billion at issuance. Three loans have paid in full (8%
of the original pool), and three loans (3.4% of current pool) have
been fully defeased.

Retail Concentration; Regional Mall Exposure: Loans secured by
retail properties represent the largest concentration at 44% of the
pool, which includes six of the top 15 loans (32.6%). Three of
these top 15 loans (19.6%) are secured by regional malls located in
Las Vegas, NV (9.9%, sponsored by General Growth Properties);
Greendale, WI (7.2%, sponsored by Simon Property Group); and
Lavale, MD (2.4%). In addition, all three of these regional malls
(19.6%) have exposure to Sears and JC Penney, and one has exposure
to Macy's (7.2%).

Fitch Loans of Concern: Four non-specially loans (14.8% of the
current pool) have been identified as Fitch Loans of Concern
(FLOCs), all of which are in the top 15. Risks associated with
these FLOCs include a regional mall with declining sales and a
vacating anchor tenant (Southridge Mall, 7.2% of the pool); an
industrial warehouse portfolio with significant NOI declines and
single tenant exposure (Copper Creek, 2.7%); a Class B office in a
secondary market with concentrated tenancy and near term rollover
risks (575 Maryville Centre Drive, 2.5%); and a Class 'C+ regional
mall in a secondary market with declining anchor sales and short
term rollover risks (Country Club Mall; 2.4%).

Specially Serviced Loan: The Four Points Sheraton - San Diego loan
(0.89% of the pool), which is secured by a 225-key full service
hotel property located in San Diego, CA, transferred to special
servicing in February 2016 due to payment default in December 2015.
The property has experienced cash flow issues due to a significant
increase in expenses since issuance, driven by an increase in
franchise fees plus general & administrative costs. In addition,
the property condition had significantly declined, leaving the
borrower in default with the franchisor on a property improvement
plan (PIP). A receiver was appointed by the servicer in April 2016,
followed shortly by the borrower filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
in May 2016. A court ordered bankruptcy reorganization plan was
approved in May 2017, which includes prompt completion of the PIP
by August 2017 and the repayment of servicer advances and
outstanding debt service payments.

Amortization and Loan Term: The pool is scheduled to amortize 14.3%
prior to maturity. Two loans (10.5%) are interest only (IO), and 10
loans (26.1%) were structured with partial IO, of which eight
(18.4%) have transitioned into their amortization period. The
remaining 31 loans (63.4%) are balloon loans. The pool currently
receives $1.48 million in scheduled monthly principal per the May
2017 remittance report. Approximately 80.1% of the current pool
consists of 10-year loans, 12.3% consists of five-year loans and
7.6% comprises one six-year loan.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlooks for classes A-2 through F are considered Stable
due to the relatively stable performance of the pool, sufficient
credit enhancement and expected continued amortization. Upgrades
may be possible with improved pool performance and additional
pay-down or defeasance. The Negative Rating Outlook on class G
indicates that given the pool's high retail concentration, this
component of the transaction now carries greater volatility as
uncertainties in this sector continue to mount. Downgrades are
considered possible should pool performance decline significantly,
particularly the regional malls in the pool that have reported
lower sales since issuance and due to the overall weakness in the
retail sector. Fitch's analysis included a sensitivity test on the
Country Club Mall (2.4%) reflecting a negative stress scenario due
to the low anchor sales, Sears and JC Penney exposure, and The
Bon-Ton rollover risk with the near term lease expiration.

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

-- $212.8 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $75 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $288.5 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $81.8 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $80.4 million class A-S at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $842.6 million * class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $76.1 million class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $45.9 million class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $53.1 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $11.5 million class E at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $12.9 million class F at 'BB+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $23 million class G at 'Bsf'; Outlook to Negative from Stable.

* Notional amount and interest-only.

The class A-1 certificates have paid in full. Fitch does not rate
the class NR or class X-C certificates. The class X-B certificate
was withdrawn from the transaction prior to closing.


JP MORGAN 2017-JP6: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Rating to Cl. G-RR Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following ratings and Rating
Outlooks to J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust
2017-JP6 commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series
2017-JP6:

-- $26,228,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $123,971,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $86,731,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $80,000,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $200,074,000 class A-5 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $33,632,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $627,331,000b class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $68,830,000b class X-B 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $76,695,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $34,415,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $34,415,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $9,832,000a class D 'BBB+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $29,499,000ac class E-RR 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $16,715,000ac class F-RR 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $7,867,000ac class G-RR 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

The following class is not rated by Fitch:

-- $26,548,166ac class NR-RR.

(a) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144A.
(b) Notional amount and interest-only.
(c) Horizontal credit risk retention interest representing at least
5% of the estimated fair value of all classes of regular
certificates issued by the issuing entity.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 42 loans secured by 72
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
$786,622,167 as of the cut-off date. The loans were contributed to
the trust by JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association, Benefit
Street Partners CRE Finance LLC and Starwood Mortgage Funding VI
LLC.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 81.1% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis of 85.1%, and asset summary reviews
on 100% of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Lower Leverage Than Recent Transactions: The Fitch leverage for
this transaction is better than other recent Fitch-rated
transactions. The pool's weighted average (WA) Fitch debt service
coverage ratio (DSCR) of 1.21x is in line with than both the
year-to-date (YTD) 2017 average of 1.22x and the 2016 average of
1.21x. The pool's WA Fitch loan to value (LTV) of 99.5% is lower
than both the YTD 2017 average of 104.7% and the 2016 average of
105.2%. The lower WA Fitch LTV is due in part to two credit opinion
loans in the pool. When excluding these loans, the WA Fitch LTV
increases to 104.4%.

High Percentage of Credit Opinion Loans: Two loans representing 15%
of the pool have investment-grade credit opinions. The largest loan
in the pool, 245 Park Avenue (12.46%), has a credit opinion of
'BBB-*' on a stand-alone basis and the 15th largest loan, Moffett
Gateway (2.54%), has a credit opinion of 'BBB-*' on a stand-alone
basis.

High Pool Concentration: The largest 10 loans comprise 52.47% of
the pool, which is in line with the average top-10 concentration of
53.2% for YTD 2017 and 54.8% for 2016. Of note, the largest loan
representing 12.46% of the pool is materially higher than the
average largest loan of 7.9% for YTD 2017 and 8.9% for 2016.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 6.3% below
the most recent year's net operating income (NOI) for properties
for which a full-year NOI was provided, excluding properties that
were stabilizing during this period. Unanticipated further declines
in property-level NCF could result in higher defaults and loss
severities on defaulted loans and in potential rating actions on
the certificates.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to the
JPMCC 2017-JP6 certificates and found that the transaction displays
average sensitivities to further declines in NCF. In a scenario in
which NCF declined a further 20% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade of
the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'A-sf' could result. In a more
severe scenario, in which NCF declined a further 30% from Fitch's
NCF, a downgrade of the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBB-sf'
could result.


JPMBB 2014-C22: DBRS Confirms Bsf Rating on Class X-D Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------
DBRS Limited on June 12, 2017, confirmed all classes of Commercial
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C22 issued by JPMBB 2014-C22
as follows:

-- Class A-1 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-2 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-3A1 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-3A2 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-4 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-SB at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-S at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-A at AAA (sf)
-- Class B at AA (sf)
-- Class C at A (sf)
-- Class EC at A (sf)
-- Class D at BBB (low) (sf)
-- Class X-C at BB (sf)
-- Class E at BB (low) (sf)
-- Class F at B (high) (sf)
-- Class X-D at B (sf)
-- Class G at B (low) (sf)

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

The rating confirmations reflect the overall stable performance of
the transaction, which has experienced a collateral reduction of
2.2% as a result of scheduled loan amortization since closing. At
issuance, the pool consisted of 76 fixed-rate loans secured by 120
commercial properties. As of the May 2017 remittance, all 76 loans
remain in the pool with an aggregate outstanding principal balance
of $1,096.1 million. Two loans, representing 0.8% of the pool
balance, are fully defeased. The top 15 loans continue to exhibit
stable performance with a weighted-average (WA) debt service
coverage ratio (DSCR) of 1.67 times (x) and a WA net cash flow
growth over the respective DBRS issuance figures of 20.8%, based on
the most recent year-end (YE) reporting available for the
individual loans. At issuance, six loans, representing 12.9% of the
pool balance, were structured with full interest-only (IO) terms,
with an additional 37 loans, representing 60.0% of the pool
balance, structured with partial IO terms. As of the May 2017
remittance, 19 loans, representing 45.8% of the pool balance, have
partial IO periods remaining. Based on the most recent YE
reporting, the pool reported a WA DSCR and WA debt yield of 1.70x
and 10.2%, respectively, compared with 1.60x and 9.4% at issuance,
respectively.

As of the May 2017 remittance, there are no loans in special
servicing and ten loans, representing 13.2% of the pool balance, on
the servicer's watchlist. Five loans are on the watchlist as a
result of low occupancy rates or upcoming tenant rollover. One of
these properties has achieved full occupancy as of YE2016, and
another is secured by a single-tenant property that has a lease
amendment drafted, which has been sent to the lender for approval.
Two loans on the watchlist have been flagged because of damages
sustained from severe weather and a fire; however, both borrowers
have received insurance proceeds with repairs in progress. An
additional two loans on the watchlist have been flagged for
non-performance-related reasons pertaining to deferred maintenance.


LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2008-C1: Moody's Cuts Cl. A-J Certs Rating to C
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on two classes
and downgraded the rating on two classes in LB-UBS Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2008-C1, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2008-C1:

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 21, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-2FL, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 21, 2016 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-M, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jul 21, 2016 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Cl. A-J, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Jul 21, 2016 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on the P&I classes A-2 and A-2FL were affirmed because
the transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value
(LTV) ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR)
and the transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within
acceptable ranges.

The ratings on the P&I classes A-M and A-J were downgraded due to
anticipated losses from specially serviced and troubled loans that
were higher than Moody's had previously expected.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 6.9% of the
current balance, compared to 5.8% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 18.3% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 18.2% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

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

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the May 17, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 43% to $571 million
from $1.007 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 40 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 25% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 79% of the pool. Two loans, constituting
2% of the pool, have defeased and are secured by US government
securities.

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 8, compared to 9 at Moody's last review.

Twelve loans, constituting 40% 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.

Twelve loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $145 million (for an average loss
severity of 67%). One loan, constituting less than 1% of the pool,
is currently in special servicing. The specially serviced loan is
the Comfort Suites -- Midland loan ($4.2 million -- 0.7% of the
pool), which is secured by a 63-key hotel located in Midland, TX.
As of January 2017, the hotel was 60% occupied with an ADR and
RevPAR of $82.8 and $49.9, respectively. The loan transferred to
special servicing in August 2016 due to imminent default.

Moody's estimates an aggregate $3.3 million loss for the specially
serviced loan (78% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for one poorly
performing loan, constituting 15% of the pool, and has estimated an
aggregate loss of $16 million (a 19% expected loss based on a 75%
probability default) from this troubled loan.

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 96% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results for 86% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 97%, compared to 94% 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 19% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.4%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.31X and 1.09X,
respectively, compared to 1.33X and 1.11X 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 loans represent 52% of the pool balance. The largest
loan is the Southlake Mall loan, formerly the Westfield Southlake
loan ($140 million -- 25% of the pool), which is secured by the
borrower's interest in a 1.4 million square foot (SF) regional mall
located in Merrillville, Indiana. The mall is anchored by Sears
(not part of the collateral), J.C. Penney, Macy's (not part of the
collateral) and Carson (not part of the collateral). Gander
Mountain (40,000 SF of the NRA) recently announced that they will
be closing their store at this mall as part of their bankruptcy. As
of December 2016, the property was 98% leased, compared to 99% at
the prior review. The loan is interest-only for its entire ten-year
term maturing in January 2018, though there was a small
condemnation in 2014 that resulted in a principal payment. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 90% and 1.09X, respectively, compared to
87% and 1.09X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Regions Harbert Plaza Loan ($82.8
million --14.5% of the pool), which is secured by a 614,000 SF,
32-story Class A office building with a small retail component
located in downtown Birmingham, Alabama. The property is considered
the premier commercial office building in Birmingham. The total
property was 94% leased as of March 2017, unchanged from the prior
two years and down from 98% in 2012 and 2013. The office and retail
components were 95% and 80% leased as of February 2017,
respectively. Region's Bank (35% NRA) recently notified that they
will not be renewing their lease once it expires in December 2017.
Moody's has identified this as a troubled loan.

The third largest loan is the Chevy Chase Center Loan ($76.6
million -- 13.4% of the pool), which is secured by a 398,000 SF
mixed-use property in Chevy Chase, Maryland. The office component
is 224,000 SF and the retail space is 174,000 SF. The office
component is primarily located in an eight-story tower and is
leased by The Mills Limited Partnership (51% NRA) through April
2019. However, The Mills Limited Partnership's physical occupancy
is 8% of the NRA; 29% has subsequently been sublet to seven
different tenants and 14% of their leased space is dark. The
borrower estimates that only 65% of tenants will renew their leases
over the next two years. The total property was 88% leased as of
yearend 2016, compared to 92% at yearend 2015 and 93% at yearend
2014. The loan fully amortizes on a 240-month schedule and matures
in November 2026. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 65% and 1.42X,
respectively, compared to 69% and 1.34X at the last review.


LIME STREET: Moody's Affirms B2(sf) Rating on Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the following
notes issued by Lime Street CLO, Ltd.:

US$22,000,000 Class C Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on February 2, 2017 Upgraded to
Aa3 (sf)

US$15,000,000 Class D Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on February 2, 2017 Upgraded to
Baa3 (sf)

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

US$290,000,000 Class A Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2021 (current
outstanding balance of $78,967,474), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously
on February 2, 2017 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

US$30,000,000 Class B Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2021, Affirmed
Aaa (sf); previously on February 2, 2017 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

US$12,600,000 Class E Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2021
(current outstanding balance of $12,574,062), Affirmed B2 (sf);
previously on February 2, 2017 Affirmed B2 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's
over-collateralization (OC) ratios since February 2017. The Class A
notes have been paid down by approximately 23.5% or $24.2 million
since that time. Based on the trustee's May 2017 report, the OC
ratios for the Class A/B, Class C, Class D, and Class E notes are
reported at 151.16%, 125.77%, 112.85%, and 103.90%, respectively,
versus February 2017 levels of 140.45%, 120.54%, 109.91%, and
102.35%, respectively.

The portfolio includes a number of investments in securities that
mature after the notes do. Based on Moody's calculation, securities
that mature after the notes do currently make up approximately
$11.6 million or 9.0% of the portfolio. These investments could
expose the notes to market risk in the event of liquidation when
the notes mature.

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moody's Adjusted WARF -- 20% (2330)

Class A: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: +1

Class D: +2

Class E: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3496)

Class A: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: -2

Class D: -2

Class E: -2

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

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

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base case,
Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing par and
principal proceeds balance of $163.3 million, defaulted par of $4.8
million, a weighted average default probability of 16.47% (implying
a WARF of 2913), a weighted average recovery rate upon default of
48.62%, a diversity score of 28 and a weighted average spread of
3.54% (before accounting for LIBOR floors).

Moody's incorporates the default and recovery properties of the
collateral pool in cash flow model analysis where they are subject
to stresses as a function of the target rating on each CLO
liability reviewed. Moody's derives the default probability from
the credit quality of the collateral pool and Moody's expectation
of the remaining life of the collateral pool. The average recovery
rate for future defaults is based primarily on the seniority of the
assets in the collateral pool. In each case, historical and market
performance and the collateral manager's latitude for trading the
collateral are also factors.


LNR CDO 2002-1: Moody's Affirms C(sf) Rating on 3 Tranches
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on the following
notes issued by LNR CDO 2002-1 Collateralized Debt Obligations,
Series 2002-1 ("LNR CDO 2002-1"):

Cl. E-FL, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 11, 2016 Affirmed C
(sf)

Cl. E-FX, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 11, 2016 Affirmed C
(sf)

Cl. E-FXD, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 11, 2016 Affirmed C
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's has affirmed the ratings of on the transaction because its
key transaction metrics are commensurate with the existing ratings.
The improvement of credit quality of the outstanding pool of
assets, as evidenced by WARF, was not enough to offset the implied
losses to date. The rating action is the result of Moody's on-going
surveillance of commercial real estate collateralized debt
obligation (CRE CDO and Re-Remic) transactions.

LNR CDO 2002-1 is a static cash transaction backed by a portfolio
of commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) (100.0% of the pool
balance). As of the May 25, 2017 trustee report, the aggregate note
balance of the transaction, including preferred shares, is $635.9
million compared to $800.6 million at issuance, as a result of the
combination of pay-down to the senior most outstanding classes of
notes, and capitalization of deferred interest. The deal is
currently under-collateralized by $457.9 million as a result of
implied losses to the underlying collateral.

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collaterals it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 5377,
compared to 6044 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated collaterals and the assessments of the non-Moody's
rated collaterals follow: Aaa-Aa3 and 25.9% compared to 26.8% at
last review, Caa1-Ca/C and 74.1% compared to 73.2% at last review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 1.6 years, compared to 2.0 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying look-through CMBS loan assets.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 0.0%, compared to 1.9% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 31.3%, compared to 19.0% at last review.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs" published in June 2017.

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

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

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for the rated notes,
although a change in one key parameter assumption could be offset
by a change in one or more of the other key parameter assumptions.
The rated notes are particularly sensitive to changes in the
recovery rate of the underlying collateral and credit assessments.
However, in light of the performance indicators noted above,
Moody's believes that it is unlikely that the ratings announced are
subject to further changes.

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.


MADISON PARK XVII: Moody's Assigns B3(sf) Rating to Class F-R Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned the following ratings to the
following notes (the "Refinancing Notes") issued by Madison Park
Funding XVII, Ltd.:

US$507,000,000 Class A-R Floating Rate Notes Due 2030 (the "Class
A-R Notes"), assigned Aaa(sf)

US$82,000,000 Class B-1-R Floating Rate Notes Due 2030 (the "Class
B-1-R Notes"), assigned Aa2(sf)

US$10,000,000 Class B-2-R Fixed Rate Notes Due 2030 (the "Class
B-2-R Notes"), assigned Aa2(sf)

US$43,500,000 Class C-R Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2030
(the "Class C-R Notes"), assigned A2(sf)

US$48,500,000 Class D-R Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2030
(the "Class D-R Notes"), assigned Baa3(sf)

US$42,300,000 Class E-R Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2030
(the "Class E-R Notes"), assigned Ba3(sf)

US$18,000,000 Class F-R Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2030
(the "Class F-R Notes"), assigned B3(sf)

The Issuer is a managed cash flow collateralized loan obligation
(CLO). The issued notes are collateralized primarily by a portfolio
of senior secured, broadly syndicated corporate loans.

Credit Suisse Asset Management, LLC (the "Manager") manages the
CLO. It directs the selection, acquisition, and disposition of
collateral on behalf of the Issuer.

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's ratings on the Refinancing Notes addresses the expected
losses posed to noteholders. The ratings reflects 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 Refinancing Notes on June 15, 2017 (the
"Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of all
classes of the secured notes (the "Refinanced Original Notes")
previously issued on May 21, 2015 (the "Original Closing Date"). On
the Refinancing Date, the Issuer used proceeds from the issuance of
the Refinancing Notes to redeem in full the Refinanced Original
Notes.

In addition to the issuance of the Refinancing Notes, a variety of
other changes to transaction features will occur in connection with
the refinancing. These include: extension of the reinvestment
period; extensions of the stated maturity and non-call period;
changes to certain collateral quality tests; and changes to comply
with the Volcker Rule.

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 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: $ 797,638,227

Defaulted par: $9,228,767

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 3010

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.40%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.0%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.0%

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 a Downgrade of the
Ratings:

The performance of the Refinancing Notes is subject to uncertainty.
The performance of the Refinancing 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 Refinancing 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 Refinancing 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 Refinancing
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 3010 to 3462)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-R Notes: -1

Class B-1-R Notes: -2

Class B-2-R Notes: -2

Class C-R Notes: -2

Class D-R Notes: -1

Class E-R Notes: -1

Class F-R Notes: -2

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 3010 to 3913)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-R Notes: -1

Class B-1-R Notes: -4

Class B-2-R Notes: -4

Class C-R Notes: -4

Class D-R Notes: -2

Class E-R Notes: -1

Class F-R Notes: -4


MCA FUND I: DBRS Confirms BB Rating on Class C Deferrable Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. on June 14, 2017, taken the following rating actions on
ratings on the classes of collateralized fund obligation (CFO)
notes issued by MCA Fund I Holding LLC as well as the Liquidity
Loan Facility between MCA Fund I Holding LLC as Issuer and Barclays
Bank PLC as Liquidity Lender (the Liquidity Facility) as follows:

-- Class A Notes confirmed at A (sf)

-- Class B Notes confirmed at BBB (high) (sf) and placed Under
    Review with Positive Implications

-- Class C Deferrable Notes confirmed at BB (high) (sf) and
    placed Under Review with Positive Implications

-- Liquidity Facility confirmed at A (sf)

The ratings on the Class A Notes, Class B Notes and the Liquidity
Facility address the timely payment of interest and the ultimate
payment of principal on or before their respective maturity. The
rating on the Class C Deferrable Notes addresses the ultimate
payment of interest and principal on or before their maturity.

The Class B Notes and Class C Deferrable Notes ratings are Under
Review with Positive Implications. The ratings on the Class B and
Class C Notes are being placed Under Review with Positive
Implications as a result of the rate of deleveraging of the rated
notes and the consistency of quarterly Net Cash Inflows. DBRS views
these trends as credit positive to the transaction. Generally, the
conditions that lead to the assignment of reviews are resolved
within a 90-day period.

The notes are backed by a portfolio of limited partnership
interests in leveraged buyout, mezzanine debt and venture capital
private equity funds. Each class of notes is able to withstand a
percentage of tranche defaults from a Monte Carlo asset analysis
commensurate with its respective rating.


MCA FUND II: DBRS Assigns Prov. BB(sf) Rating to Class C Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. on June 13, 2017, assigned the following provisional
ratings to the Class A Notes, the Class B Notes and the Class C
Deferrable Notes (together, the Notes) contemplated to be issued by
MCA Fund II Holding LLC pursuant to the Indenture dated as of [ ],
2017 between MCA Fund II Holding LLC, as Issuer, and Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. (rated AA (high) with a Negative trend by DBRS), as
Trustee and Calculation Agent. DBRS has also assigned a provisional
rating to the Liquidity Loan Facility (the Liquidity Facility) with
MCA Fund II Holding LLC as Issuer, Barclays Bank PLC (rated A
(high) with a Negative trend by DBRS) as Liquidity Lender and Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee and Calculation Agent:

-- Class A Notes at A (sf)
-- Class B Notes at BBB (sf)
-- Class C Deferrable Notes at BB (sf)
-- Liquidity Facility at A (sf)

The provisional ratings on the Class A Notes, the Class B Notes and
the Liquidity Facility address the timely payment of interest and
the ultimate payment of principal on or before the Final Maturity
Date (as defined in the Indenture referenced above). The
provisional rating on the Class C Deferrable Notes addresses the
ultimate payment of interest and the ultimate payment of principal
on or before the Final Maturity Date (as defined in the Indenture
referenced above).

The Notes are backed by a portfolio of limited partnership
interests in leveraged buyout, mezzanine debt and venture capital
private equity funds. Each class of notes is able to withstand a
percentage of tranche defaults from a Monte Carlo asset analysis
commensurate with its respective rating.

The rating reflects the following:

(1) The draft Indenture dated [ ], 2017.

(2) The integrity of the transaction structure.

(3) DBRS's assessment of the portfolio quality.

(4) Adequate credit enhancement to withstand projected collateral

     loss rates under various cash flow stress scenarios.

(5) DBRS's assessment of the management capabilities of MEMBERS
     Capital Advisors, Inc. as Investment Manager.


MERRILL LYNCH 2005-MCP1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 2 Tranches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on four classes
in Merrill Lynch Mortgage Trust 2005-MCP1, Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-MCP1:

Cl. F, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Jun 10, 2016 Affirmed Caa1
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jun 10, 2016 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jun 10, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. XC, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017 Downgraded to C
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating on Class F was affirmed because the transaction's key
metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, Moody's
stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) and the transaction's
Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within acceptable ranges. The ratings
Classes G and H were affirmed because the ratings are consistent
with Moody's expected loss.

The rating on the IO class, Class XC, was affirmed based on the
credit quality of its referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 32.3% of the
current balance, compared to 15.1% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 5.0% of the original
pooled balance, compared to 4.6% at the last review. Moody's
provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit and
fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

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

Additionally, the methodology used in rating Cl. XC was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017.

Moody's analysis incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since 67% of the pool is in
special servicing. In this approach, Moody's determines a
probability of default for each specially serviced and troubled
loan that it expects will generate a loss and estimates a loss
given default based on a review of broker's opinions of value (if
available), other information from the special servicer, available
market data and Moody's internal data. The loss given default for
each loan also takes into consideration repayment of servicer
advances to date, estimated future advances and closing costs.
Translating the probability of default and loss given default into
an expected loss estimate, Moody's then applies the aggregate loss
from specially serviced loans to the most junior classes and the
recovery as a pay down of principal to the most senior classes.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the June 12, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 98% to $43.9 million
from $1.7 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by four remaining mortgage loans.

One loan, constituting 25.2% of the pool, is on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Sixteen loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $73 million (for an average loss
severity of 24%). One loan, the Prium Office Portfolio II ($29.4
million -- 67% of the pool), is currently in special servicing. The
loan is secured by a portfolio of nine Class B suburban office
buildings located throughout the state of Washington. As of March
2017 the portfolio was 78% leased, the same as of May 2016. Two of
the nine properties are currently 100% vacant. The majority of the
buildings are leased to various State of Washington agencies on
separate five year leases.

As of the June 12, 2017 remittance statement cumulative interest
shortfalls were $3.8 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.

The three performing conduit loans represent 33% of the pool
balance. The largest performing loan is the 844 Front Street Loan
($11.09 million -- 25.2% of the pool), which is secured by a 12,000
square foot (SF) retail center located on the island of Maui in
Lahaina, Hawaii. As per the December 2016 rent roll, the property
was 88% leased, compared to 95% leased as of May 2016. The loan
originally transferred to special servicing in 2009 due to the
economic downturn and subsequently transferred back to the master
servicer as a modified loan in December 2010. The loan passed its
original scheduled maturity date in May 2015 and the borrower
requested a two year term extension. The property is on the master
servicer's watchlist due to the impending loan maturity. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 123% and 0.88X, respectively, the same as
at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Madison Meadows Apartments Loan
($2.2 million -- 5.1% of the pool), which is secured by a 120 unit
multifamily apartment complex located in Statesboro, Georgia
approximately one hour northwest of Savannah, Georgia. As per the
March 2017 rent roll the property was 96.7% occupied, compared to
87.5% leased as of September 2015. The loan has amortized 19.6%
since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 47.6% and
1.99X, respectively, compared to 53.7% and 1.76X at the last
review.

The third largest loan is the Linden Professional Tower Loan ($1.2
million -- 2.7% of the pool), which is secured by an office tower
located in Linden, New Jersey approximately 9 miles southwest of
Newark Airport. The property is occupied by primarily medical
tenants. The loan is fully amortizing and has amortized 72.2% since
securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 23.4% and
>4.00X, respectively, compared to 30.8% and 3.51X at the last
review.


MERRILL LYNCH 2006-C1: Fitch Affirms CCC Rating on Class A-J Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 14 classes of Merrill Lynch Mortgage
Trust (MLMT 2006-C1) commercial mortgage pass-through certificates
series 2006-C1.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations reflect the concentrated nature of the pool
coupled with adverse selection. The pool has 10 assets remaining,
eight of which are in special servicing (89.4%). Six assets (73.3%)
are real estate owned (REO) or in foreclosure.

As of the June 2017 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 95.4% to $114.9 million from
$2.49 billion at issuance. Interest shortfalls are currently
affecting class B.

Concentration and Adverse Selection: The pool is highly
concentrated with only 10 of the original 246 assets remaining, of
which eight (89% of the pool balance) are in special servicing. Due
to the concentrated nature of the pool, Fitch performed a
sensitivity analysis which grouped the remaining loans based on
loan structural features, collateral quality and performance which
ranked them by their perceived likelihood of repayment. This
includes a fully amortizing loan, one balloon loan, and eight
specially serviced assets. The ratings reflect this sensitivity
analysis.

Largest Loan in Special Servicing: The largest loan in the pool,
Gateway One, represents 40% of the pool balance and is in special
servicing. The loan is secured by a 409,920 square foot (sf) office
building located in the central business district of St. Louis, MO.
The loan transferred to special servicing in May 2016 due to
maturity default. The largest tenant in the building, Peabody
Energy (38%), emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April 2017 and
has downsized their space by 30%. In addition, the downtown
submarket of St. Louis is facing high vacancy and is expected to
worsen with AT&T vacating the nearby One AT&T Center. As of the
second quarter, Reis' reported a vacancy rate of 24.7% for class A
office properties. The servicer is in discussion with the borrower
while dual tracking foreclosure.

RATING SENSITIVITIES
The distressed classes (those rated below 'B') may be subject to
further downgrades as additional losses are realized. Upgrades are
not likely as the remaining pool is adversely selected and has a
high concentration of assets in special servicing.

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:

-- $36.6 million class A-J at 'CCCsf'; RE 100%;
-- $56 million class B at 'Csf'; RE 0%.
-- $22.2 million class C at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.
-- $0 class class D at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class class E at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class class F at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class class G at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class class H at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

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


MFA 2017-RPL1: DBRS Finalizes B(sf) Rating on Class B-2 Debt
------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. on June 12, 2017, finalized its provisional ratings on
MFA 2017-RPL1 Mortgage-Backed Securities, Series 2017-RPL1 (the
Notes) issued by MFA 2017-RPL1 Trust (the Trust) as follows:

-- $120.7 million Class A-1 at AAA (sf)
-- $27.2 million Class M-1 at A (sf)
-- $11.7 million Class M-2 at BBB (sf)
-- $10.1 million Class B-1 at BB (sf)
-- $9.9 million Class B-2 at B (sf)

The AAA (sf) ratings on the Notes reflect the 45.10% of credit
enhancement provided by the subordinated Notes in the pool. The A
(sf), BBB (sf), BB (sf) and B (sf) ratings reflect 32.75%, 27.45%,
22.85% and 18.35% of credit enhancement, respectively.

Other than the specified classes above, DBRS does not rate any
other classes in this transaction.

This transaction is a securitization of a portfolio of seasoned
performing and re-performing first-lien residential mortgages. The
Notes are backed by 992 loans with a total principal balance of
$219,848,032 as of the Cut-Off Date (April 30, 2017).

The loans are approximately 137 months seasoned. As of the Cut-Off
Date, the pool is 100.0% current under the Office of Thrift
Supervision (OTS) method and includes 0.6% bankruptcy loans.
Compared with other DBRS-rated seasoned transactions, the portfolio
exhibits spottier payment histories in the 24 months prior to the
Cut-Off Date with 88.0% of the pool having been at least one times
30 days delinquent (1 x 30) under both the OTS and Mortgage Bankers
Association delinquency methods. Approximately 10.3% of the
mortgage loans have been 0 x 30 for at least the past 24 months,
60.1% have been 0 x 30 for the past 12 months and 66.7% have been 0
x 30 for the past six months.

The portfolio contains 71.4% modified loans. Within the pool, 794
mortgages have non-interest-bearing deferred amounts as of the
Cut-Off Date, which equates to 11.4% of the total principal
balance. The modifications happened more than two years ago for
45.6% of the modified loans.

As the Sponsor, MFA Financial, Inc. (MFA), or a majority-owned
affiliate, will acquire and retain at least a 5% eligible
horizontal interest in the securities to be issued to satisfy the
credit risk retention requirements. These loans were originated and
previously serviced by various entities through purchases in the
secondary market. As of the Closing Date, the loans will be
serviced by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

There will be no advancing of delinquent principal or interest on
the mortgages by the servicer or any other party to the
transaction; however, the servicer is obligated to make advances in
respect of homeowner association fees, taxes and insurance,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the course of servicing
and disposing of properties.

The transaction employs a sequential-pay cash flow structure.
Principal proceeds can be used to cover interest shortfalls on the
Class A-1 Notes, but such shortfalls on Class M-1 and more
subordinate bonds will not be paid until the more senior classes
are retired.

The lack of principal and interest advances on delinquent mortgages
may increase the possibility of periodic interest shortfalls to the
Noteholders; however, principal proceeds used to pay interest to
the Notes sequentially and subordination levels greater than
expected losses may provide for timely payment of interest to the
rated Notes.

On or after the three-year anniversary of the Closing Date (the
Redemption Date), the Issuer has the option to redeem the
outstanding notes at a price equal to the outstanding class balance
plus accrued and unpaid interest, including any interest shortfall
and net weighted-average coupon shortfall amounts, and any fees and
expenses of the transaction parties.

The ratings reflect transactional strengths that include underlying
assets that have an experienced servicer, strong structural
features and asset management oversight. Additionally, a due
diligence review was performed on the portfolio with respect to
regulatory compliance, payment history, data integrity, tax,
title/lien and servicing comment review. Updated property values
(generally broker price opinions) were provided for all but one of
the mortgage loans.

The transaction employs a relatively weak representations and
warranties framework that includes an unrated representation
provider (MFA), certain knowledge qualifiers and fewer mortgage
loan representations relative to DBRS criteria for seasoned pools.
Mitigating factors include (1) third-party due diligence review;
(2) for representations and warranties with knowledge qualifiers,
even if the Sponsor did not have actual knowledge of the breach,
the Sponsor is still required to remedy the breach in the same
manner as if no knowledge qualifier had been made; and (3) disputes
are ultimately subject to determination made in a related
arbitration proceeding.

The enforcement mechanism for breaches of representations includes
automatic breach reviews by a third-party reviewer for any loans
that incur loss upon liquidation or sale of a defaulted mortgage
loan.

The DBRS rating of AAA (sf) addresses the timely payment of
interest and full payment of principal by the legal final maturity
date in accordance with the terms and conditions of the related
Notes. The DBRS rating of A (sf), BBB (sf), BB (sf) and B (sf)
addresses the ultimate payment of interest and full payment of
principal by the legal final maturity date in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the related Notes.


MILL CITY 2017-2: Fitch Assigns 'Bsf' Rating to Class B2 Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings to Mill City Mortgage Loan Trust
2017-2 (MCMLT 2017-2) as follows:

-- $250,689,000 class A1 notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $26,580,000 class M1 notes 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $21,799,000 class M2 notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $18,357,000 class M3 notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $18,740,000 class B1 notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $13,194,000 class B2 notes 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $277,269,000 class A2 subsequent exchangeable notes 'AAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $299,068,000 class A3 subsequent exchangeable notes 'Asf';
    Outlook Stable.

The following classes will not be rated by Fitch:

-- $14,724,000 class B3 notes;
-- $10,709,000 class B4 notes;
-- $7,648,865 class B5 notes.

The notes are supported by one collateral group that consists of
1,568 seasoned performing and re-performing mortgages with a total
balance of approximately $382.44 million (which includes $20.6
million, or 5.4%, of the aggregate pool balance in
non-interest-bearing deferred principal amounts) as of the cut-off
date.

The 'AAAsf' rating on the class A1 notes reflects the 34.45%
subordination provided by the 6.95% class M1, 5.70% class M2, 4.80%
class M3, 4.90% class B1, 3.45% class B2, 3.85% class B3, 2.80%
class B4 and 2.00% class B5 notes.

Fitch's ratings on the class notes reflect the credit attributes of
the underlying collateral, the quality of the servicers: Shellpoint
Mortgage Servicing (Shellpoint) and Fay Servicing, LLC (Fay), both
rated 'RSS3+', the representation (rep) and warranty framework,
minimal due diligence findings and the sequential pay structure.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Distressed Performance History (Concern): The collateral pool
consists primarily of peak-vintage seasoned re-performing loans
(RPLs), including loans that have been paying for the past 24
months, which Fitch identifies as "clean current" (71%), and loans
that are current but have recent delinquencies or incomplete
paystrings, identified as "dirty current" (29%). All loans were
current as of the cutoff date; 69.8% of the loans have received
modifications.

Due Diligence Findings (Concern): The third-party review (TPR)
firm's due diligence review resulted in approximately 317 loans
(20%) graded 'C' and 'D', of which 74 were subject to a loss
severity (LS) adjustment for issues regarding high-cost testing,
including 15 loans that were unable to perform a compliance review
due to incomplete loan files. In addition, timelines were extended
on 56 loans that were missing final modification documents.

HELOCs Included (Concern): Approximately 6.2% of the total pool is
made up of home equity lines of credit (HELOCs). To account for
future potential draws, Fitch added the available draw amount to
the loans where the line was marked as anything other than
"permanently closed." This approach impacted 71 loans and increased
the amount owed by $668 thousand for determining borrowers'
probability of default (PD) and loss severity (LS) in Fitch's
analysis.

No Servicer P&I Advances (Mixed): The servicers will not be
advancing delinquent monthly payments of P&I, which reduces
liquidity to the trust. However, as P&I advances made on behalf of
loans that become delinquent and eventually liquidate reduce
liquidation proceeds to the trust, the loan-level LS is less for
this transaction than for those where the servicer is obligated to
advance P&I. Structural provisions and cash flow priorities,
together with increased subordination, provide for timely payments
of interest to the 'AAAsf' and 'AAsf' rated classes.

Sequential-Pay Structure (Mixed): The transaction's cash flow is
based on a sequential-pay structure whereby the subordinate classes
do not receive principal until the senior classes are repaid in
full. Losses are allocated in reverse-sequential order.
Furthermore, the provision to re-allocate principal to pay interest
on the 'AAAsf' and 'AAsf' rated notes prior to other principal
distributions is highly supportive of timely interest payments to
those classes, in the absence of servicer advancing.

Potential Interest Deferrals (Mixed): To address the lack of an
external P&I advance mechanism, principal otherwise distributable
to the notes may be used to pay monthly interest. While this helps
provide stability in the cash flows to the high
investment-grade-rated bonds, the lower rated bonds may experience
long periods of interest deferral that will generally not be repaid
until such note becomes the most senior outstanding.

Under Fitch's "Global Structured Finance Criteria," dated May 3,
2017, the agency may assign ratings of up to 'Asf' on notes that
incur deferrals if such deferrals are permitted under terms of the
transaction documents, provided such amounts are fully recovered
well in advance of the legal final maturity under the relevant
rating stress.

Limited Life of Rep Provider (Concern): CVI CVF III Lux Master
S.a.r.l., as rep provider, will only be obligated to repurchase a
loan due to breaches prior to the payment date in July 2018.
Thereafter, a reserve fund will be available to cover amounts due
to noteholders for loans identified as having rep breaches. Amounts
on deposit in the reserve fund, as well as the increased level of
subordination, will be available to cover additional defaults and
losses resulting from rep weaknesses or breaches occurring on or
after the payment date in July 2018.

Potential Interest Deferrals (Mixed): To address the lack of an
external P&I advance mechanism, principal otherwise distributable
to the notes may be used to pay monthly interest. While this helps
provide stability in the cash flows to the high
investment-grade-rated bonds, the lower rated bonds may experience
long periods of interest deferral that will generally not be repaid
until such note becomes the most senior outstanding.

Representation Framework (Concern): Fitch generally considers the
representation, warranty, and enforcement (RW&E) mechanism
construct for this transaction to be generally consistent with a
Tier 2 framework due to the inclusion of knowledge qualifiers and
the exclusion of loans from certain reps as a result of third-party
due diligence findings. For 67 loans that are seasoned less than 24
months, Fitch viewed the framework as a Tier 3 because the reps
related to the origination and underwriting of the loan, which are
typically expected for newly originated loans, were not included.
Thus, Fitch increased its 'AAAsf' PD l expectations by
approximately 462bps to account for a potential increase in
defaults and losses arising from weaknesses in the reps.

Timing of Recordation and Document Remediation (Neutral): A review
was performed and confirmed that all mortgages and subsequent
assignments were recorded in the relevant local jurisdiction or
were being recorded.

While the expected timelines for recordation and remediation are
viewed by Fitch as reasonable, the obligation of CVI CVF III Lux
Master S.a.r.l. to repurchase loans, for which assignments are not
recorded and endorsements are not completed by the payment date in
July 2018, aligns the issuer's interests regarding completing the
recordation process with those of noteholders. While there will not
be an asset manager in this transaction, the indenture trustee will
be reviewing the custodian reports. The indenture trustee will
request CVI CVF III Lux Master S.a.r.l. to purchase any loans with
outstanding assignment and endorsement issues two days prior to the
July 2018 payment date.

Deferred Amounts (Negative): Non-interest-bearing principal
forbearance amounts totaling $20.6 million (5.4% of the unpaid
principal balance) are outstanding on 490 loans. Fitch included the
deferred amounts when calculating the borrower's LTV and sLTV,
despite the lower payment and amounts not being owed during the
term of the loan. The inclusion resulted in higher PDs and LS than
if there were no deferrals. Fitch believes that borrower default
behavior for these loans will resemble that of the higher LTVs, as
exit strategies (that is, sale or refinancing) will be limited
relative to those borrowers with more equity in the property.

Solid Alignment of Interest (Positive): The sponsor, Mill City
Holdings, LLC, through a majority owned affiliate, will acquire and
retain a 5% interest in each class of the securities to be issued.
In addition, the rep provider is an indirect owner of the sponsor.

CRITERIA APPLICATION

Fitch's analysis incorporated one criteria variation from the 'U.S.
RMBS Seasoned and Re-performing Loan Criteria' as described below.

The transaction was analyzed with one criteria variation relating
to timing of the tax and title search conducted on the loans. To
ensure that no liens senior to the mortgage are present, an updated
search should be completed no more than six months prior to
securitization. Approximately 70% of the loans had a search
performed outside of this window. Both of the transaction servicers
are rated by Fitch and utilize a suite of CoreLogic products to
monitor delinquent taxes or tax liens. Both servicers would also be
notified of any HOA liens and would work toward resolution, helping
mitigate the outdated search. Fitch was provided with a gap report
indicating that the total delinquent taxes amounted to about
$240,000 with the total combined HOA and municipal liens equal to
less than $35,000.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch's analysis incorporates sensitivity analyses to demonstrate
how the ratings would react to steeper market value declines (MVDs)
than assumed at both the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and
national levels. The implied rating sensitivities are only an
indication of some of the potential outcomes and do not consider
other risk factors that the transaction may become exposed to or be
considered in the surveillance of the transaction.

Fitch conducted sensitivity analysis determining how the ratings
would react to steeper MVDs at the national level. The analysis
assumes MVDs of 10%, 20%, and 30%, in addition to the
model-projected 38% at 'AAAsf'. The analysis indicates there is
some potential rating migration with higher MVDs, compared with the
model projection.

Fitch also conducted sensitivities to determine the stresses to
MVDs that would reduce a rating by one full category, to
non-investment grade, and to 'CCCsf'.


MILL CITY 2017-2: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class B1 Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned definitive ratings to seven
classes of notes issued by Mill City Mortgage Loan Trust 2017-2.

The certificates are backed by one pool of 1,568 seasoned
performing and modified re-performing loans which include home
equity lines of credit (HELOC) mortgage loans and loans with a
negative amortization feature. The collateral pool has a non-zero
updated weighted average FICO score of 686 and a weighted average
current LTV of 80.74%.

As of the cut-off date, approximately 10.86% of the mortgage loans
have a negative amortization feature. These borrowers have interest
rates that reset monthly, monthly payments and amortization
schedules that generally adjust annually and are subject to caps
and limitation. Therefore, in certain scenarios, the monthly
payment may not adequately cover the accrued interest causing the
loan to negatively amortize. This is the first post crisis RPL
securitization to include a high concentration (>10%) of
negatively amortizing loans.

There are approximately 6.20% HELOC loans in this pool, of which
1.92% of the borrowers are currently eligible to make draws up to
their credit limit. Approximately 74.82% of the HELOC loans have
their credit line temporarily frozen due to certain circumstances
including but not limited to the event where the current home value
has declined below a specified level.

The borrowers may unfreeze their credit line in future if the
circumstances that cause such credit line to be frozen are cured.
The remaining HELOC loans (approx. 23.26%) have their credit lines
permanently frozen. In the event that all HELOC loans (other than
the HELOC loans that are permanently frozen) are no longer
precluded from making draws, the maximum amount of draws available
to the borrowers as of May 2017 is equal to $668,202 or
approximately 0.17% of closing date UPB, compared to $3.698 million
in MCMLT 2017-1.

A HELOC borrower will be assessed a principal payment only in the
case that their credit limit amortizes to an amount that is below
the outstanding principal balance of the loan, otherwise the
borrower will be required to make only an interest payment. During
the amortization period, the credit limit will decrease at a fixed
rate. For example, if the amortization period is 240 months then in
each month, the credit limit will reduce by 1/240 of the original
credit limit.

In addition, approximately 10.43% of the loans are originated on or
after January 1, 2010 ("newly originated loans") for which Moody's
also performed additional loan level analysis similar to Moody's
analysis of newly originated prime quality loans. 69.77% of the
loans in the collateral pool were also previously modified and the
remaining loans have never been modified.

Fay Servicing LLC and Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing ("Shellpoint"),
are the servicers for the loans in the pool. The servicers will not
advance any principal or interest on the delinquent loans. However,
the servicers will be required to advance costs and expenses
incurred in connection with a default, delinquency or other event
in the performance of its servicing obligations. In addition, if a
borrower of a HELOC loan requests a draw on the related HELOC
credit line, the related servicer will be required to fund such
draw.

The complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Mill City Mortgage Loan Trust 2017-2

Cl. A1, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A2, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. A3, Definitive Rating Assigned A1 (sf)

Cl. M1, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

Cl. M2, Definitive Rating Assigned A3 (sf)

Cl. M3, Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

Cl. B1, Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

Summary Credit Analysis and Rating Rationale

Moody's expected losses on MCMLT 2017-2's collateral pool average
10.00% in Moody's base case scenario. Moody's loss estimates take
into account the historical performance of loans that have similar
collateral characteristics as the loans in the pool. For example,
Moody's observed the performance of 10 year IO-ARM loans as a proxy
to estimate future delinquencies for first lien HELOC loans because
of the similarities in the two loan types. A typical HELOC is an
adjustable rate loan with an IO period after which the loan
amortizes over the remaining term.

Similarly, for the negatively amortizing loans in this pool,
Moody's analyzed performance of negatively amortizing loans
originated in the same vintage. Typically, for negatively
amortizing loans, the maximum percentage by which the payment can
change in one period (usually annual) is capped along with other
limitations. For a conventional ARM loan, the cap typically applies
to the maximum percentage the interest rate can change in one
period. Therefore, in certain interest rate scenarios, the
performance of conventional ARM loans can be different from a
negatively amortizing loans. Moody's analysis shows that negatively
amortizing loans originated in 2006-2007 have behaved very
similarly to conventional ARM loans from same vintages because of
the declining interest rate environment since origination. However,
Moody's has made qualitative adjustments to account for the
negative amortization feature in a rising interest rate
environment.

For the non-modified portion of this pool, Moody's analyzed data on
delinquency rates for always current (including self-cured) loans.
Moody's final loss estimates also incorporates adjustments for the
strength of the third party due diligence, the servicing framework
(including the capability to service HELOC loans) and the
representations and warranties (R&W) framework of the transaction.

The methodologies used in these ratings were "Moody's Approach to
Rating Securitisations Backed by Non-Performing and Re-Performing
Loans" published in August 2016, and "US RMBS Surveillance
Methodology" published in January 2017.

Collateral Description

MCMLT 2017-2 is a securitization of 1,568 loans and is primarily
comprised of seasoned performing and modified re-performing
mortgage loans. Approximately 69.77% of the loans in the collateral
pool have been previously modified.

Moody's based Moody's expected losses on Moody's estimates of 1)
the default rate on the remaining balance of the loans and 2) the
principal recovery rate on the defaulted balances. The two factors
that most strongly influence a re-performing mortgage loan's
likelihood of re-default are the length of time that the loan has
performed since a loan modification, and the amount of the
reduction in the monthly mortgage payment as a result of the
modification. The longer a borrower has been current on a
re-performing loan, the less likely the borrower is to re-default.
Approximately 61.97% of the borrowers have been current on their
payments for at least the past 24 months.

Moody's estimated expected losses for the pool using two approaches
-- (1) pool-level approach, and (2) re-performing loan level
analysis.

In the pool-level approach, Moody's estimates losses on the pool by
using a approach similar to Moody's surveillance approach wherein
Moody's apply assumptions on expected future delinquencies, default
rates, loss severities and prepayments as observed from Moody's
surveillance of similar collateral. Moody's projects future annual
delinquencies for eight years by applying an initial annual default
rate and delinquency burnout factors. Based on the loan
characteristics of the pool and the demonstrated pay histories,
Moody's expects an annual delinquency rate of 9% on the collateral
pool for year one. Moody's then calculated future delinquencies on
the pool using Moody's default burnout and voluntary conditional
prepayment rate (CPR) assumptions. Moody's assumptions also factor
in the high delinquency rates expected in the early stages of the
transaction due to payment shock expected during the amortization
phase for HELOC loans originated in 2006-2008 as well as payment
shock expected for step-rate loans. The delinquency burnout factors
reflect Moody's future expectations of the economy and the U.S.
housing market. Moody's then aggregated the delinquencies and
converted them to losses by applying pool-specific lifetime default
frequency and loss severity assumptions. Moody's loss severity
assumptions are based off observed severities on liquidated
seasoned loans and reflect the lack of principal and interest
advancing on the loans.

Moody's also conducted a loan level analysis on MCMLT 2017-2's
collateral pool. Moody's applied loan-level baseline lifetime
propensity to default assumptions based on the historical
performance of loans with similar collateral characteristics and
payment histories. Moody's then adjusted this base default
propensity up for (1) adjustable-rate loans, (2) loans that have
the risk of coupon step-ups and (3) loans with high updated loan to
value ratios (LTVs). Moody's applied a higher baseline lifetime
default propensity for interest-only loans, using the same
adjustments. To calculate the final expected loss for the pool,
Moody's applied a loan-level loss severity assumption based on the
loans' updated estimated LTVs. Moody's further adjusted the loss
severity assumption upwards for loans in states that give
super-priority status to homeowner association (HOA) liens, to
account for potential risk of HOA liens trumping a mortgage. For
10.43% of newly originated loans, Moody's also performed additional
loan level analysis similar to Moody's analysis of newly originated
prime quality loans.

The deferred balance in this transaction is approximately $20.61
million, representing approximately 5.39% of the total unpaid
principal balance. Loans that have HAMP and proprietary remaining
principal reduction alternative (PRA) amounts totaled $346,022,
representing approximately 1.68% of total deferred balance.

Under HAMP-PRA, the principal of the borrower's mortgage may be
reduced by a predetermined amount called the PRA forbearance amount
if the borrower satisfies certain conditions during a trial period.
If the borrower continues to make timely payments on the loan for
three years, the entire PRA forbearance amount is forgiven. Also,
if the loan is in good standing and the borrower voluntary pays off
the loan, the entire forbearance amount is forgiven.

For non-PRA forborne amounts, the deferred balance is the full
obligation of the borrower and must be paid in full upon (i) sale
of property (ii) voluntary payoff or (iii) final scheduled payment
date. Upon sale of the property, the servicer therefore could
potentially recover some of the deferred amount. For loans that
default in future or get modified after the closing date, the
servicer may opt for partial or full principal forgiveness to the
extent permitted under the servicing agreement.

Based on performance data and information from servicers, Moody's
assume that 100% of the remaining PRA amount would be forgiven and
not recovered. For non-PRA deferred balance, Moody's applied a
slightly higher default rate for these loans than what Moody's
assumed for the overall pool given that these borrowers have
experienced past credit events that required loan modification, as
opposed to borrowers who have been current and have never been
modified. Also, for non-PRA loans, based on performance data from
an RPL servicer, Moody's assumed approximately 95% severity as
servicers may recover a portion of the deferred balance. The final
expected loss for the collateral pool reflects the due diligence
scope and findings of the independent third party review (TPR)
firms as well as Moody's assessment of MCMLT 2017-2's
representations & warranties (R&Ws) framework.

Transaction Structure

The securitization has a simple sequential priority of payments
structure without any cash flow triggers. In some scenarios, excess
spread will be available to pay down the notes up to the Targeted
Overcollateralization Amount, which is the lower of (i) 2% of the
aggregate cut-off date pool balance and (ii) 2.5% of the aggregate
current pool balance. On the closing date, the Targeted
Overcollateralization Amount will be approximately $7.649 million.

Similar to MCMLT 2017-1, due to the inclusion of HELOC loans (and
potential for future draws) certain structural features were
incorporated in this transaction. If a borrower of a HELOC loan
makes a draw on the related HELOC credit line, the servicer will be
required to fund such draw and will be reimbursed through the
following mechanism.

On the closing date, the HELOC Draw Reserve Account will be fully
funded to its target amount of $668,202 by the depositor, which
will be used to reimburse the servicer for any draws made on the
HELOC credit line.

Subsequently, if amounts on deposit in the HELOC Draw Reserve
Account are not sufficient to reimburse such draws, the Class D
Certificates will be obligated to remit the deficient amount to the
HELOC Draw Reserve Account ("Class D Draw Amount"). The Class D
certificate is not an offered certificate and will represent an
equity interest in the issuer (MCMLT 2017-2)

In the event the holder of the Class D Certificates fails to remit
all or part of any Class D Draw Amount on any payment date, the
Indenture Trustee will fund any unpurchased draw or portion of a
draw on future Payment Dates from amounts in the HELOC Draw Reserve
Account.

The servicer will not advance any principal or interest on
delinquent loans. However, the servicer will be required to advance
costs and expenses incurred in connection with a default,
delinquency or other event in the performance of its servicing
obligations.

Credit enhancement in this transaction is comprised of
subordination provided by mezzanine and junior tranches, the
buildup of overcollateralization up to the target amount, from
available excess interest (0.55% at closing) and from additional
collateral available to the trust if HELOC borrowers draw on their
credit line, which will be purchased by the Indenture Trustee from
the servicer. If the Indenture Trustee is unable to purchase the
additional collateral, then the servicer will be entitled to a
portion of P&I payments on such HELOC loan. The principal payment
received from this additional collateral will facilitate a faster
pay down on the senior notes.

The available excess interest however, will be used to first
replenish the HELOC Draw Reserve Account to the target amount, to
the Class D certificate holder and to reimburse any unpaid fees
before paying down the rated notes sequentially until the target
amount is reached. On the closing date, the HELOC Draw Reserve
Account will be fully funded to its target amount, thereby,
increasing the likelihood that excess spread will be available to
pay down the bonds (only up to the target amount) from the first
remittance date.

To the extent that the overcollateralization amount is zero,
realized losses will be allocated to the notes in a reverse
sequential order starting with the lowest subordinate bond. The
Class A1, M1, M2, and M3 notes carry a fixed-rate coupon subject to
the collateral adjusted net weighted average coupon (WAC) and
applicable available funds cap. The Class B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5 are
variable rate notes where the coupon is equal to the lesser of
adjusted net WAC and applicable available funds cap.

Moody's modeled MCMLT 2017-2's cashflows using SFW®, a cashflow
tool developed by Moody's Analytics. To assess the final rating on
the notes, Moody's ran 96 different loss and prepayment scenarios
through SFW. The scenarios encompass six loss levels, four loss
timing curves, and four prepayment curves. The structure allows for
timely payment of interest and ultimate payment of principal with
respect to the notes by the legal final maturity.

Third Party Review

Three third party review (TPR) firms conducted due diligence on all
but 15 of the loans in MCMLT 2017-2's collateral pool. The TPR
firms reviewed compliance, data integrity and key documents, to
verify that loans were originated in accordance with federal, state
and local anti-predatory laws. The TPR firms also conducted audits
of designated data fields to ensure the accuracy of the collateral
tape. An independent firm also reviewed the title and tax reports
for all the loans in the pool.

Based on Moody's analysis of the third-party review reports,
Moody's determined that a portion of the loans had legal or
compliance exceptions that could cause future losses to the trust.
Moody's incorporated an additional hit to the loss severities for
these loans to account for this risk. The title review includes
confirming the recordation status of the mortgage and the
intervening chain of assignments, the status of real estate taxes
and validating the lien position of the underlying mortgage loan.
Once securitized, delinquent taxes will be advanced on behalf of
the borrower and added to the borrower's account. The servicer will
be reimbursed for delinquent taxes from the top of the waterfall,
as a servicing advance. The representation provider has deposited
collateral of $750,000 in the Assignment Reserve Account (ARA) to
ensure one or more third parties monitored by the Depositor
completes all assignment and endorsement chains and record an
intervening assignment of mortgage as necessary. The amount
deposited in the ARA at the closing date is same as MCMLT 2017-1
but lower than previous Mill City transactions issued in 2015 and
2016. Moody's has considered the lower ARA deposit and factors such
as: (i) the high historical cure rate in the previous Mill City
transactions; (ii) the low delinquency rate of the previous Mill
City transactions; and (iii) quality of the collateral.

Representations & Warranties

Moody's ratings also factor in MCMLT 2017-2's weak representations
and warranties (R&Ws) framework because they contain many knowledge
qualifiers and the regulatory compliance R&W does not cover
monetary damages that arise from TILA violations whose right of
rescission has expired. While the transaction provides for a Breach
Reserve Account to cover for any breaches of R&Ws, the size of the
account is small relative to MCMLT 2017-2's aggregate collateral
pool ($382.4 million). An initial deposit of $1.025 million will be
remitted to the Breach Reserve Account on the closing date, with an
initial Breach Reserve Account target amount of $1.43 million.

Transaction Parties

The transaction benefits from an adequate servicing arrangement.
Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing ("Shellpoint") will service 81.45% of
the pool and Fay Servicing LLC ("Fay") will service 18.55% of the
pool. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is the Custodian of the transaction.
The Delaware Trustee for MCMLT 2017-2 is Wilmington Savings Fund
Society, FSB, d/b/a, Christiana Trust. MCMLT 2017-2's Indenture
Trustee is U.S. Bank National Association.

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

Levels of credit protection that are insufficient to protect
investors against current expectations of loss could drive the
ratings down. Losses could rise above Moody's original expectations
as a result of a higher number of obligors defaulting or
deterioration in the value of the mortgaged property securing an
obligor's promise of payment. Transaction performance also depends
greatly on the US macro economy and housing market. Other reasons
for worse-than-expected performance include poor servicing, error
on the part of transaction parties, inadequate transaction
governance and fraud.


MORGAN STANLEY 2000-PRIN: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Cl. X Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the rating on one interest
only class in Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Capital I Trust
2000-PRIN:

Cl. X, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017 Downgraded to B2
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating on the IO class X was affirmed based on the credit
quality of the referenced classes. The IO class is the only
outstanding Moody's rated class in this transaction.

Moody's does not anticipate losses from the remaining collateral in
the current environment. However, over the remaining life of the
transaction, losses may emerge from macro stresses to the
environment and changes in collateral performance. Moody's ratings
reflect the potential for future losses under varying levels of
stress. Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now
0.10% of the original pooled balance, compared to 0.11% at the last
review. Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for
conduit and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

An IO class may be subject to ratings upgrades if there is an
improvement in the credit quality of its referenced classes,
subject to the limits and provisions of the updated IO
methodology.

An IO class may be subject to ratings downgrades if there is (i) a
decline in the credit quality of the reference classes and/or (ii)
paydowns of higher quality reference classes, subject to the limits
and provisions of the updated IO methodology.

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION:

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

Additionally, the methodology used in rating Cl. X was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the May 23, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 98% to $11 million
from $598 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by seven mortgage loans ranging in size from 4% to
29% of the pool.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 5, compared to 7 at Moody's last review.

Two loans, constituting 22% 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.

Two loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $590,044 (for an average loss severity
of 7%). There are currently no loans in special servicing.

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results for 78% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 28%, compared to 27% at Moody's
last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 17% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.7%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.31X and 4.58X,
respectively, compared to 1.54X and 9.84X 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 67% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the 10900 Research Boulevard Loan ($3.1 million --
28.7% of the pool), which is secured by an approximately 73,900
square foot (SF) portion of an approximately 83,500 SF
grocery-anchored retail center located in Austin, Texas. The
property was 100% leased as of December 2016, the same as last
review. The loan is fully amortizing and has amortized by 61% since
securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 28% and 3.74X,
respectively, compared to 33% and 3.21X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Kroger Center Loan ($2.2 million --
20.3% of the pool), which is secured by an approximately 106,000 SF
retail property located in Greensboro, North Carolina. As of
December 2016, the property was 95% leased, compared to 100% in
December 2015. The loan is fully amortizing and has amortized by
60% since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 25% and
>4.00X, respectively, compared to 29% and 3.54X at the last
review.

The third largest loan is the Randall's Austin Loan (also known as
the Westcreek Shopping Center) ($1.9 million -- 17.9% of the pool),
which is secured by an approximately 81,000 SF retail property
located in Austin, Texas. As of December 2016, the property was
100% occupied, the same as in December 2015. The loan is fully
amortizing and has amortized by 64% since securitization. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 27% and 3.95X, respectively, compared to
31% and 3.46X at the last review.


MORGAN STANLEY 2002-IQ3: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 2 Tranches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on one class and
affirmed the ratings on four classes in Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
Capital I Trust 2002-IQ3, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, 2002-IQ3:

Cl. F, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Upgraded to
Aaa (sf)

Cl. G, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-1, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017 Downgraded to C
(sf)

Cl. X-Y, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating on Class G was upgraded based primarily on an increase
in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and amortization.
The deal has paid down 27% since Moody's last review.

The rating on Class F was affirmed because the transaction's key
metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, Moody's
stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) and the transaction's
Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within acceptable ranges. The rating
on Class H was affirmed because the ratings are consistent with
Moody's expected loss plus realized losses. Class H has already
experienced a 92% realized loss as result of previously liquidated
loans.

The rating on one IO class, Class X-1, was affirmed based on the
credit quality of the referenced classes.

The rating on one IO Class, Class X-Y, was affirmed due to the
credit quality of its referenced loan. Class X-Y refers to a former
residential cooperative loan in the pool which has defeased.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 1.0% of the
current balance, compared to 1.4% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 4.8% of the original
pooled balance, unchanged from Moody's last review. Moody's
provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit and
fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

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

Additionally, the methodology used in rating Cl. X-1 and Cl. X-Y
was "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only
(IO) Securities" published in June 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the May 15, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 98.6% to $12.73
million from $909.6 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 25 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 11% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 67% of the pool. One loan, constituting
0.4% of the pool, has defeased and is secured by US government
securities.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 16, compared to 19 at Moody's last review.

Thirteen loans, constituting 45% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Nine loans have been liquidated from the pool, contributing to an
aggregate realized loss of $43.6 million (for an average loss
severity of 54%).

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 96% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results for 96% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 28%, compared to 32% 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 18% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 10.1%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.40X and 4.84X,
respectively, compared to 1.39X and 5.36X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 31% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Homewood Plaza Loan ($1.44 million -- 11% of
the pool), which is secured by a 53,000 square foot (SF) office
property in Homewood, Alabama. The property was 95% leased as of
December 2016, down from 100% at year-end 2015. The
fully-amortizing loan matures in September 2022 and has amortized
58% since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 26% and
4.10X, respectively, compared to 27% and 3.94X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Monroeville Giant Eagle Loan ($1.41
million -- 11% of the pool), which is secured by a 89,000 SF
single-tenant grocery retail property in Monroeville, Pennsylvania.
The property is 100% leased to Giant Eagle through a triple net
lease that expires in February 2019. The loan is coterminous with
Giant Eagle's initial lease term, but the lease has two five-year
extension options. The loan has amortized 83% since securitization
and Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 16% and 6.47X, respectively,
compared to 21% and 4.88X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the 4051 Douglas Boulevard Loan ($1.07
million -- 8.4% of the pool), which is secured by a 14,500 SF
single tenant retail property in Granite Bay, California. The
property is 100% leased to Walgreens through September 2022. The
fully-amortizing loan matures in October 2022 and has amortized 57%
since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 39% and
2.92X, respectively, compared to 37% and 3.09X at the last review.


MORGAN STANLEY 2007-TOP25: Fitch Hikes Cl. A-J Certs Rating to Bsf
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded two classes and affirmed 12 classes of
Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2007-TOP25 (MSCI 2007-TOP25)
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The upgrades to classes A-J and B reflect the substantial credit
enhancement to the classes relative to expected losses. As of the
May 2017 distribution date, the pool's aggregate principal balance
has been reduced by 91.5% to $132 million from $1.55 billion at
issuance. Further, since the last rating action in 2016, the
transaction received pay down of approximately $785 million with
realized losses on assets disposed over the period better than
anticipated.

Pool Concentration: Only 13 of the original 204 loans remain in the
pool. Further, the largest loan, the specially serviced, Shoppes at
Park Place, comprises 53.8% of the pool. A significant percentage
of the remaining loans are secured by retail properties (87% of the
pool). Due to the concentrated nature of the pool, Fitch performed
a sensitivity analysis that grouped the remaining loans based on
loan structural features, collateral quality, and performance, then
ranked them by the perceived likelihood of repayment. This included
specially serviced assets, a small defeased loan, fully amortizing
loans, and performing loans with binary performance risk. The
ratings reflect this sensitivity analysis.

Loans of Concern: A majority of the loans in the pool are
considered Fitch Loans of Concern at 80.9%, including 74.9% in
special servicing.

Shoppes at Park Place: The largest remaining loan in the pool
transferred to special servicing in January 2017 due to maturity
default. The interest-only loan is secured by a 325,270 sf retail
center located in Pinellas Park, FL. The property, which was
constructed in 2006, has a mix of national retailers, including
Regal Cinemas (22.4% of the NRA through 2021), American Signature
Furniture (15.4% through 2021), Marshalls (9.2% through 2021), and
Michaels (6.6% through 2026). The property is shadow anchored by
Target and Home Depot.

The servicer reported YE 2016 NOI DSCR was 1.32x. As of the
November 2016 rent roll, the property remained 99% occupied.
Approximately 11% of the NRA was scheduled to roll over the next
year, including Off Broadway Shoes (6.2%).

A substantial recovery is expected on this loan based on a recently
provided valuation.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Outlook on class A-J reflects the sufficient credit
enhancement to the class and strong recovery expectations for the
largest loan in the pool. Further upgrade to the class is unlikely
due to the portfolio's concentration, adverse selection and
significant percentage of Fitch Loans of Concern. The distressed
classes B and C may be subject to further rating actions depending
on the ultimate recoveries for the specially serviced loans.

Fitch has upgraded the following ratings:

-- $76.4 million class A-J to 'Bsf' from 'CCCsf'; Outlook Stable
    Assigned.
-- $27.2 million class B to 'CCCsf' from 'CCsf'; RE 50%.

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $11.7 million class C at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $16.7 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%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class O at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

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



MORGAN STANLEY 2008-TOP29: S&P Raises Rating on Cl. E Certs to BB+
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on eight classes of
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from Morgan Stanley
Capital I Trust 2008-TOP29, a U.S. commercial mortgage-backed
securities (CMBS) transaction.  At the same time, S&P lowered its
rating on one class and affirmed our ratings on nine other classes
from the same transaction.

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

S&P raised its ratings on classes A-M through G to reflect its
expectation of the available credit enhancement for these classes,
which S&P believes is greater than its most recent estimate of
necessary credit enhancement for the respective rating levels.  The
upgrades also reflect the reduction in trust balance as well as an
increase in defeased loans in the transaction ($274.1 million,
33.6%).

S&P lowered its rating on class O to 'D (sf)' because it expects
the accumulatedinterest shortfalls to remain outstanding for the
foreseeable future.

According to the June 13, 2017, trustee remittance report, the
current monthly interest shortfalls totaled $28,249, resulting
primarily from:

   -- Appraisal subordinate entitlement reduction amounts totaling

      $24,471; and

   -- Special servicing fees totaling $3,777.

The current interest shortfalls affected classes subordinate to and
including class O.

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

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

                        TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the June 13, 2017, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $814.8 million, which is 66.0% of the pool balance
at issuance.  The pool currently includes 63 loans and one real
estate-owned (REO) asset, down from 82 loans at issuance.  One of
the assets ($17.5 million, 2.2%) is with the special servicer,
seven are defeased, and 26 ($229.8 million, 28.2%) are on the
master servicer's watchlist.  The master servicer, Wells Fargo Bank
N.A., reported financial information for 100% of the nondefeased
loans in the pool, of which 97.7% was year-end 2016 data, 0.9% was
partial-year 2017 data, and the remaining was year-end 2015 data.

S&P calculated an S&P Global Ratings weighted average debt service
coverage (DSC) of 1.25x and a loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 83.9%
using an S&P Global Ratings weighted average capitalization rate of
7.92%.  The DSC, LTV, and capitalization rate calculations exclude
the one specially serviced asset, seven defeased loans, and one
cooperative housing loan ($5.1 million, 0.6%).  The top 10
nondefeased loans have an aggregate outstanding pool trust balance
of $324.6 million (39.8%).  Using servicer-reported numbers, S&P
calculated an S&P Global Ratings weighted average DSC and LTV of
1.22x and 91.2%, respectively, for nine of the top 10 nondefeased
performing loans.  The remaining loan is specially serviced and
discussed below.

To date, the transaction has experienced $11.6 million in principal
losses, or 0.9% of the original pool trust balance.  S&P expects
losses to reach approximately 1.3% of the original pool trust
balance in the near term, based on losses incurred to date and
additional losses S&P expects upon the eventual resolution of the
specially serviced asset.

                       CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the June 13, 2017, trustee remittance report, one loan ($17.5
million, 2.2%) in the pool was with the special servicer, C-III
Asset Management LLC.  Details of the asset are:

   -- The Scottsdale Retail Center, an REO asset ($17.5 million,
      2.2%), is the eighth-largest nondefeased asset in the trust,

      and has a total reported exposure of $18.7 million.  The
      asset is a retail property totaling 102,563 sq. ft. located
      in Scottsdale, Ariz.  The loan was transferred to the
      special servicer on Sept. 22, 2016, because of imminent
      default as one anchor tenant, Sports Chalet (40% of gross
      leasable area), filed for bankruptcy in April 2016, and
      subsequently closed the store and stopped paying rent in May

      2016.  The property became REO on May 31, 2017.  The
      reported DSC as of June 2016 was 0.91x.  An appraisal
      reduction amount (ARA) of $4.6 million is in effect against
      the asset.  S&P expects a moderate loss (26%-59%) upon the
      asset's eventual resolution.  S&P's estimated loss for the
      asset is 27.8%.

RATINGS LIST

Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2008-TOP29
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2008-TOP29

                                       Rating
Class            Identifier            To             From
A-4              61757LAE0             AAA (sf)       AAA (sf)
A-4FL            61757LAK6             AAA (sf)       AAA (sf)
A-M              61757LAF7             AA+ (sf)       A+ (sf)
A-J              61757LAG5             A+ (sf)        BBB (sf)
B                61757LAL4             A- (sf)        BBB- (sf)
C                61757LAM2             BBB+ (sf)      BB+ (sf)
D                61757LAN0             BBB- (sf)      BB (sf)
E                61757LAP5             BB+ (sf)       BB- (sf)
F                61757LAQ3             BB (sf)        B+ (sf)
G                61757LAR1             B+ (sf)        B (sf)
H                61757LAS9             B- (sf)        B- (sf)
J                61757LAT7             B- (sf)        B- (sf)
K                61757LAU4             B- (sf)        B- (sf)
L                61757LAV2             B- (sf)        B- (sf)
M                61757LAW0             B- (sf)        B- (sf)
N                61757LAX8             CCC- (sf)      CCC- (sf)
O                61757LAY6             D (sf)         CCC- (sf)
X                61757LAJ9             AAA (sf)       AAA (sf)


MORGAN STANLEY 2012-C5: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on 2 Tranches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on fifteen
classes in Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust
2012-C5, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2012-C5:

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-S, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Baa1
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Baa3
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. PST, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aa3
(sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. X-B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2016 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. X-C, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017 Downgraded to
B2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The ratings on the three IO classes were affirmed based on the
credit quality of the referenced classes.

The rating on Class PST was affirmed due to the weighted average
rating factor (WARF) of the exchangeable classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 2.8% of the
current balance, compared to 1.8% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.2% of the original
pooled balance, compared to 1.6% at the last review. Moody's
provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit and
fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The methodologies used in these ratings were "Approach to Rating US
and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in December 2014, and
"Moody's Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single
Borrower CMBS" published in October 2015. The principal methodology
used in rating the exchangeable class PST, was "Moody's Approach to
Rating Repackaged Securities" published in June 2015.

Additionally, the methodology used in rating Classes X-A, X-B and
X-C was "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance
Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the May 17, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 21% to $1 billion
from $1.35 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 65 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 15.6% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 57.3% of the pool. One loan, constituting
9.4% of the pool, has an investment-grade structured credit
assessment. Three loans, constituting 1.9% of the pool, have
defeased and are secured by US government securities.

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 18, compared to 19 at Moody's last review.

Ten loans, constituting 17.9% 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.

There are no loans that have been liquidated from the pool, nor are
there any loans in Special Servicing.

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results for 94% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 95.3%, compared to 92.6% 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 18.3% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.5%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.47X and 1.12X,
respectively, compared to 1.52X 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 Silver Sands
Factory Stores Loan ($100 million -- 9.4% of the pool), which is
secured by a 442,000 square foot (SF) outlet center located in
Miramar Beach, Florida. As of December 2016 the property was 92%
leased, compared to 94% leased in March 2016. Moody's structured
credit assessment and stressed DSCR are a2 (sca.pd) and 1.43X,
respectively.

The top three conduit loans represent 31% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Legg Mason Tower Loan ($165.6 million -- 15.6%
of the pool), which is secured by a 613,000 square foot (SF),
24-story, Class A office building located along the Inner Harbor
waterfront in downtown Baltimore, Maryland. The improvements were
constructed in 2009 and consist of a 24-story high rise office
building, 19,000 square feet (SF) of ground floor retail space and
a 5-level subterranean garage containing 1,145 parking spaces. As
per the April 2017 rent roll, the property was 100% leased,
compared to 96% leased as of December 2015. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 89.8% and 1.08X, respectively, compared to 93.6%
and 1.04X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the US Bank Tower Loan ($82.8 million --
7.8% of the pool), which is secured by a 520,000 square foot (SF),
Class A office building located in the central business district of
Denver, Colorado. The property is comprised of a 26-story office
building with a two-level subterranean parking garage, an adjacent
six-level parking garage, as well as ground floor retail. As per
the March 2017 rent roll the property was 79% leased, compared to
78% leased as of December 2015. The largest tenant, US Bank (28% of
net rentable area), whose lease expired in December 2016 reached an
agreement to extend and downsize their footprint by 66% to
approximately 96,000 SF. They will surrender their space over a
sixteen month period. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 127% and
0.78X, respectively, compared to 111% and 0.90X at the last
review.

The third largest loan is the Hamilton Town Center Loan ($81.4
million -- 7.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 494,000 square
foot (SF) component of a larger 671,000 square foot (SF) retail
lifestyle center located 20 miles northeast of Indianapolis in
Noblesville, Indiana. The property is sponsored by Simon Property
Group and is anchored by a JC Penney and an IMAX Theatre. Neither
anchor tenant serves as part of the loan collateral. As per the
January 2017 rent roll the property was 94% leased, compared to 93%
leased as of December 2015. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 91%
and 1.16X, respectively, compared to 84% and 1.19X at the last
review.


MP CLO IV: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3(sf) Rating to Class E-R Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned the following provisional
ratings to the following notes (the "Refinancing Notes") to be
issued by MP CLO IV, Ltd.:

US$4,000,000 Class X Amortizing Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes
due 2029 (the "Class X Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$258,000,000 Class A-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
2029 (the "Class A-R Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$42,000,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2029
(the "Class B-R Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

US$19,400,000 Class C-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

US$24,600,000 Class D-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class D-R Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

US$24,000,000 Class E-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes Due 2029 (the "Class E-R Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

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

The Issuer is a managed cash flow collateralized loan obligation
(CLO). The issued notes are collateralized primarily by a portfolio
of senior secured, broadly syndicated corporate loans.

MP CLO Management LLC (the "Manager") manages the CLO. It directs
the selection, acquisition, and disposition of collateral on behalf
of the Issuer.

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The Issuer intends to issue the Refinancing Notes on July 25, 2017
(the "Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of all
classes of the secured notes (the "Refinanced Original Notes")
previously issued on September 25, 2013. On the Refinancing Date,
the Issuer will use proceeds from the issuance of the Refinancing
Notes to redeem in full the Refinanced Original Notes.

In addition to the issuance of the Refinancing Notes, a variety of
other changes to transaction features will occur in connection with
the refinancing. These include: extension of the reinvestment
period; extensions of the stated maturity and non-call period;
changes to certain collateral quality tests; changes to the
overcollateralization test levels.

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 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: $399,635,083

Defaulted par: $733,596

Diversity Score: 70

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2950

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.45%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.75%

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 Refinancing Notes is subject to uncertainty.
The performance of the Refinancing 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 Refinancing Notes.

Together with the set of modeling assumptions above, Moody's
conducted an additional sensitivity analysis, which was a component
in determining the rating(s) assigned to the Refinancing 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 Refinancing
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% (3393)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-R Notes: -1

Class B-R Notes: -2

Class C-R Notes: -2

Class D-R Notes: -1

Class E-R Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (3835)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-R Notes: -1

Class B-R Notes: -4

Class C-R Notes: -4

Class D-R Notes: -2

Class E-R Notes: -2


N-STAR REAL IX: S&P Lowers Rating on 3 Classes to 'CC'
------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its ratings on three classes from N-Star
Real Estate CDO IX Ltd., a U.S. commercial real estate
collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO) transaction.  At the same
time, S&P affirmed its ratings on nine other classes from the same
transaction.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the May 2017 monthly trustee report
(that includes the details on June 7, 2017, payment date) and the
notice issued by the trustee on June 7, 2017.

On June 7, 2017, the trustee filed an interpleader action alleging
a conflict between the controlling class noteholders and the
collateral manager regarding whether events of default have
occurred or are continuing.  Following that, only the class A-1
noteholders received interest payments; the interest (as well as
future interest) to the nondeferrable class A-2, A-3, and B notes
is currently in an escrow account pending court resolution. Because
S&P expects this resolution within a year, it affirmed its ratings
on the class A-2, A-3, and B notes based on their existing credit
support and quality of assets backing the respective notes in line
with "Structured Finance Temporary Interest Shortfall Methodology,"
published Dec. 15, 2015.  S&P will revisit the ratings for these
classes if there is no resolution within 12 months.

Even though the transaction continues to pay down the class A-1
notes, it has experienced an increase in defaults since S&P's last
rating action in June 2014.  This caused the overcollateralization
(O/C) ratios to decline since the June 2014 trustee report, which
S&P used for its last rating actions:

   -- The class A/B O/C ratio declined to 107.34% from 111.53%.
   -- The class C/D/E O/C ratio declined to 98.83% from 105.80%.
   -- The class F/G/H O/C ratio declined to 95.51% from 103.50%.

S&P lowered its ratings on the class H, J, and K notes to reflect
credit support erosion.

Since S&P's previous review on June 2014, the class A-1 notes have
been paid down by $221.94 million, and the current outstanding
balance of the notes is about 38.60% of its original issuance.
Although our model indicated a downgrade, S&P affirmed its rating
based on the expectation of continued paydowns and the credit
quality of the assets backing the notes.

S&P affirmed its 'CCC- (sf)' ratings on the class C, D, E, F, and G
notes to reflect S&P's belief that the credit support available is
commensurate with the current rating level.

Because the transaction previously experienced subordinate debt
cancellation, S&P's ratings relied in part upon a criteria
interpretation of our global CDO criteria "Global Methodologies And
Assumptions For Corporate Cash Flow And Synthetic CDOs, published
Aug. 8, 2016, applicable to such situations.  This involves the
application of an additional rating stress, which is designed to
assess the potential creditworthiness without the support of
interest or principal diversion mechanisms linked to the
outstanding subordinated tranches.

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

S&P's review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis,
based on the portfolio and transaction as 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.

RATING LOWERED

N-Star Real Estate CDO IX Ltd.
              Rating
Class     To        From
H         CC (sf)   CCC- (sf)
J         CC (sf)   CCC- (sf)
K         CC (sf)   CCC- (sf)

RATING AFFIRMED

N-Star Real Estate CDO IX Ltd.
Class            Rating
A-1              CCC+ (sf)
A-2              CCC (sf)
A-3              CCC- (sf)
B                CCC- (sf)
C                CCC- (sf)
D                CCC- (sf)
E                CCC- (sf)
F                CCC- (sf)
G                CCC- (sf)


NEW RESIDENTIAL 2017-3: DBRS Finalizes BB Ratings on 7 Tranches
---------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. on June 9, 2017, finalized the following provisional
ratings on the Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2017-3 (the Notes)
issued by New Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 2017-3 (the Trust):

-- $566.2 million Class A-1 at AAA (sf)
-- $566.2 million Class A-IO at AAA (sf)
-- $566.2 million Class A-1A at AAA (sf)
-- $566.2 million Class A-1B at AAA (sf)
-- $566.2 million Class A-1C at AAA (sf)
-- $566.2 million Class A1-IOA at AAA (sf)
-- $566.2 million Class A1-IOB at AAA (sf)
-- $566.2 million Class A1-IOC at AAA (sf)
-- $596.9 million Class A-2 at AA (sf)
-- $566.2 million Class A at AAA (sf)
-- $30.6 million Class B-1 at AA (sf)
-- $30.6 million Class B1-IO at AA (sf)
-- $30.6 million Class B-1A at AA (sf)
-- $30.6 million Class B-1B at AA (sf)
-- $30.6 million Class B-1C at AA (sf)
-- $30.6 million Class B1-IOA at AA (sf)
-- $30.6 million Class B1-IOB at AA (sf)
-- $30.6 million Class B1-IOC at AA (sf)
-- $20.9 million Class B-2 at A (sf)
-- $20.9 million Class B2-IO at A (sf)
-- $20.9 million Class B-2A at A (sf)
-- $20.9 million Class B-2B at A (sf)
-- $20.9 million Class B-2C at A (sf)
-- $20.9 million Class B2-IOA at A (sf)
-- $20.9 million Class B2-IOB at A (sf)
-- $20.9 million Class B2-IOC at A (sf)
-- $24.0 million Class B-3 at BBB (sf)
-- $24.0 million Class B-3A at BBB (sf)
-- $24.0 million Class B-3B at BBB (sf)
-- $24.0 million Class B-3C at BBB (sf)
-- $24.0 million Class B3-IOA at BBB (sf)
-- $24.0 million Class B3-IOB at BBB (sf)
-- $24.0 million Class B3-IOC at BBB (sf)
-- $13.9 million Class B-4 at BB (sf)
-- $13.9 million Class B-4A at BB (sf)
-- $13.9 million Class B4-IOA at BB (sf)
-- $13.9 million Class B-4B at BB (sf)
-- $13.9 million Class B4-IOB at BB (sf)
-- $13.9 million Class B-4C at BB (sf)
-- $13.9 million Class B4-IOC at BB (sf)
-- $12.9 million Class B-5 at B (sf)
-- $12.9 million Class B-5A at B (sf)
-- $12.9 million Class B5-IOA at B (sf)
-- $12.9 million Class B-5B at B (sf)
-- $12.9 million Class B5-IOB at B (sf)
-- $12.9 million Class B-5C at B (sf)
-- $12.9 million Class B5-IOC at B (sf)
-- $12.9 million Class B-5D at B (sf)
-- $12.9 million Class B5-IOD at B (sf)

Classes A-IO, A1-IOA, A1-IOB, A1-IOC, B1-IO, B1-IOA, B1-IOB,
B1-IOC, B2-IO, B2-IOA, B2-IOB, B2-IOC, B3-IOA, B3-IOB, B3-IOC,
B4-IOA, B4-IOB, B4-IOC, B5-IOA, B5-IOB, B5-IOC and B5-IOD are
interest-only notes. The class balances represent notional amounts.


Classes A-1A, A-1B, A-1C, A1-IOA, A1-IOB, A1-IOC, A-2, A, B-1A,
B-1B, B-1C, B1-IOA, B1-IOB, B1-IOC, B-2A, B-2B, B-2C, B2-IOA,
B2-IOB, B2-IOC, B-3A, B-3B, B-3C, B3-IOA, B3-IOB, B3-IOC, B-4A,
B4-IOA, B-4B, B4-IOB, B-4C, B4-IOC, B-5A, B5-IOA, B-5B, B5-IOB,
B-5C, B5-IOC, B-5D and B5-IOD are exchangeable notes. These classes
can be exchanged for combinations of initial exchangeable notes as
specified in the offering documents.

The AAA (sf) ratings on the Notes reflect the 18.60% of credit
enhancement provided by subordinated Notes in the pool. The AA
(sf), A (sf), BBB (sf), BB (sf) and B (sf) ratings reflect 14.20%,
11.20%, 7.75%, 5.75% and 3.90% of credit enhancement,
respectively.

Other than the specified classes above, DBRS does not rate any
other classes in this transaction.

This transaction is a securitization of a portfolio of seasoned
performing and re-performing first-lien residential mortgages.
Based on the stated principal balances, the Notes are backed by
6,551 loans with a total principal balance of $695,630,510 as of
the Cut-Off Date (May 1, 2017). The note amounts and notional
amounts of the Notes are based on the aggregate stated principal
balance of the mortgage loans.

Based on the actual loan balances, the total principal balance is
$698,108,121 as of the Cut-Off Date. Unless specified otherwise,
all the statistics regarding the mortgage loans in this PR are
based on the actual loan balances.

The loans are significantly seasoned with a weighted-average age of
161 months. As of the Cut-Off Date, 91.2% of the pool is current,
7.6% is 30 days delinquent under the Mortgage Bankers Association
(MBA) delinquency method and 1.2% is in bankruptcy (all bankruptcy
loans are performing or 30 days delinquent). Approximately 70.3%
and 77.2% of the mortgage loans have been zero times 30 days
delinquent (0 x 30) for the past 24 months and 12 months,
respectively, under the MBA delinquency method. The portfolio
contains 30.0% modified loans. The modifications happened more than
two years ago for 65.5% of the modified loans. As a result of the
seasoning of the collateral, none of the loans are subject to the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Ability-to-Repay/Qualified
Mortgage rules.

The Seller, NRZ Sponsor VI LLC (NRZ), acquired certain loans prior
to the Closing Date and will acquire certain loans on the Closing
Date in connection with the termination of various securitization
trusts or through a whole loan purchase. Upon acquiring the loans
from the securitization trusts, NRZ, through an affiliate, New
Residential Funding 2017-3 LLC (the Depositor), will contribute the
loans to the Trust. As the Sponsor, New Residential Investment
Corp., through a majority-owned affiliate, will acquire and retain
a 5% eligible vertical interest in each class of securities to be
issued (other than the residual notes) to satisfy the credit risk
retention requirements under Section 15G of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the regulations promulgated thereunder. These loans
were originated and previously serviced by various entities through
purchases in the secondary market.

As of the Cut-Off Date, 58.3% of the pool is serviced by Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, 21.6% by Specialized Loan Servicing LLC and 20.1%
by Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Nationstar). Nationstar will also act
as the Master Servicer and the Special Servicer.

Beginning on September 1, 2017, the Seller will have the option to
repurchase any loan that becomes 60 or more days delinquent under
the MBA method at a price equal to the principal balance of the
loan (Optional Repurchase Price), provided that such repurchases
will be limited to 10% of the principal balance of the mortgage
loans as of the Cut-Off Date.

The transaction employs a senior-subordinate, shifting-interest
cash flow structure that is enhanced from a pre-crisis structure.

The ratings reflect transactional strengths that include underlying
assets that have significant seasoning, relatively clean payment
histories and robust loan attributes with respect to credit scores,
product types and LTV ratios. Additionally, historical NRMLT
securitizations have exhibited fast voluntary prepayment rates and
satisfactory deal performance.

The transaction employs a relatively weak representations and
warranties framework that includes an unrated representation
provider (NRZ), certain knowledge qualifiers and fewer mortgage
loan representations relative to DBRS criteria for seasoned pools.


Satisfactory third-party due diligence was performed on the pool
for regulatory compliance, title/lien, payment history and data
integrity. Updated Home Data Index and/or broker price opinions
were provided for the pool; however, a reconciliation was not
performed the updated values.

Certain loans have missing assignments or endorsements as of the
Closing Date. Given the relatively clean performance history of the
mortgages and the operational capability of the servicers, DBRS
believes the risk of impeding or delaying foreclosure is remote.

The full description of the strengths, challenges and mitigating
factors are detailed in the related report. Please see the related
appendix for additional information regarding sensitivity of
assumptions used in the rating process.


NORTHWOODS CAPITAL XV: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Cl. E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to six classes of
notes issued by Northwoods Capital XV, Limited.

Moody's rating action is:

US$285,750,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2029
(the "Class A Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$44,000,000 Class B-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2029
(the "Class B-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$10,000,000 Class B-2 Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2029
(the "Class B-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$27,000,000 Class C Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2
(sf)

US$24,750,000 Class D Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Baa3 (sf)

US$22,500,000 Class E Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2029 (the "Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3
(sf)

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

Northwoods Capital XV 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 up to 7.5% of the
portfolio may consist of collateral obligations that are not senior
secured loans. The portfolio is approximately 84% ramped as of the
closing date.

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

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer issued one class of
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: $450,000,000

Diversity Score: 55

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2800

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.70%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 46.5%

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 Upgrade or Downgrade of the Ratings:

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

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

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

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

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A 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 2800 to 3640)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B-1 Notes: -3

Class B-2 Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1


PALMER SQUARE 2016-2: S&P Hikes Class D Notes Rating to 'BB+'
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on the class A-2, B, C, and D
notes from Palmer Square Loan Funding 2016-2 Ltd.  S&P also removed
these ratings from CreditWatch, where it placed them with positive
implications on March 30, 2017.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its
'AAA (sf)' rating on the class A-1 notes from the same transaction.
Palmer Square Loan Funding 2016-2 Ltd. is a static collateralized
loan obligation that closed in June 2016 and entered its
amortization phase on the Oct. 21, 2016, payment date. This
transaction is managed by Palmer Square Capital Management LLC.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the May 15, 2017, trustee report.

The upgrades reflect the stable credit quality of the collateral
portfolio.  The current 'CCC' asset exposure is 0.8% of the
portfolio, compared to 0.0% in July 2016.  There are still no
defaults in the portfolio.

The upgrades also reflect the transaction's $68.9 million in
collective paydowns to the class A-1 notes since S&P's June 2016
rating actions.  These paydowns resulted in improved reported
overcollateralization (O/C) ratios since the July 2016 trustee
report, which S&P used for its last rating actions:

   -- The class A O/C ratio improved to 155.19% from 130.35%.
   -- The class B O/C ratio improved to 129.32% from 117.42%.
   -- The class C O/C ratio improved to 120.24% from 112.38%.
   -- The class D O/C ratio improved to 112.94% from 108.09%.

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

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

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH POSITIVE

Palmer Square Loan Funding 2016-2 Ltd.
                    Rating
Class         To          From
A-2           AAA (sf)    AA (sf)/Watch Pos
B             AA+ (sf)    A (sf)/Watch Pos
C             A (sf)      BBB (sf)/Watch Pos
D             BB+ (sf)    BB (sf)/Watch Pos

RATING AFFIRMED

Palmer Square Loan Funding 2016-2 Ltd.
Class          Rating
A-1            AAA (sf)


PREFERRED TERM XIII: Moody's Hikes Rating on 3 Tranches to Ba1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the following
notes issued by Preferred Term Securities XIII, Ltd.:

US$98,350,000 Floating Rate Class B-1 Mezzanine Notes Due March 24,
2034, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on November 16, 2015
Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

US$21,450,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class B-2 Mezzanine Notes Due
March 24, 2034, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on November 16,
2015 Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

US$44,000,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class B-3 Mezzanine Notes Due
March 24, 2034, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on November 16,
2015 Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

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

US$276,250,000 Floating Rate Class A-1 Senior Notes Due March 24,
2034 (current outstanding balance of $83,822,210), Affirmed Aaa
(sf); previously on November 16, 2015 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

US$27,000,000 Floating Rate Class A-2 Senior Notes Due March 24,
2034, Affirmed Aa1 (sf); previously on November 16, 2015 Upgraded
to Aa1 (sf)

US$7,750,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class A-3 Senior Notes Due March
24, 2034, Affirmed Aa1 (sf); previously on November 16, 2015
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

US$21,500,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class A-4 Senior Notes Due March
24, 2034, Affirmed Aa1 (sf); previously on November 16, 2015
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Preferred Term Securities XIII, Ltd., issued in March 2004, is a
collateralized debt obligation (CDO) backed by a portfolio of bank
trust preferred securities (TruPS).

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The Class A-1 notes have paid down by approximately 21.1% or $22.4
million since June 2016, using principal proceeds from the
redemption of the underlying assets and the diversion of excess
interest proceeds. Based on Moody's calculations, the OC ratios for
the Class A-1, Class A-4 and Class B notes have improved to 405.0%,
242.3%, 111.7%, respectively, from June 2016 levels of 313.6%,
208.5% and 105.5%, respectively. Moody's gave full par credit in
its analysis to three deferring assets that meet certain criteria,
totaling $12 million in par. The Class A-1 notes will continue to
benefit from the diversion of excess interest and the use of
proceeds from redemptions of any assets in the collateral pool.

Because the transaction's portfolio includes TruPS issued by a
number of bank holding companies with significant amounts of other
debt, the rating actions also took into account a stress scenario
in which Moody's made adjustments to the RiskCalc(TM) credit scores
for these highly levered bank holding companies.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 510)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: +1

Class A-3: +1

Class A-4: +1

Class B-1: +3

Class B-2: +3

Class B-3: +3

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 1144)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class A-3: 0

Class A-4: 0

Class B-1: -1

Class B-2: -1

Class B-3: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDROM(TM) to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs. The
simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's
then used the loss distribution as an input in its CDOEdge(TM) cash
flow model.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery rate,
are based on its methodology and could differ from the trustee's
reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the underlying
collateral pool has having a performing par (after treating
deferring securities as performing if they meet certain criteria)
of $339.5 million, defaulted/deferring par of $30.1 million, a
weighted average default probability of 7.99% (implying a WARF of
764), and a weighted average recovery rate upon default of 10%.

In addition to the quantitative factors Moody's explicitly models,
qualitative factors are part of rating committee considerations.
Moody's considers the structural protections in the transaction,
the risk of an event of default, recent deal performance under
current market conditions, the legal environment and specific
documentation features. All information available to rating
committees, including macroeconomic forecasts, inputs from other
Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and judgments regarding
the nature and severity of credit stress on the transactions, can
influence the final rating decision.

The portfolio of this CDO contains mainly TruPS issued by small to
medium sized U.S. community banks that Moody's does not rate
publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of bank TruPS that do not
have public ratings, Moody's uses RiskCalc(TM), an econometric
model developed by Moody's Analytics, to derive credit scores.
Moody's evaluation of the credit risk of most of the bank obligors
in the pool relies on the latest FDIC financial data.


PREFERRED TERM XVII: Moody's Affirms Ba2(sf) Rating on Cl. B Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on the following
notes issued by Preferred Term Securities XVII, Ltd.:

US$65,600,000 Floating Rate Class C Mezzanine Notes due June 23,
2035 (current balance of $62,918,885.09), Upgraded to Caa3 (sf);
previously on October 17, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

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

US$270,800,000 Floating Rate Class A-1 Senior Notes due June 23,
2035 (current balance of $135,012,282.06), Affirmed Aa3 (sf);
previously on July 1, 2015 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

US$62,000,000 Floating Rate Class A-2 Senior Notes due June 23,
2035, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on July 1, 2015 Upgraded to A2
(sf);

US$58,400,000 Floating Rate Class B Mezzanine Notes due June 23,
2035 (current balance of $55,179,237.35), Affirmed Ba2 (sf);
previously on July 1, 2015 Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Preferred Term Securities XVII, Ltd., issued in March 2005, is a
collateralized debt obligation (CDO) backed mainly by a portfolio
of bank and insurance trust preferred securities (TruPS).

RATINGS RATIONALE

The Class C notes' upgrade rating action is primarily a result of
the deleveraging of the notes, an increase in the transaction's
overcollateralization (OC) ratios, and the full repayment of the
Class C deferred interest balance since June 2016.

Since June 2016, the Class A-1 notes have paid down by
approximately 2.8% or $3.9 million, the Class B notes have paid
down by 1.3% or $0.7 million, and the Class C notes have paid down
by 1.3% or $0.8 million. Additionally, the Class C notes' deferred
interest was reduced to zero on the June 2016 payment date with a
payment of $2.9 million. Based on Moody's calculations, the OC
ratios for the Class A-1, Class A-2, Class B, and Class C notes
have improved to 235.6%, 161.4%, 126.1%, and 100.9%, respectively,
from June 2016 levels of 215.1%, 148.7%, 116.3%, and 92.1%,
respectively. The Class A-1, Class B, and Class C notes will
continue to benefit from the diversion of excess interest due to
the failure of the Class C OC test (current level of 100.0% versus
trigger of 107.0%). The Class A-1 notes will also continue to
benefit from the use of proceeds from redemptions of any assets in
the collateral pool.

Moody's gave full par credit in its analysis to one deferring asset
that meets certain criteria, totaling $1.9 million in par. The
total par amount that Moody's treated as having defaulted or
deferring declined by $20.6 million to $85.6 million from $106.1
million in June 2016. Since that time, one previously deferring
bank with par of $20.6 million has resumed making interest payments
on its TruPS.

Despite the OC improvements for Class A-1, Class A-2, and Class B
notes, Moody's affirmed the ratings of the notes as a result of
deterioration in the credit quality of the underlying portfolio.
Based on Moody's calculations, the weighted average rating factor
(WARF) increased to 1402.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: One bank is
expected to resume making interest payments on its TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant positive
impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios and the
ratings on the notes.

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

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

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 841)

Class A-1: +2

Class A-2: +2

Class B: +2

Class C: +3

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 2128)

Class A-1: -1

Class A-2: -2

Class B: -3

Class C: -2

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

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

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery rate,
are based on its methodology and could differ from the trustee's
reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the underlying
collateral pool has having a performing par (after treating
deferring securities as performing if they meet certain criteria)
of $318.0 million, defaulted and deferring par of $85.6 million, a
weighted average default probability of 14.51% (implying a WARF of
1402), and a weighted average recovery rate upon default of 10.0%.

In addition to the quantitative factors Moody's explicitly models,
qualitative factors are part of rating committee considerations.
Moody's considers the structural protections in the transaction,
the risk of an event of default, recent deal performance under
current market conditions, the legal environment and specific
documentation features. All information available to rating
committees, including macroeconomic forecasts, inputs from other
Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and judgments regarding
the nature and severity of credit stress on the transactions, can
influence the final rating decision.

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


REALT 2017-1: DBRS Assigns Prov. BB(sf) Ratings to Class F Debt
---------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS Limited on June 15, 2017, assigned provisional ratings to the
following classes of Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2017-1 (the Certificates) issued by Real Estate Asset
Liquidity Trust (REALT) Series 2017-1:

-- Class A-1 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-2 at AAA (sf)
-- Class B at AA (sf)
-- Class C at A (sf)
-- Class D at BBB (sf)
-- Class E at BBB (low) (sf)
-- Class F at BB (sf)
-- Class G at B (sf)
-- Class X at A (sf)

All trends are Stable.

Classes F and G will be privately placed. Class X is notional.

The collateral consists of 60 fixed-rate loans secured by 73
commercial and multifamily properties. The transaction is a
sequential-pay, pass-through structure. The conduit pool was
analyzed to determine the provisional ratings, reflecting the
long-term probability of loan default within the term and its
liquidity at maturity. When the cut-off loan balances were measured
against the DBRS Stabilized net cash flow (NCF) and their
respective actual constants, two loans, representing 2.9% of the
total pool, had a DBRS Term debt service coverage ratio (DSCR)
below 1.15 times (x), a threshold indicative of a higher likelihood
of mid-term default. Additionally, to assess refinance risk given
the current low interest rate environment, DBRS applied its
refinance constants to the balloon amounts. This resulted in 24
loans, representing 53.2% of the pool, having refinance DSCRs below
1.00x, an indication of elevated refinance risk.

Twenty-seven loans (40.0% of the pool by loan balance) were
considered by DBRS to have Strong sponsor strength, and 32 loans
(63.3% of the pool by loan balance) were considered to have
meaningful recourse to the respective sponsor; all else being
equal, recourse loans typically have lower probability of default
and were modelled as such. All loans in the transaction amortize
for the entire term: 32.9% of the pool by loan balance amortizes on
schedules that are 25 years or less, and the remaining loans
amortize on schedules that are between 25 years and 30 years. Two
top ten loans (13.4% of the pool) were considered to be of Above
Average property quality. Higher-quality properties are more likely
to retain existing tenants and more easily attract new tenants,
resulting in a more stable performance.

The transaction exhibits significant sponsor concentration as
evidenced by only 28 sponsors and/or sponsor groups for the pool of
60 loans, and 38 loans (54.4% of the pool balance) have related
borrowers to one or more loans within the pool. However, 18 of
these loans have meaningful full recourse to the sponsor, and none
of the related sponsors were considered by DBRS to be weak or below
average in terms of net worth or liquidity. Ten loans, representing
22.8% of the pool, are secured by properties that are leased to a
single tenant, and three of these loans are in the top ten. Loans
secured by properties occupied by single tenants have been found to
suffer from higher loss severities in the event of default. To
mitigate, DBRS assumed a higher loss profile for the loans secured
by single-tenant assets than it did for the loans secured by
multi-tenant assets.

The DBRS sample included 35 of the 60 loans in the pool. Site
inspections were performed on 43 of the 73 properties in the
portfolio (78.2% of the pool by allocated loan balance). The DBRS
sample had an average NCF variance of -4.4% from the Issuer's NCF
and ranged from -17.9% (U-Haul Royal Windsor Drive) to +13.4%
(U-Haul Barnet Highway).

The rating assigned to Class X differs from the lower rating
implied by the reference rating within the methodology, Rating
North American CMBS Interest-Only Certificates. Consideration was
given for actual loan, transaction and sector performance where a
rating based on the lowest rated referenced notional class may not
reflect the observed risk. DBRS considers this difference to be a
material deviation from the methodology and, in this case, the
rating reflects consideration given to the historical performance
of Canadian CMBS, in which the total losses in the sector are less
than 0.1% since inception in 1998.


REALT 2017-1: Fitch to Rate Class G Certificates 'Bsf'
------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings expects to rate the following classes of Real Estate
Asset Liquidity Trust (REAL-T) commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2017-1:

-- $106,457,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $203,819,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $8,094,000 class B 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $11,692,000 class C 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $10,792,000 class D 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $4,047,000 class E 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $3,597,000 class F 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $4,047,000 class G 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

All currencies are in Canadian dollars (CAD).

The following classes are not expected to be rated:

-- $359,740,410a class X;
-- $7,195,410 class H.

(a) Notional amount and interest-only.

The expected ratings are based on information provided by the
issuer as of June 14, 2017.

The certificates represent the undivided co-ownership interest in a
pool of mortgage loans expected to consist of 60 loans secured by
74 commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
$359,740,411 as of the cut-off date. The loans will be sold to
REAL-T by Royal Bank of Canada on the closing date, which is
expected to be June 29, 2017.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 69.7% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis of 95.3%, and asset summary reviews
on 100% of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

High Fitch Leverage: The transaction has higher leverage than other
recent Fitch-rated Canadian multiborrower deals. The pool's Fitch
DSCR of 1.09x is below both the 2016 and 2015 averages of 1.15x and
1.18x, respectively. The pool's Fitch LTV of 112.1% is above both
the 2016 and 2015 average of 106.0% and 102.6%, respectively.

Favorable Property Type Concentrations: The pool's largest property
type is multifamily at 32.6%, which is significantly greater than
the 2016 and 2015 averages for Canadian multiborrower transactions
of 13.8% and 10.6%, respectively. In Fitch's multiborrower model,
multifamily properties have a below-average likelihood of default.
Additionally, the pool does not contain any loans backed by hotel
properties, which demonstrate more performance volatility and,
therefore, have higher default probabilities.

Canadian Loan Attributes and Historical Performance: The ratings
reflect strong historical Canadian commercial real estate loan
performance, including a low delinquency rate and low historical
losses of less than 0.1%, as well as positive loan attributes, such
as short amortization schedules, recourse to the borrower and
additional guarantors. For more information on prior Canadian CMBS
securitizations, see Fitch Research on "Canadian CMBS Default and
Loss Study," dated October 2013, available on Fitch's website at
www.fitchratings.com.

Favorable Geographic Concentration: Properties in Ontario represent
61.6% of the pool, which reflects a higher concentration than
previous Canadian deals. Ontario is the country's most populous
province and accounts for approximately 40% of the country's
population and GDP. The properties are spread throughout the
province as the top 10 loans include collateral located in Barrie,
Windsor, London, Keswick, Welland and Guelph. Other significant
province concentrations include Manitoba (10.3% of the pool) and
Saskatchewan (8.0%). Four loans accounting for 6.9% of the pool are
located in the more energy-dependent province of Alberta.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 17.8% below
the most recent year's net operating income (NOI) for properties
for which a full-year NOI was provided, excluding properties that
were stabilizing during this period. Unanticipated further declines
in property-level NCF could result in higher defaults and loss
severities on defaulted loans and in potential rating actions on
the certificates.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to the
REAL-T 2017-1 certificates and found that the transaction displays
average sensitivities to further declines in NCF. In a scenario in
which NCF declined a further 20% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade of
the 'AAAsf' certificates to 'Asf' could result. In a more severe
scenario, in which NCF declined a further 30% from Fitch's NCF, a
downgrade of the 'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBB+sf' could result.


ROSSLYN PORTFOLIO 2017-ROSS: S&P Gives Prelim B- to 2 Tranches
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Rosslyn
Portfolio Trust 2017-ROSS' $500.0 million commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2017-ROSS.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed securities
transaction backed by the issuing entity's assets, which will
consist of a whole loan with an aggregate cut-off date principal
balance of $500.0 million.  The whole loan is secured by the
borrowers' fee simple interest in seven office properties,
comprising 2.04 million sq. ft. and located in the Rosslyn
submarket of Arlington, Va.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of June 16,
2017.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's view of the collateral's
historical and projected performance, the sponsor's and manager's
experience, the trustee-provided liquidity, the loan's terms, and
the transaction's structure.  S&P determined that the loan has an
92.1% beginning and ending loan-to-value (LTV) ratio based on S&P
Global Ratings' value.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Rosslyn Portfolio Trust 2017-ROSS  

Class     Rating(i)         Amount ($)
A         AAA (sf)         230,676,000
X-CP(ii)  B- (sf)          462,500,000(ii)
B         AA- (sf)          54,277,000
C         A- (sf)           40,707,000
D         BBB- (sf)         49,935,000
E         BB- (sf)          67,845,000
F         B- (sf)           31,180,000
HRR       B- (sf)           25,380,000

(i)The rating on each class of securities is preliminary and
subject to change at any time.  The certificates will be issued to
qualified institutional buyers according to Rule 144A of the
Securities Act of 1933.  
(ii)Notional balance.  The notional amount of the class X-CP
certificates will be equal to the aggregate portion balance of the
A-2 portion, the B-2 portion, the C-2 portion, the D-2 portion, the
E-2 portion, the F-2 portion, and the HRR-2 portion, of the class
A, B, C, D, E, F and HRR certificates, respectively.


SAGUARO ISSUER: Moody's Hikes Rating on 2 Tranches to Ba3
---------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the following
units issued by Saguaro Issuer Trust:

US$11,000,000 Series K Bond, Upgraded to Ba2; previously on March
17, 2014 Downgraded to Ba3

US$34,000,000 Series L Bond, Upgraded to Ba2; previously on March
17, 2014 Downgraded to Ba3

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions are a result of a rating change on National
Westminster Bank PLC's Junior Subordinate rating ("Underlying
Securities"), which was upgraded to Ba2(hyb) from Ba3(hyb) on June
15, 2017. The transaction is a structured note whose ratings are
based on the rating of the Underlying Securities and the legal
structure of the transaction.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Repackaged Securities" published in June 2015.

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

The ratings will be sensitive to any change in the Junior
Subordinate rating of National Westminster Bank PLC.


SOVEREIGN COMMERCIAL 2007-C1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 3 Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on one class and
affirmed the ratings on four classes in Sovereign Commercial
Mortgage Securities Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-C1:

Cl. D, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Aug 4, 2016 Upgraded to
Baa1 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Aug 4, 2016 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 4, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Aug 4, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017 Downgraded to C
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating on one P&I class was upgraded based primarily on an
increase in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and
amortization. The deal has paid down 37% since Moody's last
review.

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

The rating on one IO class was affirmed based on the credit quality
of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 35.2% of the
current balance, compared to 25.8% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 3.2% of the original
pooled balance, compared to 3.3% at the last review. Moody's
provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit and
fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

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

Additionally, the methodology used in rating Cl. X was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017.

Moody's analysis incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since 59% of the pool is in
special servicing. In this approach, Moody's determines a
probability of default for each specially serviced and troubled
loan that it expects will generate a loss and estimates a loss
given default based on a review of broker's opinions of value (if
available), other information from the special servicer, available
market data and Moody's internal data. The loss given default for
each loan also takes into consideration repayment of servicer
advances to date, estimated future advances and closing costs.
Translating the probability of default and loss given default into
an expected loss estimate, Moody's then applies the aggregate loss
from specially serviced to the most junior class(es) and the
recovery as a pay down of principal to the most senior class(es).

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the May 22, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 98% to $20.9 million
from $1.01 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 15 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 50% of the pool.

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 three, compared to a Herf of five at Moody's
last review.

Eight loans, constituting 29% 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-seven loans have been liquidated with a loss from the pool,
resulting in or contributing to an aggregate realized loss of $25.0
million (for an average loss severity of 26%). Two loans,
constituting 59% of the pool, are currently in special servicing.
The largest specially serviced loan is the 6805 Perimeter Drive
Loan ($10.5 million -- 50.3% of the pool), which is secured by a
107,000 square foot (SF) office property located in Dublin, Ohio, a
suburb of Columbus. The property was previously 100% leased to a
single tenant. However, the tenant opted to not renew its lease and
vacated at the 4/1/2016 expiration. The loan previously entered
special servicing in January 2014 for maturity default. The
full-term interest-only loan was modified with a two-year loan
extension, resulting in an April 2016 maturity date. The loan has
since transferred to special servicing in February 2016 for pending
maturity default and became REO in December 2016.

The second largest specially serviced loan is the 3126 Coney Island
Avenue Loan ($1.8 million -- 8.4% of the pool), which is secured by
a 38-unit garden-style multifamily property located in Brighton
Beach, Brooklyn. As of May 2016, the property was 100% leased.

Moody's estimates an aggregate $7.4 million loss for specially
serviced loans (60% expected loss on average).

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 83% of the
pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 58%, compared to 70% at Moody's
last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 14% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 10%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.33X and 3.28X,
respectively, compared to 1.30X and 2.26X 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 27.9% of the pool balance.
The largest loan is the 299 Meserole Street Loan ($3.7 million --
17.9% of the pool), which is secured by a 37,000 SF industrial
property in the East Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn, New
York. The property was 82% leased as of October 2016. The property
underwent extensive renovations in 2014, including replacement of
HVAC units, repair of roof damage and sidewalk replacement. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 88% and 1.13X, respectively, compared to
90% and 1.11X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the 815 Seneca Avenue Loan ($1.5 million
-- 7.3% of the pool), which is secured by a mixed-use retail and
multifamily property located in Ridgewood, New York on the border
between Queens and Brooklyn. The property was 100% leased as of
December 2015 per Trepp reports. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
63% and 1.63X, respectively, compared to 54% and 1.93X at the last
review.

The third largest loan is the 8810-8816 Ditmas Avenue and 331 East
88th Street Loan ($544,969 -- 2.6% of the pool), which is secured
by an industrial property located between the East Flatbush and
Canarsie neighborhoods in Brooklyn, New York. As of May 2017, the
borrower was non-compliant with their loan documents and the
servicer had not received annual financial statements or rent rolls
since 2015. The loan is current on principal and interest payments
and is fully amortizing. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 25% and
3.98X, respectively, compared to 27% and 3.75X at the last review.


SPRINGLEAF FUNDING 2017-A: S&P Gives Prelim BB Rating to D Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Springleaf
Funding Trust 2017-A's $651.77 million personal consumer
loan-backed notes.

The note issuance is an asset-backed securities transaction backed
by personal consumer loan receivables.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of June 21,
2017.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

   -- The availability of approximately 43.9%, 39.4%, 34.1%, and
      26.2% credit support to the class A, B, C, and D notes,
      respectively, in the form of subordination,
      overcollateralization, a reserve account, and excess spread.

      These credit support levels are sufficient to withstand
      stresses commensurate with the preliminary ratings on the
      notes based on S&P's stressed cash flow scenarios.

   -- S&P's expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
      scenario, all else being equal, S&P's 'AA (sf)' rating on
      the class A notes will remain within one rating category of
      the assigned rating in the next 12 months, and S&P's
      'A (sf)', 'BBB (sf)', and 'BB (sf)' ratings on the class B,
      C, and D notes, respectively, will remain within two rating
      categories of the assigned ratings in the next 12 months,
      based on S&P's credit stability criteria.

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

   -- The characteristics of the pool being securitized.

   -- The operational risks associated with OneMain Holding Inc.'s

      (OneMain's) hybrid business model.

   -- The relatively limited time since the recent platform
      integration of Springleaf and OneMain Financial Holdings LLC

      (OMFH).  On Nov. 15, 2015, OneMain, through its wholly owned

      subsidiary, Independence Holdings LLC, completed the
      acquisition of OMFH from CitiFinancial Credit Company for
      $4.5 billion in cash.  OneMain and its subsidiaries (other
      than OMFH) are referred to as "Springleaf."

   -- The transaction's payment and legal structures.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Springleaf Funding Trust 2017-A

Class       Rating       Type              Amount
                                          (mil. $)
A           AA (sf)      Senior             516.82
B           A (sf)       Subordinate         35.96
C           BBB (sf)     Subordinate         41.45
D           BB (sf)      Subordinate         57.54


STACR 2017-HQA2: Fitch Assigns Bsf Rating on 12 Tranches
--------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings to Freddie Mac's risk-transfer
transaction, Structured Agency Credit Risk Debt Notes Series
2017-HQA2 (STACR 2017-HQA2):

-- $225,000,000 class M-1 notes 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $225,000,000 class M-2A notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $225,000,000 class M-2B notes 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $450,000,000 class M-2 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $450,000,000 class M-2R exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $450,000,000 class M-2S exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $450,000,000 class M-2T exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $450,000,000 class M-2U exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $450,000,000 class M-2I notional exchangeable notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $225,000,000 class M-2AR exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $225,000,000 class M-2AS exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $225,000,000 class M-2AT exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $225,000,000 class M-2AU exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $225,000,000 class M-2AI notional exchangeable notes 'BBsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $225,000,000 class M-2BR exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $225,000,000 class M-2BS exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $225,000,000 class M-2BT exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $225,000,000 class M-2BU exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $225,000,000 class M-2BI notional exchangeable notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable.

The following classes will not be rated by Fitch:

-- $ 112,500,000 class B-1 notes;
-- $30,340,140,424 class A-H reference tranche;
-- $91,043,128 class M-1H reference tranche;
-- $91,043,130 class M-2AH reference tranche;
-- $91,043,129 class M-2BH reference tranche;
-- $ 45,521,565 class B-1H reference tranche;
-- $158,021,565 class B-2H reference tranche.

The 'BBB-sf' rating for the M-1 notes reflects the 3.00%
subordination provided by the 1.00% class M-2A notes, the 1.00%
class M-2B notes, the 0.50% class B-1 notes and their corresponding
reference tranches, as well as the 0.50% class B-2H reference
tranche. The 'BBsf' rating for the M-2A notes reflects the 2.00%
subordination provided by the 1.00% class M-2B notes, the 0.50%
class B-1 notes and their corresponding reference tranches, as well
as the 0.50% class B-2H reference tranche. The 'Bsf' rating for the
M-2B notes reflects the 1.00% subordination provided by the 0.50%
class B-1 notes and its corresponding reference tranches, as well
as the 0.50% class B-2H reference tranche. The notes are general
unsecured obligations of Freddie Mac ('AAA'/Outlook Stable) subject
to the credit and principal payment risk of a pool of certain
residential mortgage loans held in various Freddie Mac-guaranteed
MBS.

The objective of the transaction is to transfer credit risk from
Freddie Mac to private investors with respect to a $31.6 billion
pool of mortgage loans currently held and guaranteed by Freddie Mac
where principal repayment of the notes is subject to the
performance of a reference pool of mortgage loans. As loans
liquidate or other credit events occur, the outstanding principal
balance of the debt notes will be reduced by the actual loan's loss
severity (LS) percentage related to those credit events, which
includes borrower's delinquent interest.

While the transaction structure simulates the behavior and credit
risk of traditional RMBS senior-subordinate securities, Freddie Mac
will be responsible for making monthly payments of interest and
principal to investors. Because of the counterparty dependence on
Freddie Mac, Fitch's expected rating on the M-1, M-2A and M-2B
notes will be based on the lower of: the quality of the mortgage
loan reference pool and credit enhancement (CE) available through
subordination, and Freddie Mac's Issuer Default Rating. The M-1,
M-2A, M-2B, and B-1 notes will be issued as LIBOR-based floaters.
In the event that the one-month LIBOR rate falls below zero and
becomes negative, the coupons of the interest-only MAC notes may be
subject to a downward adjustment, so that the aggregate interest
payable within the related MAC combination does not exceed the
interest payable to the notes for which such classes were
exchanged. The notes will carry a 12.5-year legal final maturity.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

High-Quality Mortgage Pool (Positive): The reference pool consists
of 129,587 fixed-rate fully amortizing loans with terms of 241-360
months, totaling $31.60 billion, acquired by Freddie Mac between
Aug. 1, 2016 and Nov. 30, 2016. The pool has a weighted average
(WA) credit score of 747 and WA debt-to-income (DTI) ratio of 35.6%
and consists primarily of owner occupied purchase loans. The WA
loan-to-value ratio (LTV) for this pool is 91.6%.

ADDITIONAL RATING DRIVERS

Higher LTV Loans (Concern): Beginning with the STACR 2016-HQA4
transaction in October 2016, Freddie Mac increased its LTV
parameter on its high LTV transactions to include loans with LTVs
up to 97% from 95%. Fitch believes the increased risk associated
with these loans is modest because the probability of default of a
loan with a 97% LTV is only marginally higher than that of a loan
with a 95% LTV. Additionally, a relatively small number of loans in
the reference pool (3.6%) have LTVs greater than 95%.

Mortgage Insurance Guaranteed by Freddie Mac (Positive): 99% of the
loans are covered either by borrower paid mortgage insurance (BPMI)
or lender paid MI (LPMI). Loans without MI coverage are either
originated in New York, where the appraised value was used to
determine that the LTV was below 81%, or the loans were part of the
HomeSteps Financing program.

Freddie Mac will guarantee the MI coverage amount, which will
typically be the MI coverage percentage multiplied by the sum of
the unpaid principal balance as of the date of the default, up to
36 months of delinquent interest, taxes and maintenance expenses.
While the Freddie Mac guarantee allows for credit to be given to
MI, Fitch applied a haircut to the amount of BPMI available due to
the automatic termination provision as required by the Homeowners
Protection Act, when the loan balance is first scheduled to reach
78%. LPMI does not automatically terminate and remains for the life
of the loan.

Home Possible Loans (Neutral): Approximately 7% of the reference
pool was originated under Freddie Mac's Home Possible program,
which targets low-to-moderate income homebuyers or buyers in
high-cost or underrepresented communities.

The Home Possible program provides flexibility for a borrower's
LTV, income, down payment, and insurance coverage requirements.
Among the eligibility guidelines is that the borrower must be
located in an underserved area, or the borrower's income cannot
exceed 100% of the area's median income or a higher percentage in
some designated high cost areas. All Home Possible borrowers must
receive homeownership education to qualify and have early
delinquency counselling made available to them in the event they
have trouble making their payments.

Fitch does not believe the Home Possible loans add meaningful
credit risk to this transaction due to the relatively low
percentage of the loans in the pool and the full documentation of
income, employment and assets. If the Home Possible loans were
assumed to have a 25% higher default probability than loans with
the same credit attributes that were not originated under Home
Possible, the adjustment to the total pool projected loss would not
be large enough to change the credit enhancement for the rated
classes.

12.5-Year Hard Maturity (Positive): The M-1, M-2A, M-2B, and B-1
notes benefit from a 12.5-year legal final maturity. Thus, any
losses on the reference pool that occur beyond year 12.5 are borne
by Freddie Mac and do not affect the transaction. In addition, if a
credit event occurs prior to maturity, but the losses from
liquidations or loan modifications are not realized until after the
final maturity date, the losses will not be passed through to
noteholders.

Solid Lender Review and Acquisition Processes (Positive): Fitch
found that Freddie Mac has a well-established and disciplined
process in place for the purchase of loans and views its lender
approval and oversight processes for minimizing counterparty risk
and ensuring sound loan quality acquisitions as positive. Loan
quality control (QC) review processes are thorough and indicate a
tight control environment that limits origination risk. Fitch has
determined Freddie Mac to be an above-average aggregator for its
2013 and later product. The lower risk was accounted for by Fitch
by applying a lower default estimate for the reference pool.

Advantageous Payment Priority (Positive): The M-1 class benefits
from the sequential pay structure and stable CE provided by the
more junior M-2A, M-2B, and B-1 classes, which are locked out from
receiving any principal until classes with a more senior payment
priority are paid in full. However, available CE for the junior
classes as a percentage of the outstanding reference pool increases
in tandem with the paydown of the M-1 class. Given the size of the
M-1 class relative to the combined total of the junior classes,
together with the sequential pay structure, the class M-1 will
de-lever and CE as a percentage of the outstanding pool will build
faster than in a pro rata structure.

Solid Alignment of Interests (Positive): While the transaction is
designed to transfer credit risk to private investors, Fitch
believes the transaction benefits from solid alignment of
interests. Freddie Mac will retain credit risk in the transaction
by holding the senior reference tranche A-H, which has 4.00% of
loss protection, as well as a minimum of 5% of the M-1, M-2A, M-2B,
and B-1 tranches and a minimum of 75% of the first-loss B-2H
reference tranche. Initially, Freddie Mac will retain an
approximately 28.8% vertical slice/interest in the M-1, M-2A and
M-2B tranches.

Receivership Risk Considered (Neutral): Under the Federal Housing
Finance Regulatory Reform Act, the Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) must place Freddie Mac into receivership if it determines
that the government-sponsored enterprise's (GSE) assets are less
than its obligations for longer than 60 days following the deadline
of its SEC filing. As receiver, FHFA could repudiate any contract
entered into by Freddie Mac if it is determined that such action
would promote an orderly administration of the GSE's affairs. Fitch
believes that the U.S. government will continue to support Freddie
Mac, as reflected in its current rating of the GSE. However, if, at
some point, Fitch views the support as being reduced and
receivership likely, the rating of Freddie Mac could be downgraded,
and ratings on the M-1, M-2A and M-2B notes, along with their
corresponding MAC notes, could be affected.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch's analysis incorporates sensitivity analyses to demonstrate
how the ratings would react to steeper market value declines (MVDs)
than assumed at both the MSA and national levels. The implied
rating sensitivities are only an indication of some of the
potential outcomes and do not consider other risk factors that the
transaction may become exposed to or be considered in the
surveillance of the transaction.

This defined stress sensitivity analysis demonstrates how the
ratings would react to steeper MVDs at the national level. The
analysis assumes MVDs of 10%, 20% and 30%, in addition to the model
projected 23.4% at the 'BBBsf' level and 18.6% at the 'BBsf' level.
The analysis indicates that there is some potential rating
migration with higher MVDs, compared with the model projection.

Fitch also conducted defined rating sensitivities which determine
the stresses to MVDs that would reduce a rating by one full
category, to non-investment grade, and to 'CCCsf'. For example,
additional MVDs of 11%, 11% and 34% would potentially move the
'BBBsf' rated class down one rating category, to non-investment
grade, to 'CCCsf', respectively.


STONEY LANE I: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Class D Notes
-----------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on the class A-2, B, and C
notes from Stoney Lane Funding I Ltd.  S&P also removed these
ratings from CreditWatch, where it placed them with positive
implications on March 30, 2017.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its
ratings on the class A-1 and D notes from the same transaction.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the May 2017 trustee report.

The upgrades reflect the transaction's $281.78 million in paydowns
to the class A-1 notes since S&P's February 2015 rating actions.
These paydowns resulted in improved reported overcollateralization
(O/C) ratios since the January 2015 trustee report, which S&P used
for its February 2015 rating actions:

   -- The class A O/C ratio improved to 242.12% from 125.48%.
   -- The class B O/C ratio improved to 166.25% from 117.26%.
   -- The class C O/C ratio improved to 126.59% from 110.05%.
   -- The class D O/C ratio improved to 110.03% from 105.94%.

The collateral portfolio's credit quality has deteriorated since
S&P's last rating actions.  Collateral obligations with ratings in
the 'CCC' category have increased, with $41.04 million reported as
of the May 2017 trustee report, compared to $21.36 million reported
as of the January 2015 trustee report.  Over the same period, the
par amount of defaulted collateral increased to
$5.11 million from $2.58 million.

On a stand-alone basis, the results of the cash flow analysis
indicated a higher rating on the class C and D notes.  However, the
transaction has experienced increased exposure to 'CCC' rated
collateral and defaulted obligations.  In addition, the portfolio
has become increasingly concentrated, with the top 10 obligors
representing more than 31% of the transaction's performing
collateral.  Therefore, S&P limited the upgrade on the class C
notes and affirmed the rating on the class D notes to offset future
potential credit migration in the underlying collateral.

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

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

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

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH POSITIVE

Stoney Lane Funding I Ltd.
                  Rating
Class         To          From

A-2           AAA (sf)        AA+/Watch Pos
B             AAA (sf)        A+/Watch Pos
C             A- (sf)         BBB/Watch Pos

RATINGS AFFIRMED
Stoney Lane Funding I Ltd.
            
Class         Rating

A-1           AAA (sf)
D             B+ (sf)


THL CREDIT 2017-2: Moody's Assigns B3(sf) Rating to Class F Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to eight classes of
notes issued by THL Credit Wind River 2017-2 CLO Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

US$3,000,000 Class X Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class X Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$325,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class A Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$55,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class B Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$19,750,000 Class C-1 Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class C-1 Notes", Assigned A2 (sf)

US$5,250,000 Class C-2 Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class C-2 Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

U.S.$35,000,000 Class D Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$20,000,000 Class E Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2030 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

US$7,500,000 Class F Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2030 (the "Class F Notes"), Assigned B3 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

THL 2017-2 CLO is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 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 portfolio is approximately 65% ramped as of the closing date.

THL Credit Advisors LLC (the "Manager") will direct the selection,
acquisition and disposition of the assets on behalf of the Issuer
and may engage in trading activity, including discretionary
trading, during the transaction's four and one-half 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: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2920

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.70%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8.6 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 2920 to 3358)

Class X Notes: 0

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -2

Class C-1 Notes: -2

Class C-2 Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Class F Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2920 to 3796)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -4

Class C-1 Notes: -4

Class C-2 Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1

Class F Notes: -2


TRINITAS CLO VI: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Cl. E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by Trinitas CLO VI, Limited.

Moody's rating action is:

US$448,000,000 Class A Floating Rate Notes due 2029 (the "Class A
Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$79,000,000 Class B Floating Rate Notes due 2029 (the "Class B
Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$37,350,000 Class C Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2029 (the
"Class C Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$46,600,000 Class D Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2029 (the
"Class D Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$33,050,000 Class E Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2029 (the
"Class E Notes"), 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.

Trinitas CLO VI, Ltd. is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes
will be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien
senior secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the portfolio
must consist of senior secured loans, cash, and eligible
investments and up to 7.5% of the portfolio may consist of second
lien loans and unsecured loans, with an maximum of 2.5% of the
portfolio consisting of unsecured loans. The portfolio is
approximately 80% ramped as of the closing date.

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

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

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

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

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

Par amount: $700,000,000

Diversity Score: 55

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2825

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.65%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 4.00%

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 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 2825 to 3249)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2825 to 3673)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -3

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1


UNITED AUTO 2017-1: S&P Assigns 'BB-' Rating on Class E Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to United Auto Credit
Securitization Trust 2017-1's $147.500 million automobile
receivables-backed notes series 2017-1.

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

The ratings reflect:

   -- The availability of approximately 62.3%, 54.2%, 45.0%,
      34.9%, and 27.8% credit support for the class A, B, C, D,
      and E notes, respectively, based on stressed break-even cash

      flow scenarios (including excess spread).  These credit
      support levels provide coverage of approximately 2.85x,
      2.45x, 2.00x, 1.50x, and 1.17x S&P's expected net loss range

      of 21.00%-22.00% for the class A, B, C, D, and E notes,
      respectively.

   -- The likelihood of timely interest and principal payments by
      the assumed legal final maturity dates under stressed cash
      flow modeling scenarios that are appropriate for the
      assigned ratings.

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

      assigned ratings.  S&P's rating on the class E notes
      ('BB- (sf)') will remain within two rating categories of the

      assigned rating within the first year, but the class will
      eventually default after receiving approximately 40% of its
      principal.  These potential rating movements are within the
     limits specified by S&P's credit stability criteria.

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

   -- The collateral characteristics of the subprime pool being
      securitized.  It is approximately four months seasoned, with

      a weighted average original term of approximately 42 months
      and an average remaining term of about 38 months.  As a
      result, S&P expects that the pool will pay down more quickly

      than many other subprime pools with longer weighted average
      original and remaining terms.

   -- S&P's analysis of five years of static pool data following
      the credit crisis and after United Auto Credit Corp. (UACC)
      centralized its operations and shifted toward shorter loan
      terms.  S&P also reviewed the performance of UACC's three
      outstanding securitizations, as well as its seven
      securitizations from 2004 to 2007.  UACC's 20-plus-year
      history of originating, underwriting, and servicing subprime

      auto loans.

   -- The transaction's payment and legal structures.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

United Auto Credit Securitization Trust 2017-1
Class     Rating        Type           Interest       Amount
                                       rate         (mil. $)
A         AAA (sf)      Senior         Fixed           69.20
B         AA (sf)       Subordinate    Fixed           20.80
C         A (sf)        Subordinate    Fixed           19.60
D         BBB (sf)      Subordinate    Fixed           21.70
E         BB- (sf)      Subordinate    Fixed           16.20


WACHOVIA BANK 2007-C33: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Class J Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on seven classes
and downgraded the ratings on five classes in Wachovia Bank
Commercial Mortgage Trust Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2007-C33:

Cl. A-1A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 6, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-5, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 6, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-M, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on May 6, 2016 Affirmed A3
(sf)

Cl. A-J, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on May 6, 2016 Affirmed
Ba2 (sf)

Cl. B, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on May 6, 2016 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. C, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on May 6, 2016 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. D, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on May 6, 2016 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Cl. E, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on May 6, 2016 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on May 6, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on May 6, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on May 6, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on May 6, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on three P&I classes, Classes A-1A, A-5, and A-M, 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 four P&I classes, Classes
F through J, were affirmed because the ratings are consistent with
Moody's expected loss.

The ratings on five P&I classes, Classes A-J through E, were
downgraded due to higher realized and anticipated losses from
specially serviced and troubled loans.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 23.0% of the
current balance, compared to 13.8% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 12.4% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 11.6% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

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

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the May 17, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 68% to $1.16 billion
from $3.6 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 61 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 22% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 66% of the pool. One loan, constituting
0.5% of the pool, has an investment-grade structured credit
assessment. Four loans, constituting 3% of the pool, have defeased
and are secured by US government securities.

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 10, compared to 20 at Moody's last review.

Forty-three loans, constituting 66% 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.

Thirty-five loans have been liquidated from the pool, contributing
to an aggregate realized loss of $182 million (for an average loss
severity of 37%). Ten loans, constituting 16% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced loan
is the Central / Eastern Industrial Pool ($83.2 million -- 7.2% of
the pool), which is secured by 13 industrial properties totaling
2.1 million square feet (SF) and located across several U.S.
states. The loan transferred to special servicing in July 2010 for
imminent default. As of December 2016, the properties were 84%
leased, compared to 82% leased as of June 2015. The special
servicer indicated they will continue to discuss potential
restructure scenarios with the Borrower while exploring other
resolution paths.

The remaining nine specially serviced loans are secured by a mix of
property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $101 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (54% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for 16 poorly
performing loans, constituting 36% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $116 million (a 28% expected loss on average)
from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2015 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2016 operating results for 90% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 121%, compared to 110% 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 value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 8.7%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.41X and 0.83X,
respectively, compared to 1.35X and 0.95X 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 Lawndale
Estates Loan ($6.2 million -- 0.5% of the pool), which is secured
by a 673-unit manufactured housing community in Saginaw, Michigan.
The property was 89% leased as of December 2016, compared to 86%
leased as of December 2015. Moody's structured credit assessment
and stressed DSCR are a1 (sca.pd) and 1.87X, respectively.

The top three performing loans represent 44% of the pool balance.
The largest loan is the 666 Fifth Avenue A-Note Loan ($258.5
million -- 22.4% of the pool), which represents a pari-passu
interest in a $1.2 billion first mortgage loan. The loan is secured
by a 1.5 million square foot (SF) Class A office building located
in Midtown Manhattan, New York. In December 2011, as part of a
modification, the original loan was bifurcated into $1.1 billion
A-Note and a $115 million B-Note. The property was recapitalized
with $110 million of new equity as part of the modification. The
loan returned to the master servicer in March 2012 and is
performing under the modified terms. The property was 79% leased as
of October 2016, compared to 76% as of June 2015. Moody's has
identified the B-Note ($27.0 million) as a troubled loan. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR for the modified A-Note are 138% and 0.63X,
respectively.

The second largest loan is the Independence Mall Loan ($200.0
million -- 17.3% of the pool). The loan is secured by a 398,000 SF
portion of a regional mall located in Independence, Missouri,
located approximately 10 miles east of downtown Kansas City,
Missouri. The mall's anchors are Macy's, Sears, and Dillard's.
Dillard's owns its own space. Additionally, the majority of the
Macy's and Sear's space are excluded from the collateral of the
loan. The total mall was 91% leased as of December 2016, compared
to 96% in December 2015 and 98% in December 2014. The servicer has
indicated they have received written correspondence from the
Borrower regarding their inability to payoff the loan at the
scheduled maturity date in July 2017. The loan was transferred to
the special servicer effective May 12, 2017. Moody's has identified
this as a troubled loan.

The third largest loan is the Fort 1 Portfolio Loan ($44.6 million
-- 3.9% of the pool), which is secured by four cross-collateralized
single tenant buildings (3 retail and 1 industrial) located in four
different states. The industrial property located in West Valley
City, Utah has been 100% vacant since the single tenant vacated the
space at their lease expiration in July 2016. The loan has an
anticipated repayment date (ARD) on August 11, 2017 and a final
maturity date on August 11, 2037. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
142% and 0.68X, respectively.


WELLS FARGO 2015 LC22: Fitch Affirms 'B-sf' Rating on 2 Tranches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 15 classes of Wells Fargo Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2015-LC22 commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Stable Performance: Pool performance has been stable since
issuance; currently there are no delinquent or specially serviced
loans. As of the May 2017 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been paid down by 1.4% to $950.7 million from
$963.7 million at issuance. There is currently one Fitch Loan of
Concern outside of the top 15 (0.3% of the pool) that is performing
to date. The loan is secured by a limited service hotel in Houston,
TX, which has experienced a decline in occupancy and DSCR.

Multifamily Concentration: Multifamily properties, including
co-ops, comprise 29.3% of the pool, which is greater than the
multifamily concentration of similar transactions of the same
vintage. Additionally, the pool contains nine loans (4.1% of the
pool) secured by multifamily co-ops within the New York City metro
area. At issuance, the weighted average Fitch DSCR and LTV of the
co-op collateral in this transaction, when analyzed as rental
units, were 7.37x and 33.1%, respectively.

Esoteric Property Types: Two of the top 20 largest loans in the
pool are secured by nontraditional property types. San Diego Park
N' Fly (2.3% of the pool) is secured by the interests in an airport
parking garage and surface lot located in close proximity to the
San Diego International Airport. Jellystone Park (1.4% of the pool)
is secured by a campground and waterpark located in Burleson, TX,
south of Fort Worth.

Interest-Only Loan Periods: Approximately 63.3% of the pool has an
interest-only (IO) component; 12.1% is fully IO and 51.2% has a
partial IO component. The majority of the partial IO periods expire
between 2018 and 2020 (34.7% of the pool). However, 14.4% of the
pool has partial IO terms that expire in 2017; approximately 1.4%
of the pool had IO periods that expired in 2016.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

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

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

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

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $33,144,973 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $23,443,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $220,000,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $302,267,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $82,712,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $69,870,000c class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $731,436,973* class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $56,619,000** class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $42,162,000** class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $168,651,000** class PEX 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $44,573,000 class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $22,888,000* class X-E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $9,637,000* class X-F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $22,888,000 class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $9,637,000 class F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

* Notional amount and interest only.
** Class A-S, B and C certificates may be exchanged for class PEX
certificates, and class PEX certificates may be exchanged for class
A-S, B, and C certificates.

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


WELLS FARGO 2017-C38: Fitch to Rate Class F Notes 'B-sf'
--------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has issued a presale report on Wells Fargo Commercial
Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass Through Certificates,
Series 2017-C38.

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

-- $32,899,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $42,503,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $8,575,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $300,000,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $366,318,000 class A-5 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $36,137,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $119,369,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $786,432,000b class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $214,864,000b class X-B 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $50,556,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $44,939,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $49,152,000ab class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $49,152,000a class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $22,470,000a class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $11,234,000a class F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

The following classes are not expected to be rated by Fitch:

-- $39,332,437b class G;
-- $31,175,549.65c Vertical RR Interest.

(a) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144A.
(b) Notional amount and interest-only.
(c) Vertical credit risk retention interest representing at least
5% of the pool balance (as of the closing date).

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 76 loans secured by 210
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
$1,154,649,987 as of the cut-off date. The loans were contributed
to the trust by Barclays Bank PLC, Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, Rialto Mortgage Finance, LLC, C-III Commercial
Mortgage LLC, and UBS Real Estate Securities Inc.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 64.1% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis of 84.7%, and asset summary reviews
on 84.7% of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Low Fitch Leverage: The pool has leverage statistics better than
recent Fitch-rated multiborrower transactions. The pool's Fitch
debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) of 1.27x is higher than the
year-to-date (YTD) 2017 and 2016 average of 1.21x. The pool's Fitch
loan to value (LTV) of 96.4% is lower than both the YTD 2017 and
2016 averages of 104.1% and 105.2%, respectively.

Investment-Grade Credit Opinion Loans: Four loans, received
investment-grade credit opinions. The pool's credit opinion loan
concentration of 23.82% is greater than the 2017 YTD and the 2016
averages of 5.51% and 8.36%, respectively. Net of the credit
opinion loan, Fitch's DSCR and LTV are 1.22x and 106.7%,
respectively.

Weak Amortization: Eighteen loans (56.5%) are full-term interes-
only and 12 loans (13.3%) are partial interest only. Fitch-rated
transactions at 2017 YTD had an average full-term interest-only
percentage of 41.3% and a partial interest-only percentage of
31.7%. Based on the scheduled balance at maturity, the pool will
pay down by only 7.05%, which is below the 2017 YTD average of 8.5%
and significantly below the 2016 average of 10.4%.

Above Average Property Quality: The pool's collateral quality is
better than that of other recent transactions. As a percentage of
Fitch-inspected properties, 35.1% received a property quality grade
of 'A-' or higher, compared with the YTD 2017 and 2016 averages of
22.6% and 20.2%, respectively. Only 10.2% of the inspected pool
received a property quality grade of 'B-' or below compared with
10.7% and 12.0% for the YTD 2017 and 2016 averages, respectively.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 11.8% below
the most recent year's net operating income (NOI) for properties
for which a full-year NOI was provided, excluding properties that
were stabilizing during this period. Unanticipated further declines
in property-level NCF could result in higher defaults and loss
severities on defaulted loans and in potential rating actions on
the certificates.


[*] Fitch Lowers 122 Bonds in 89 US RMBS Transactions to D(sf)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded 122 distressed bonds in 89 U.S. RMBS
transactions to 'Dsf'.

The downgrades indicate that the bonds have incurred a principal
write-down. Of the bonds downgraded to 'Dsf', 98 classes were
previously rated 'Csf', 18 classes were rated 'CCsf', five classes
were rated 'CCCsf', and one class was rated 'Bsf'.

The Recovery Estimates (REs) of the defaulted bonds were not
revised as part of this review. In addition, the review focused
only on the bonds which defaulted and did not include any other
bonds in the affected transactions.

Of the 122 classes affected by these downgrades, 48 are Prime, 38
are Alt-A, and 26 are Subprime. The remaining transaction types are
various other sectors. Approximately 60% of the bonds have an RE of
75% to 100%, which indicates that the bonds will recover 75% to
100% of the current outstanding balance, while 6% have an RE of
0%.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

All of the affected classes had incurred a principal write-down and
are expected to endure additional losses in the future.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

While the bonds that have defaulted are not expected to recover any
material amount of lost principal in the future, there is a limited
possibility that this may happen. In this unlikely scenario, Fitch
would further review the affected class.

A list of the Affected Ratings is available at:

                http://bit.ly/2shKvsG



[*] Moody's Hikes $256.9MM of Subprime RMBS Issued 2003-2004
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 28 tranches
from 11 transactions, issued by various issuers, backed by subprime
mortgage loans.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Aegis Asset Backed Securities Trust 2004-3

Cl. B1 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on May 4,
2012 Downgraded to C (sf)

Cl. M2 Certificate, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Aug 15,
2016 Upgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. M1 Certificate, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Aug 15, 2016
Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

Cl. M3 Certificate, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Aug 15, 2016
Upgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Series 2004-FR1

Cl. A-6 Certificate, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Aug 15,
2016 Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

Cl. A-7 Certificate, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Aug 15,
2016 Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

Cl. M-2 Certificate, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Oct 1, 2015
Upgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. M-3 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 29,
2011 Downgraded to Ca (sf)

Issuer: Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Series 2004-R9

Cl. M-4 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Feb 28,
2013 Affirmed Ca (sf)

Issuer: Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2003-HE2

Cl. M-4 Certificate, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Aug 16,
2016 Upgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. M-5 Certificate, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Aug 16,
2016 Upgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. M-6 Certificate, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Nov 25,
2014 Upgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-FF8

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

Issuer: New Century Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2003-6

Cl. M-2 Certificate, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Aug 16,
2016 Upgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. M-3 Certificate, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Mar 18,
2011 Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2004-4

Cl. M-4 Certificate, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 16,
2016 Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Cl. M-5 Certificate, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Aug 16,
2016 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Cl. M-6 Certificate, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Aug 16,
2016 Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Issuer: People's Choice Home Loan Securities Trust 2004-2

Cl. M1 Certificate, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 18,
2016 Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

Cl. M2 Certificate, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Aug 18, 2016
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. M3 Certificate, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Aug 18, 2016
Upgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. M4 Certificate, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 1, 2013
Affirmed C (sf)

Issuer: Soundview Home Loan Trust 2004-1

Cl. M-7 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 1,
2015 Upgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: Specialty Underwriting and Residential Finance Trust,
Series 2003-BC1

Cl. M-1 Certificate, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Aug 8,
2014 Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. M-2 Certificate, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Upgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. S Certificate, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: Specialty Underwriting and Residential Finance Trust,
Series 2003-BC3

Cl. M-1 Certificate, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 4,
2011 Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. M-2 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Mar 4,
2011 Downgraded to Ca (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating upgrades are primarily due to the total credit
enhancement available to the bonds. Specialty Underwriting and
Residential Finance Trust, Series 2003-BC1 Class S is an Interest
Only (IO) tranche that references other tranches in the
transaction. The upgrade of this tranche is primarily due to the
rating upgrades of related P&I tranches issued by Specialty
Underwriting and Residential Finance Trust, Series 2003-BC1. The
actions reflect the recent performance of the underlying pools and
Moody's updated loss expectation on these pools.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in January 2017.

Additionally, the methodology used in rating Specialty Underwriting
and Residential Finance Trust, Series 2003-BC1 Cl. S was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017.

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

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate fell to 4.3% in May 2017 from 4.7% in May
2016. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of 4.5% to
5.5% for the 2017 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 2017. Lower increases
than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating
actions.

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


[*] Moody's Hikes $740MM of Subprime RMBS Issued 2004-2007
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 29 tranches,
from 14 transactions issued by various issuers.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005-NC3

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Sep 22, 2015 Upgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-NC1

Cl. A-3, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Jul 29, 2016 Upgraded
to A3 (sf)

Cl. A-4, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Jul 29, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jul 29, 2016 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 29, 2010 Downgraded
to C (sf)

Issuer: Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. Series
2004-3

Cl. B-1, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jul 26, 2016 Upgraded
to Ca (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jul 26, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul 26, 2016 Upgraded
to B2 (sf)

Issuer: Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. Series
2004-5

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Nov 19, 2014 Downgraded
to Baa1 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Mar 15, 2011
Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 26, 2016 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Mar 15, 2011 Downgraded
to Ca (sf)

Cl. M-5, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 9, 2012
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. Series
2004-7

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Aug 28, 2015 Upgraded
to B1 (sf)

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Aug 28, 2015 Upgraded
to B2 (sf)

Issuer: CSFB Home Equity Asset Trust 2005-6

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 26, 2016 Upgraded
to Aa2 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Jul 26, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa1 (sf)

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Aug 21, 2015 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: CSFB Home Equity Asset Trust 2006-4

Cl. 1-A-1, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jul 26, 2016
Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-3, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 26, 2016
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Jul 26, 2016
Upgraded to B1 (sf)

Issuer: CSFB Home Equity Asset Trust 2007-2

Cl. 2-A-2, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jul 26, 2016 Upgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Issuer: FBR Securitization Trust 2005-3

Cl. AV1, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 3, 2016 Upgraded
to A1 (sf)

Cl. AV2-4, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Aug 3, 2016
Upgraded to B1 (sf)

Issuer: Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust, Series SPMD
2004-A

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Mar 5, 2013 Downgraded
to B3 (sf)

Issuer: Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust Series 2006-HE5

Cl. A-1, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jul 22, 2016 Upgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2005-3

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

Issuer: Wells Fargo Home Equity Asset-Backed Securities 2005-3
Trust

Cl. M-7, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Aug 10, 2015 Upgraded
to Ca (sf)

Issuer: Wells Fargo Home Equity Asset-Backed Securities 2007-2
Trust

Cl. A-3, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Dec 9, 2014 Upgraded to
Caa3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The upgrades are primarily due to the total credit enhancement
available to the bonds. The actions reflect the recent performance
of the underlying pools and Moody's updated loss expectations on
the pools.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in January 2017.

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

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate fell to 4.3% in May 2017 from 5.7% in May
2016. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of 4.5% to
5.5% for the 2017 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 2017. 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.


[*] Moody's Lowers $852.6MM of Puerto Rican RMBS Loans
------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the rating of 57 tranches
from three transactions, backed by Puerto Rican RMBS loans, issued
by multiple issuers.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: CSMC Mortgage-Backed Trust Series 2006-9

Cl. 1-A-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 3-A-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-2, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-3, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-4, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-5, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-6, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-7, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-8, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-9, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-10, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-11, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-12, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-13, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-14, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-15, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. D-P, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. D-X, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: Deutsche Mortgage Securities, Inc. Mortgage Loan Trust,
Series 2006-PR1

Cl. 1-A-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 2-PO, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 3-PO, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 4-PO, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 5-PO, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-F, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-S, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 3-A-I, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 3-A-S, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 3-A-F-1, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Jan 18, 2013
Downgraded to A2 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8,
2014 Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp (Affirmed at
A2, Outlook Stable on August 8, 2016)

Cl. 3-A-F-2, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Jan 18, 2013
Downgraded to A2 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8,
2014 Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp (Affirmed at
A2, Outlook Stable on August 8, 2016)

Cl. 4-A-F-1, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Jan 18, 2013
Downgraded to A2 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8,
2014 Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp (Affirmed at
A2, Outlook Stable on August 8, 2016)

Cl. 4-A-F-2, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-I-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-I-2, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-S-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-S-2, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 5-A-F-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 5-A-F-2, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Jan 18, 2013
Downgraded to A2 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8,
2014 Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp (Affirmed at
A2, Outlook Stable on August 8, 2016)

Cl. 5-A-F-3, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 5-A-F-4, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 5-A-I-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 5-A-I-2, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 5-A-I-3, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 5-A-I-4, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 5-A-S-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 5-A-S-2, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 5-A-S-3, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 5-A-S-4, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 8, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Issuer: PRIME Mortgage Trust 2006-DR1

Cl. I-A-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. I-A-2, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. II-A-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. II-A-2, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. I-PO, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. I-X, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. II-PO, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2011
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. II-X, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jun 16, 2015
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The actions reflect the recent performance of the underlying pools
and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on the pools. The
ratings downgraded are a result of the continued depreciation or
lack of credit enhancement available to bonds. In addition, the
rating actions take into account the continued adverse pressures on
Puerto Rico's economy, such as its persistent budget deficits and
high public debt, and Moody's expectation that delinquencies (and
future defaults) will remain high as a result of Puerto Rico's
extended recession.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in January 2017.

Additionally, the methodology used in rating CSMC Mortgage-Backed
Trust Series 2006-9 Cl. 4-A-2, Cl. 4-A-3, Cl. 4-A-4, Cl. 4-A-5, Cl.
4-A-6, Cl. 4-A-7, Cl. 4-A-8, Cl. 4-A-10, Cl. 4-A-11, and Cl. D-X,
Deutsche Mortgage Securities, Inc. Mortgage Loan Trust, Series
2006-PR1 Cl. 2-A-S, Cl. 3-A-S, Cl. 4-A-S-1, Cl. 4-A-S-2, Cl.
5-A-S-1, Cl. 5-A-S-2, Cl. 5-A-S-3, and Cl. 5-A-S-4, and PRIME
Mortgage Trust 2006-DR1 Cl. I-X and Cl. II-X was "Moody's Approach
to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO) Securities"
published in June 2017.

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

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate fell to 4.3% in May 2017 from 4.7% in May
2016. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of 4.5% to
5.5% for the 2017 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 2017. Lower increases
than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating
actions.

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


[*] Moody's Takes Action on $112.7MM of Alt-A Issued 2003-2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded ratings of seven tranches
and downgraded the ratings of 25 tranches from seven transactions
backed by Alt-A mortgage loans, issued by multiple issuers.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Impac Secured Assets Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2003-2

Cl. A-1 Certificate, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Oct 1,
2013 Downgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. A-2 Certificate, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Oct 1,
2013 Downgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. A-3 Certificate, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Oct 1,
2013 Downgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. A-4 Certificate, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Oct 1,
2013 Downgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. M-2 Certificate, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Nov 15,
2012 Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. A-PO Certificate, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Oct 1,
2013 Downgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Issuer: Lehman ABS Corpration 2004-1 Trust

Cl. 1-A2 Certificate, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Aug 31,
2016 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Cl. 2-A2 Certificate, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Aug 31,
2016 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Cl. M1 Certificate, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Aug 31, 2016
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. M1-IO Certificate, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Aug 31,
2016 Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. M2 Certificate, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Aug 31,
2016 Upgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. M2-IO Certificate, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Aug 31,
2016 Upgraded to B2 (sf)

Issuer: RALI Series 2003-QS12 Trust

A-1 Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 18, 2014
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

A-2 Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 18, 2014
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

A-2A Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 18, 2014
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

A-3 Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 18, 2014
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

A-4 Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 18, 2014
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

A-5 Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 18, 2014
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

A-P Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 18, 2014
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Issuer: RALI Series 2003-QS18 Trust

A-1 Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jul 31, 2014
Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

A-P Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jul 31, 2014
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2003-24A

Cl. 1-A1 Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 8,
2014 Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. 1-A2 Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 8,
2014 Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. 1-A3 Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 8,
2014 Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. 2-A Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 8,
2014 Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. 3-A1 Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 8,
2014 Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. 3-A2 Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 8,
2014 Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. 4-A Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 8,
2014 Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. 5-A Certificate, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 8,
2014 Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2003-33H

Cl. 1A1 Certificate, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Aug 29,
2016 Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. 1A-PO Certificate, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Aug 29,
2016 Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2004-22

Cl. A2 Certificate, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jul 5, 2012
Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions reflect the recent performance of the underlying
pools and Moody's updated loss expectations on those pools. Rating
upgrades are due to buildup in credit enhancement supporting the
associated bonds. The rating downgrades are primarily due to
erosion of credit enhancement relative to the expected loss on the
collateral.

The rating actions on Impac Secured Assets 2003-2, RALI 2003-QS12
and RALI 2003-QS18 also reflect the correction of an error in the
cash-flow models used by Moody's in rating these transactions. In
the prior modeling, the cash-flow waterfalls did not calculate the
correct principal payment amount for principal-only bonds. This
error has now been corrected and rating actions on these bonds
reflect the appropriate calculation of principal payments.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in January 2017.

Additionally, the methodology used in rating the Interest-Only
bonds was "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance
Interest-Only Securities" published in June 2017.

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

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate fell to 4.3% in May 2017 from 4.7% in May
2016. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of 4.5% to
5.5% for the 2017 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 2017. Lower increases
than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating
actions.

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


[*] Moody's Takes Action on $255.2MM of RMBS Issued 2004-2007
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 23 tranches
and downgraded the ratings of five tranches issued from 15
transactions backed by "scratch and dent" RMBS loans.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2004-SD3

Cl. A-3 Certificate, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Nov 10,
2015 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Cl. A-4 Certificate, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Nov 10,
2015 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Cl. M-2 Certificate, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Nov 10,
2015 Upgraded to B1 (sf)

Issuer: Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2006-3

Cl. A-2 Certificate, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 25,
2016 Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

Cl. A-3 Certificate, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Jul 25,
2016 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Issuer: CSFB Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-CF2

Cl. I-M-1 Certificate, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jan 13,
2015 Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. I-M-2 Certificate, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on May 19,
2011 Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2004-SD2

Cl. B-1 Certificate, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jun 21,
2012 Confirmed at Caa2 (sf)

Cl. M-1 Certificate, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Aug 5,
2016 Downgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. M-2 Certificate, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jun 21,
2012 Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Issuer: RAAC Series 2005-SP2 Trust

Cl. M-I-2 Certificate, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Nov 10,
2015 Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2004-GEL2

Cl. M3 Certificate, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jul 25,
2016 Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corporation 2005-GEL1

Cl. M1 Certificate, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Nov 20,
2015 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corporation 2005-GEL2

Cl. M1 Certificate, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jul 25, 2016
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corporation 2005-GEL3

Cl. M3 Certificate, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 25,
2016 Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

Cl. M4 Certificate, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jul 25, 2016
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Issuer: RAAC Series 2006-RP3 Trust

Cl. A Certificate, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Nov 10, 2015
Upgraded to B1 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2007-TC1

Cl. A Certificate, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jul 25, 2016
Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

Cl. M-1 Certificate, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Oct 27,
2015 Upgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. M-2 Certificate, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 27,
2015 Upgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. M-3 Certificate, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on May 20,
2011 Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corporation 2006-GEL1

Cl. M1 Certificate, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 25,
2016 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Cl. M2 Certificate, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 25,
2016 Upgraded to B3 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corporation 2006-GEL2

Cl. A2 Certificate, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 25,
2016 Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

Cl. M1 Certificate, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jul 25, 2016
Upgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corporation 2006-GEL3

Cl. A3 Certificate, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jul 25, 2016
Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corporation 2006-GEL4

Cl. A3 Certificate, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Jul 25, 2016
Upgraded to A3 (sf)

Cl. M1 Certificate, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Mar 5, 2009
Downgraded to C (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The actions reflect the recent performance of the underlying pools
and Moody's updated loss expectations on the pools. The upgrades
are primarily due to the increase in credit enhancement available
to the bonds. The upgrade on RAAC Series 2006-RP3 Trust also
reflects the lower projected losses on the related underlying
pools. The downgrades on Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust
2004-SD2 reflect the deteriorating performance and higher projected
losses on the related underlying pools. The downgrade on Structured
Asset Securities Corp Trust 2004-GEL2 is primarily due to the
decrease in credit enhancement available to tranche Cl. M3. The
downgrade on CSFB Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2004-CF2 tranche Cl. I-M-1 is primarily due to outstanding interest
shortfalls that have not been reimbursed and the possibility of
future interest shortfalls.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in January 2017.

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

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate fell to 4.3% in May 2017 from 4.7% in May
2016. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of 4.5% to
5.5% for the 2017 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 2017. Lower increases
than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating
actions.

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


[*] Moody's Takes Action on $85.4MM of Alt-A RMBS Issued 2003-2005
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of seven
tranches and downgraded the ratings of 16 tranches from six
transactions, backed by Alt-A RMBS loans, issued by multiple
issuers.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Impac CMB Trust Series 2003-1

Cl. 1-B-1, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Aug 30, 2016 Upgraded
to A3 (sf)

Issuer: J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2005-A2

Cl. 1-A-1, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Jul 27, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa1 (sf)

Cl. 1-A-2, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jul 27, 2016
Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. 1-M-1, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 27, 2016
Upgraded to Ca (sf)

Issuer: MASTR Alternative Loan Trust 2004-3

Cl. B-I-1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Oct 4, 2015
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Issuer: Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, Alternative Loan
Trust, Series 2003-A3

Cl. B-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jun 29, 2015 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jun 29, 2015 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jun 29, 2015 Upgraded
to B2 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-1

Cl. 2-A, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 6, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. 2-AX, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 6, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. 3-A1, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 6, 2012
Confirmed at Baa3 (sf)

Cl. 3-A2, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 6, 2012
Confirmed at Baa3 (sf)

Cl. 3-A3, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 6, 2012
Confirmed at Baa3 (sf)

Cl. 4-A1, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Aug 4, 2016
Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. 4-A2, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 6, 2012
Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. 4-A3, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 6, 2012
Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. 4-A4, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 6, 2012
Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. 5-A, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 6, 2012
Confirmed at Baa3 (sf)

Cl. 6-A, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 6, 2012
Confirmed at Baa3 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2005-14

Cl. 1-A3, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Feb 7, 2014
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 1-A4, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Feb 7, 2014
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 1-A5, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Feb 7, 2014
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 1-A6, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Feb 7, 2014
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in January 2017.

Additionally, the methodology used in rating Cl. 2-AX from
Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-1 was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO) Securities
Methodology" published in June 2017.

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

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate fell to 4.3% in May 2017 from 4.7% in May
2016. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of 4.5% to
5.5% for the 2017 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 2017. Lower increases
than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating
actions.

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


[*] Moody's Takes Action on $94MM of RMBS Issued 2003-2004
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 18 tranches
from seven transactions and downgraded two tranches from one
transaction issued by various issuers, backed by subprime mortgage
loans.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Argent Securities Inc., Series 2003-W9

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2015 Upgraded
to B1 (sf)

Issuer: Argent Securities Inc., Series 2004-W2

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Nov 3, 2015 Upgraded
to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Mar 18, 2011 Downgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Mar 18, 2011
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: Argent Securities Inc., Series 2004-W8

Cl. A-2, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 18, 2016 Upgraded
to Aa2 (sf)

Cl. A-5, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 18, 2016 Upgraded
to Aa1 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Aug 18, 2016 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Apr 13, 2012
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2004-13

Cl. AF-5A, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Aug 22, 2016
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. AF-5B, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Aug 22, 2016
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Aug 22,
2016 Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: Ambac Assurance Corporation (Segregated
Account - Unrated)

Cl. MF-2, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Aug 22, 2016 Upgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2003-BC6

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Aug 16, 2016 Upgraded
to B2 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Aug 16, 2016 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Mar 17, 2011 Downgraded
to Ca (sf)

Issuer: Equifirst Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-2

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Aug 16, 2016 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. M-5, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Aug 16, 2016 Upgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: GSAMP Trust 2004-AR2

Cl. M-5, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Apr 1, 2013 Affirmed
Ca (sf)

Cl. M-6, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Apr 1, 2013 Affirmed
Ca (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust 2004-BNC1

Cl. A5, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Apr 25, 2014 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. M5, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Mar 4, 2011 Downgraded
to C (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating upgrades are primarily due to the total credit
enhancement available to the bonds. The rating downgrades reflect
Moody's expectations that the tranches will not receive material
amounts of principal payments in the future as the cumulative loss
trigger is projected to fail in the near term. The actions reflect
the recent performance of the underlying pools and Moody's updated
loss expectation on these pools.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in January 2017.

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

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate fell to 4.3% in May 2017 from 4.7% in May
2016. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of 4.5% to
5.5% for the 2017 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 2017. Lower increases
than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating
actions.

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


[*] S&P Completes Review of 30 Classes From 8 US RMBS Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 30 classes from eight
U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions
issued between 2002 and 2007.  All of these transactions are backed
by subprime collateral.  The review yielded five upgrades, two
downgrades, and 23 affirmations.

Analytical Considerations

S&P incorporates various considerations into its decisions to
raise, lower, or affirm ratings when reviewing the indicative
ratings suggested by S&P's projected cash flows.  These
considerations are based on transaction-specific performance or
structural characteristics (or both) and their potential effects on
certain classes.  Some of these considerations include:

   -- Collateral performance/delinquency trends;
   -- Historical interest shortfalls; and
   -- Available subordination and/or overcollateralization.

A list of the Affected Ratings is available at:

                       http://bit.ly/2rEJOXE


[*] S&P Completes Review of 46 Classes From 13 US RMBS Deals
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 46 classes from 13 U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions issued
between 1997 and 2007.  All of these transactions are backed by
subprime collateral.  The review yielded 13 upgrades, four
downgrades, 28 affirmations, and one withdrawal.

Analytical Considerations

S&P incorporates various considerations into its decisions to
raise, lower, or affirm ratings when reviewing the indicative
ratings suggested by S&P's projected cash flows.  These
considerations are based on transaction-specific performance or
structural characteristics (or both) and their potential effects on
certain classes.  Some of these considerations include:

   -- Collateral performance/delinquency trends;
   -- Priority of principal payments;
   -- Imputed promises criteria;
   -- Proportion of re-performing loans in the pool; and
   -- Available subordination and/or overcollateralization.

The raised ratings on classes M-2 and M-3 from C-BASS Mortgage Loan
Asset-Backed Certificates Series 2005-CB3 reflect an increase in
credit support and the class' ability to withstand a higher level
of projected loss than previously anticipated.  Principal is being
paid sequentially due to the failing cumulative loss trigger.
Class M-2 is the most-senior class and is currently receiving all
principal distributions.  This class is projected to pay down in
about two years, at which time class M-3 will begin to receive all
principal distributions.  As such, credit support for classes M-2
and M-3 has increased to 69.37% and 48.95% in May 2017 from 52.30%
and 37.15% in March 2015, respectively.

A list of the Affected Ratings is available at:

                       http://bit.ly/2rXIApP


[*] S&P Completes Review on 18 Classes From 7 RMBS Deals
--------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings, on June 20, 2017, completed its review of 18
classes from seven U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities
(RMBS) resecuritized real estate mortgage investment conduit
(re-REMIC) transactions issued between 2003 and 2010.  All of these
transactions are supported by underlying classes backed by a mix of
prime jumbo, Alternative-A, and reperforming mortgage collateral.
Of the 18 ratings, S&P lowered 11.  In addition, S&P removed two
ratings from CreditWatch with negative implications and kept six
ratings (including one of the lowered ratings) on CSMC Series
2010-8R on CreditWatch with negative implications.

On March 22, 2017, S&P placed its ratings on classes A2 and A4 from
Lehman Mortgage Trust 2008-5 on CreditWatch with negative
implications to reflect S&P's ongoing review of interest shortfalls
these classes have experienced as a result of extraordinary
expenses, as well as the extent to which those shortfalls may be
reimbursed after the principal balances on these classes have been
reduced to zero.  Based on S&P's assessment and review of this
issue with the trustee, S&P believes that, per its criteria, these
interest shortfalls do not negatively affect its ratings on these
classes.

                       CSMC SERIES 2010-8R

S&P's ratings on six re-REMIC classes from CSMC Series 2010-8R
remain on CreditWatch with negative implications.  S&P initially
placed its ratings on these classes on CreditWatch negative on Dec.
23, 2016, to determine if these classes experienced interest
shortfalls in light of reported interest shortfalls on the
underlying bond.  S&P's ratings on these classes remained on
CreditWatch with negative implications following its March 22,
2017, review due to S&P's ongoing discussions with the trustee as
to whether the reimbursement of interest shortfalls on the
underlying class had been properly applied to these re-REMIC
classes.  S&P has determined that these classes shall remain on
CreditWatch negative as it continues to work with the trustee to
determine the manner in which distributions were made on these
classes, whether those distributions were made per the transaction
documents, and whether distributions were made in an inconsistent
fashion over multiple remittance periods.  If S&P determines that
payments on these classes were not allocated per the transaction
documents or were allocated in an inconsistent manner over time,
then S&P will take rating actions on these classes that it
considers appropriate, including downgrades to the low
speculative-grade range and/or withdrawals.

            APPLICATION OF INTEREST SHORTFALL CRITERIA

In reviewing these ratings, S&P applied "Global Methodology For
Rating Retranchings Of ABS, CMBS, And RMBS," published Aug. 1,
2016, and "Structured Finance Temporary Interest Shortfall
Methodology," published Dec. 15, 2015, which impose a maximum
rating threshold on classes that have incurred interest shortfalls
resulting from credit or liquidity erosion. In applying these
criteria, S&P reviewed whether the applicable class received
additional compensation beyond the imputed interest due as direct
economic compensation for the delay in interest payments.  In
instances where the class did not receive additional compensation
for outstanding interest shortfalls, S&P applied the maximum length
of time until full interest is reimbursed as part of its analysis
to assign the rating on the class.

A list of the Affected Ratings is available at:

                       http://bit.ly/2rBzXSh


                            *********

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 2017.  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 ***