TCR_Public/171126.mbx          T R O U B L E D   C O M P A N Y   R E P O R T E R

              Sunday, November 26, 2017, Vol. 21, No. 329

                            Headlines

ANGEL OAK 2017-3: Fitch to Rate Class B-2 Certificates 'B-sf'
ANSONIA CDO 2006-1: Moody's Affirms C(sf) Ratings on 7 Tranches
ARES CLO XXXVII: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Cl. E-R Certificates
ATLAS SENIOR III: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Class E-R Notes
ATRIUM XII: S&P Assigns B(sf) Rating on Class F-R Notes

BANC OF AMERICA 2006-1: S&P Raises Class E Certs Rating to BB+(sf)
CAN CAPITAL 2014-1: S&P Rates Class B Notes 'CCC', On Watch Neg.
CIFC FUNDING 2017-V: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class D Notes
CITIGROUP 2016-P6: Fitch Affirms B-sf Rating on Class F Certs
CREDIT SUISSE 2016-C7: Fitch Affirms B-sf Rating on Cl. X-F Certs

CWCAPITAL COBALT: Moody's Affirms C(sf) Ratings on 7 Tranches
FANNIE MAE 2017-C07: Fitch Assigns 'Bsf' Ratings on 38 Tranches
GERMAN AMERICAN 2016-CD2: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Cl. F Certs
GOLUB CAPITAL 23: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3 Rating to Cl. E-R Notes
HALCYON LOAN 2017-2: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class D Notes

JP MORGAN 2005-LDP5: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Class G Debt
JP MORGAN 2016-ASH: Moody's Affirms B3 Rating on Class F Certs
JP MORGAN 2016-WSP: Moody's Affirms B3 Rating on Class F Certs
MARATHON CLO V: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Class D-R Notes
MERRILL LYNCH 2004-BPC1: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on Cl. F Certs

MORGAN STANLEY 2008-TOP29: Fitch Lowers Ratings on 3 Tranches to C
NELNET EDUCATION 2004-1: Fitch Corrects November 16 Release
NELNET STUDENT 2005-4: Fitch Affirms 'BBsf' Ratings on 4 Tranches
NEUBERGER BERMAN XX: Moody's Assigns B2 Rating to Class F-R Notes
ONEMAIN DIRECT 2016-1: Moody's Hikes Cl. D Debt Rating From Ba1

RESIDENTIAL REINSURANCE 2017: S&P Rates Class 3 Notes 'B-(sf)'
SALOMON BROTHERS 2000-C3: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Cl. X Certs
SARANAC CLO VII: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class E-R Notes
SASCO 2007-BHC1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Class A-1 Certs
SATURNS SEARS 2003-1: Moody's Lowers Rating on $60.19MM Notes to Ca

SDART 2017-1: Moody's Hikes Class E Notes Rating to Ba2
SLC STUDENT 2004-1: Fitch Affirms B-sf Rating on 2 Tranches
SLM STUDENT 2012-5: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class B Notes
TOWD POINT: Moody's Assigns Ratings to $1.3BB of Reperforming RMBS
WAVE LLC 2017-1: S&P Assigns BB Rating on $480.07MM Class C Notes

WELLS FARGO 2012-C6: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class F Certs
[*] Moody's Hikes $1.465BB of Subprime RMBS Issued 2002-2007
[*] Moody's Takes Action on $198.7MM of RMBS Issued 2001-2007
[*] S&P Takes Various Action on 50 Classes From Nine US RMBS Deals
[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 105 Classes From 8 US RMBS Deals

[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 26 Classes From 12 US RMBS Deals
[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 52 Classes From 11 US RMBS Deals
[*] S&P Withdraws Ratings on 80 Classes From 12 U.S. RMBS Deals

                            *********

ANGEL OAK 2017-3: Fitch to Rate Class B-2 Certificates 'B-sf'
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings expects to rate Angel Oak Mortgage Trust I, LLC
2017-3 (AOMT 2017-3) as follows:

-- $112,961,000 class A-1 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $24,799,000 class A-2 certificates 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $27,742,000 class A-3 certificates 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $17,443,000 class M-1 certificates 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $10,823,000 class B-1 certificates 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $8,091,000 class B-2 certificates 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

The following classes will not be rated by Fitch:

-- $8,301,728 class B-3 certificates.

The 'AAAsf' for AOMT 2017-3 reflects the satisfactory operational
review conducted by Fitch of the originators, 100% loan-level due
diligence review with no material findings, a Tier 2 representation
and warranty framework, and the transaction's structure.

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

The transaction is collateralized with 84% non-qualified (Non-QM)
mortgages as defined by the Ability-to-Repay rule (ATR) while 1% is
designated as higher-priced QMs (HPQMs) and the remainder comprises
business purpose loans not subject to ATR.

The certificates are supported by a pool of 691 mortgage loans with
a weighted average original credit score of 695 and a weighted
average original combined loan to value ratio (CLTV) of 77.7%.
Roughly 35% consists of borrowers with prior credit events, 3% are
foreign nationals and 4% are second lien loans. In addition,
approximately 32% comprise loans to self-employed borrowers
underwritten to a 24-month bank statement program and 3% was made
to self-employed borrowers underwritten to a 12-month bank
statement program. Hundred percent loan level due diligence was
performed to confirm adherence to guidelines and controls, and the
transaction also benefits from an alignment of interest as Angel
Oak Real Estate Investment Trust I (Angel Oak REIT I) or a majority
owned affiliate, will be retaining a vertical and horizontal
interest in the transaction equal to not less than 5% of the
aggregate fair market value of all the certificates in the
transaction.

The loan-level reps for this transaction are substantially
consistent with Fitch criteria; however, the lack of an automatic
review for loans other than those with ATR realized loss and the
nature of the prescriptive breach tests, which limit the breach
reviewers ability to identify or respond to issues not fully
anticipated at closing, resulted in a Tier 2 framework. Fitch
increased its probability of default expectations (409 bps at the
'AAAsf' rating category) to mitigate the limitations of the
framework and the non-investment-grade counterparty risk of the
providers.

Initial credit enhancement for the class A-1 certificates of 46.25%
is substantially above Fitch's 'AAAsf' rating stress loss of
34.75%. The additional initial credit enhancement is primarily
driven by the pro rata principal distribution between the A-1, A-2
and A-3 certificates, which will result in a significant reduction
of the class A-1 subordination over time through principal payments
to the A-2 and A-3.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Nonprime Credit Quality (Negative): The pool has a weighted average
(WA) model credit score of 695 and WA original combined
loan-to-value ratio (CLTV) of 77.7%. Roughly 35% consists of
borrowers with prior credit events, 3% are foreign nationals and 4%
are second lien loans. Thirty-one loans experienced a delinquency
since origination, 24 of which were due to servicer transfer
issues. Approximately 32% was made to self-employed borrowers
underwritten to a 24-month bank statement program and 3% was made
to self-employed borrowers underwritten to a 12-month bank
statement program. Fitch applied default penalties to account for
these attributes and loss severity was adjusted to reflect the
increased risk of ATR challenges and loans with TILA RESPA
Integrated Disclosure (TRID) exceptions.

Satisfactory Originator Review and Track Record (Positive): Fitch
conducted an operational review of AOMS and AOHL and assessed them
as Average based on the companies' seasoned management team and
extensive nonprime mortgage experience, a comprehensive sourcing
strategy and sound underwriting and risk management practices. AOHL
(retail platform) commenced agency loan originations in 2011 and
ramped up its nonprime business in 2012. Correspondent and broker
originations are conducted by AOMS, which began operations in
2014.

Solid Due Diligence Results (Positive): Third-party loan-level due
diligence was performed on 100% of the pool, the results of which
generally reflect sound underwriting and operational controls. Of
the 593 loans subject to consumer compliance testing (502 of which
were subject to TRID), 14 were assigned 'C' grades due to material
noncompliance with TRID.

High Investor Property Concentration (Negative): Approximately 15%
of the pool comprises investment properties, 6% of which were
originated through the originators' investor cash flow program that
targets real estate investors qualified on a cash flow ratio basis.
While the borrower's credit score and LTV are used in the
underwriting of the cash flow loans, the ratio of mortgage
principal, interest, taxes, insurance and homeowner association
dues as a percentage of market rent, which averages 74%, determines
the debt-to-rent (DTR) ratio. Since Fitch's model was developed
using a debt-to-income (DTI) ratio, in its analysis, Fitch mapped
the DTR to a DTI ratio of comparable credit risk. The remaining
investor properties were underwritten to borrower DTIs.

Bank Statement Loans Included (Concern): Approximately 35% of the
pool (173 loans) was made to self-employed borrowers underwritten
to a bank statement program (32% was underwritten to a 24-month
bank statement program and 3% to a 12-month bank statement program)
for verifying income in accordance with either AOHL or AOMS'
guidelines, which is not consistent with Appendix Q standards and
Fitch's view of a full documentation program. While employment is
fully verified and assets partially confirmed, the limited income
verification resulted in application of a probability of default
(PD) penalty of approximately 1.5 times (x) for the bank statement
loans at the 'AAAsf' rating category. Additionally, Fitch's assumed
probability of ATR claims was doubled, which increased the loss
severity.

R&W Framework (Mixed): As sponsor, the REIT, Angel Oak Real Estate
Investment Trust I, (Angel Oak REIT I) will be providing loan-level
representations (reps) and warranties (R&W) to the trust. If the
REIT is no longer an ongoing business concern, it will assign to
the trust its rights under the mortgage loan purchase agreements
with the originators, which include repurchase remedies for rep and
warranty breaches. While the loan-level reps for this transaction
are substantially consistent with a Tier I framework, the lack of
an automatic review for loans other than those with ATR realized
loss and the nature of the prescriptive breach tests, which limit
the breach reviewers ability to identify or respond to issues not
fully anticipated at closing, resulted in a Tier 2 framework. Fitch
increased its probability of default expectations (409 bps at the
'AAAsf' rating category) to mitigate the limitations of the
framework and the non-investment-grade counterparty risk of the
providers.

Alignment of Interests (Positive): The transaction benefits from an
alignment of interests between the issuer and investors. Angel Oak
REIT I as sponsor and securitizer, or an affiliate will retain a
vertical and horizontal interest in the transaction equal to not
less than 5% of the aggregate fair market value of all certificates
in the transaction. As part of its focus on investing in
residential mortgage credit, as of the closing date, Angel Oak REIT
I and Angel Oak Strategic Mortgage Income Master Fund, Ltd., as
co-sponsor, will retain the class B-1, B-2, B-3 and XS
certificates. Lastly, the reps and warranties are provided by Angel
Oak REIT I, or the originators in the event the REIT ceases
operations, which aligns their interests with those of investors to
maintain high quality origination standards and sound performance.

Modified Sequential Payment Structure (Mixed): The structure
distributes collected principal pro rata among the class A notes
while shutting out the subordinate bonds from principal until all
three classes have been reduced to zero. To the extent that either
the cumulative loss trigger event or the delinquency trigger event
occurs in a given period, principal will be distributed
sequentially to the class A-1, A-2 and A-3 bonds until they are
reduced to zero.

Performance Triggers (Mixed): The amount of initial credit
enhancement (CE) needed to pass rating stress scenarios is
sensitive to the delinquency trigger assumption. Under Fitch's
standard 'AAAsf' and 'AAsf' stress scenarios, the transaction
reverts to a straight sequential pay relatively quickly due to the
delinquency trigger, benefiting the senior classes. Additional
non-standard scenarios were analyzed to stress the sensitivity of
the delinquency trigger, which resulted in roughly a 600-bp and
350-bp-increase to the 'AAAsf' and 'AAsf' initial CE levels,
respectively, compared to levels using Fitch's standard default
timing scenarios.

Servicing and Master Servicer (Positive): Select Portfolio
Servicing (SPS), rated 'RPS1-'/Stable by Fitch, will be the primary
servicer. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), rated
'RMS1'/Stable, will act as master. Advances required but not paid
by SPS will be paid by Wells Fargo. Fitch does not rate any primary
servicer higher than SPS and does not rate any Master Servicer
higher than Wells Fargo.

Recent Natural Disasters (Neutral): Property inspections were
ordered for all loans located in the Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane
Irma and California wildfire related FEMA-designated disaster areas
(257 loans). For 252 loans, the inspections showed no property
damage. For the remaining 5 loans (all of which are located in
Hurricane Irma disaster areas), the inspections showed immaterial
damage (less than $3,000/property) and these loans remain in the
pool.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch's analysis incorporates a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate
how the ratings would react to steeper market value declines (MVDs)
than assumed at the MSA level. 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 may be considered in the surveillance of the transaction. Two
sets of sensitivity analyses were conducted at the state and
national levels to assess the effect of higher MVDs for the subject
pool.

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 6.7%. The analysis indicates that 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'.


ANSONIA CDO 2006-1: Moody's Affirms C(sf) Ratings on 7 Tranches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's has affirmed the ratings on the following classes of notes
issued by Ansonia CDO 2006-1 Ltd.:

Cl. A-FL, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 1, 2016 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. A-FX, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 1, 2016 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 1, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 1, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 1, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 1, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 1, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 1, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 1, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

The Class A-FL, Class A-FX, Class B, Class C, Class D, Class E,
Class F, Class G, and Class H Notes are referred to herein as the
"Rated Notes".

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's has affirmed the Rated Notes because key transaction
metrics are commensurate with the existing ratings. The increase in
credit quality of the outstanding collateral pool, as evidenced by
WARF, did not more than offset the cumulative implied losses to the
transaction; resulting in the affirmations. 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.

Ansonia CDO 2006-1 Ltd. is a static cash transaction backed by a
portfolio of commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) issued
between 2004 and 2005. As of the October 31, 2017 payment date, the
aggregate note balance of the transaction, including preferred
shares, has decreased to $579.0 million from $806.7 million at
issuance, with the pay-down now directed to the senior most
outstanding classes of notes, as a result of full and partial
amortization of the underlying collateral, and interest proceeds
being reclassified as principal proceeds on credit impaired
securities. In addition, implied losses to the collateral total
$499.6 since issuance.

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 3399,
compared to 5455 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated reference obligations and the assessments of the
non-Moody's rated reference obligations follow: Aaa-Aa3 and 19.6%
compared to 12.8% at last review; A1-A3 and 7.9% compared to 1.9%
at last review: Baa1-Baa3 and 9.3% compared to 7.0% at last review;
Ba1-Ba3 and 15.9% compared to 6.4% at last review; B1-B3 and 17.5%
compared to 20.4% at last review; and Caa1-Ca/C and 29.8% compared
to 51.5% at last review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.5 years, compared to 2.8 year at last
review. The WAL is based on extension assumptions about the
look-through loans within the underlying CMBS collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 0.0%, the same as at last review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 12.6%, compared to 15.8% 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 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 servicing decisions and
management 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 rates of the underlying collateral and credit assessments.
Increasing the recovery rate of 100% of the collateral pool by
+10.0% would result in an average modeled rating movement on the
rated notes of zero to one notch upward (e.g., one notch up implies
a ratings movement of Baa3 to Baa2).

The primary sources of uncertainty in Moody's assumptions are the
extent of growth in the current macroeconomic environment.
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.


ARES CLO XXXVII: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Cl. E-R Certificates
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned the following ratings to the
following notes (the "Refinancing Notes") issued by Ares XXXVII CLO
Ltd.:

US$448,000,000 Class A-1-R Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2030 (the
"Class A-1-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$14,000,000 Class A-2-R Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2030 (the
"Class A-2-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$66,500,000 Class A-3-R Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2030 (the
"Class A-3-R Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$38,500,000 Class B-R Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
Due 2030 (the "Class B-R Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$42,000,000 Class C-R Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
Due 2030 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$35,000,000 Class D-R Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
Due 2030 (the "Class D-R Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

US$14,000,000 Class E-R Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
Due 2030 (the "Class E-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.

Ares 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 ratings on the Refinancing 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.

The Issuer has issued the Refinancing Notes on November 16, 2017
(the "Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of all
classes of the secured notes (the "Refinanced Original Notes")
previously issued on October 30, 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 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 August 2017.

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: $700,000,000

Defaulted par: $0

Diversity Score: 70

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2940

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.45%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 49.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9.00 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
August 2017.

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% (3381)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1-R Notes: 0

Class A-2-R Notes: -1

Class A-3-R Notes: -2

Class B-R Notes: -2

Class C-R Notes: -1

Class D-R Notes: 0

Class E-R Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (3822)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1-R Notes: -1

Class A-2-R Notes: -3

Class A-3-R Notes: -3

Class B-R Notes: -4

Class C-R Notes: -2

Class D-R Notes: -1

Class E-R Notes: -2


ATLAS SENIOR III: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Class E-R Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings today assigned its ratings to the replacement
class A-R, B-R, C-R, D-R, and E-R notes, as well as the new class X
notes, from Atlas Senior Loan Fund III Ltd., a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) originally issued in July 2013 that is managed by
Crescent Capital Group L.P. S&P withdrew its ratings on the
original class A, B, C, D, and E notes following payment in full on
the Nov. 17, 2017, refinancing date.

On the Nov. 17, 2017, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
issuance of the replacement notes were used to redeem the original
notes. Therefore, S&P withdrew its ratings on the original notes
upon their full redemption and assigned ratings to the replacement
notes.

S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow
analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction parameters as
reflected in the trustee report, to estimate future performance. In
line with our criteria, our cash flow scenarios applied
forward-looking assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of
defaults, and recoveries upon default, under various interest rate
and macroeconomic scenarios. In addition, our analysis considered
the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and ultimate
principal to each of the rated tranches.

"We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings
assigned to the notes remain consistent with the credit enhancement
available to support them, and we will take further rating actions
as we deem necessary."

  RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Atlas Senior Loan Fund III Ltd.
  Replacement class         Rating      Amount (mil. $)
  X                         AAA (sf)               4.20
  A-R                       AAA (sf)             255.20
  B-R                       AA (sf)               48.00
  C-R (deferrable)          A (sf)                25.00
  D-R (deferrable)          BBB- (sf)             24.00
  E-R (deferrable)          BB- (sf)              17.90
  Subordinated notes        NR                    53.53

  RATINGS WITHDRAWN
                           Rating
  Original class       To              From
  A                    NR              AAA (sf)
  B                    NR              AA+ (sf)
  C                    NR              A+ (sf)
  D                    NR              BBB (sf)
  E                    NR              BB (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


ATRIUM XII: S&P Assigns B(sf) Rating on Class F-R Notes
-------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-R, B-R, C-R,
D-R, E-R, and F-R replacement notes from Atrium XII, a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) originally issued in 2015 that
is managed by Credit Suisse Asset Management LLC. S&P withdrew its
ratings on the original class A and B notes following payment in
full on the Nov. 17, 2017, refinancing date.

On the Nov. 17, 2017, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
issuance of the replacement notes were used to redeem the original
class A and B 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 assigned ratings to
the replacement notes.

S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow
analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction as reflected in
the trustee report, to estimate future performance. In line with
our criteria, our cash flow scenarios applied forward-looking
assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of defaults, and
recoveries upon default, under various interest rate and
macroeconomic scenarios. In addition, our analysis considered the
transaction's ability to pay timely interest or ultimate principal,
or both, to each of the rated tranches.

"The ratings reflect our opinion that the credit support available
is commensurate with the associated rating levels.

"We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings
assigned to the notes remain consistent with the credit enhancement
available to support them, and we will take further rating actions
as we deem necessary."

  RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Atrium XII/Atrium XII LLC
  Replacement class         Rating      Amount (mil. $)
  A-R                       AAA (sf)             522.00
  B-R                       AA (sf)               86.00
  C-R                       A (sf)                53.00
  D-R                       BBB- (sf)             64.00
  E-R                       BB- (sf)              22.00
  F-R                       B (sf)                 6.00

  RATINGS WITHDRAWN

  Atrium XII/Atrium XII LLC
                             Rating
  Original class       To              From
  A                    NR              AAA (sf)
  B                    NR              AA (sf)

  OTHER RATINGS

  Atrium XII/Atrium XII LLC
  Class                  Rating
  C                      NR
  D                      NR
  E                      NR
  F                      NR
  Subordinated notes     NR

  NR--Not rated.


BANC OF AMERICA 2006-1: S&P Raises Class E Certs Rating to BB+(sf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its rating to 'BB+ (sf)' from 'B (sf)' on
the class E commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from Banc
of America Commercial Mortgage Trust 2006-1, a U.S. commercial
mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction.

For the upgrade, S&P's expectation of credit enhancement was in
line with the raised rating level.

The upgrade also reflects the significant reduction in the trust
balance due to the resolution of the Medical Mutual Headquarters
loan ($52.7 million of the original pool trust balance), a
specially serviced asset. The loan was resolved with a $9.3 million
loss, which was better than the loss that was implied by the most
recent appraisal value. In addition, the trust benefited from the
full repayment at maturity of the Mitsuwa Marketplace loan ($18.4
million of the original pool trust balance).

While the available credit enhancement level may suggest further
positive rating movement on class E, our analysis also considered
the fact that the largest loan in the pool, Plaza Antonio ($35.4
million, 86.9%), has been transferred to the special servicer
twice: in January 2011 and May 2013 . S&P said, "As such, we are
concerned with a potential future transfer of the loan to the
special servicer. In addition, our analysis considered that the
second largest loan, Best Buy – Northridge, CA ($4.3 million,
10.6%), is secured by a retail property 100% leased to Best Buy
until December 2018, coterminous with the loan's maturity. If Best
Buy vacated the property at lease expiration, the refinancing of
the loan at maturity could be a concern. Finally, we also
considered the class' interest shortfall history."

The rating on class F remains at 'D (sf)' in accordance with S&P's
interest shortfall criteria because this class has only experienced
two months of timely interest. Under this criteria, a potential
upgrade can be considered after a class has experienced a
reimbursement of all past interest shortfalls and the subsequent
payment of timely interest over at least the subsequent six
months. In addition, any potential upgrade following an interest
shortfall would also depend upon our determination that no future
shortfalls are likely to occur, considering the underlying
creditworthiness of the loans.

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Nov 10, 2017, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $40.7 million, which is 2.0% of the pool balance
at issuance. The pool currently includes four loans, down from 192
loans at issuance. One loan ($0.9 million, 2.2%) is defeased, and
one ($0.2 million, 0.4%) is on the master servicer's watchlist.

S&P calculated a 0.91x S&P Global Ratings weighted average debt
service coverage (DSC) and 97.6% S&P Global Ratings weighted
average loan-to-value (LTV) ratio using a 7.06% S&P Global Ratings
weighted average capitalization rate. The DSC, LTV, and
capitalization rate calculations exclude the defeased loan.

To date, the transaction has experienced $139.5 million in
principal losses, or 6.8% of the original pool trust balance.


CAN CAPITAL 2014-1: S&P Rates Class B Notes 'CCC', On Watch Neg.
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings placed its 'CCC (sf)' rating on CAN Capital
Funding LLC's series 2014-1 class B notes on CreditWatch with
negative implications.

The transaction is an asset-backed securitization backed by a pool
of loans and merchant cash advances (MCAs) made to U.S. small
businesses to fund their working capital needs. The transaction
distributes principal payments on a sequential basis.

S&P said, "We placed the rating on the class B notes on CreditWatch
to reflect the insufficient credit support at the 'CCC' rating
level. As of the Nov. 15, 2017, payment date, class B's outstanding
amount was $17,626,559.60 and the performing asset balance was
$6,790,453.01. The reserve account is zero and the one-month excess
spread is -8.77%. The class A note has paid off.

"We will resolve the CreditWatch negative placement following the
completion of a comprehensive review of the transaction."

  RATING PLACED ON CREDITWATCH NEGATIVE
  CAN Capital Funding LLC Series 2014-1

                     Rating
  Class      To                       From

  B          CCC (sf)/Watch Neg       CCC (sf)


CIFC FUNDING 2017-V: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class D Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by CIFC Funding 2017-V, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

US$455,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$77,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class A-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$38,500,000 Class B Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class B Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2
(sf)

US$42,000,000 Class C Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Baa3 (sf)

US$31,500,000 Class D Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2030 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3
(sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

CIFC 2017-V is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up to
7.5% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans,
first-lien-last-out loans and unsecured loans. The portfolio is
approximately 70% ramped as of the closing date.

CIFC CLO Management II 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 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 August 2017.

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

Par amount: $700,000,000

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2850

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.50%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 5.00%

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
August 2017.

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 2850 to 3278)

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2850 to 3705)

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


CITIGROUP 2016-P6: Fitch Affirms B-sf Rating on Class F Certs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 15 classes of Citigroup Commercial
Mortgage Trust, commercial mortgage pass-through certificates,
series 2016-P6 (CGCMT 2016-P6).  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Stable Performance: Overall pool performance remains stable, with
no material changes to credit enhancement or pool metrics since
issuance. There are no delinquent or specially serviced loans. As
of the October 2017 distribution date, the pool's aggregate balance
has been reduced by 0.4% to $909.7 million from $913.4 million at
issuance. One loan (1.4% of pool) is currently on the servicer's
watchlist.

Diverse Pool: The top 10 loans comprise 45% of the pool, which is
better than the 2016 average for Fitch-rated multiborrower
transactions of 54.8%. The largest loan, 8 Times Square & 1460
Broadway, represents 8.2% of the pool.

Below Average Amortization: The pool is scheduled to amortize by
8.8%, which is below the 2016 average for Fitch-rated multiborrower
transactions of 10.4%. Eleven loans (42.4% of pool) are full-term
interest only and 19 loans (28.5%) are partial term interest-only.

Property Type Concentrations: Based upon Fitch's classification,
loans secured by retail properties comprise 45.3% of the pool. In
Fitch's analysis, four mixed-use properties (12.4%) were classified
as retail due to their primary usage or preponderance of revenue.
Of the retail concentration, seven loans (including five
portfolios) representing 13.7% of the pool are secured by
properties occupied by Walgreens.

Hurricane Impact: Three portfolio loans (5.8% of pool) have five
underlying properties located in areas of Texas impacted by
Hurricane Harvey. According to the master servicer's most recent
significant insurance event (SIE) reporting, no damage was
sustained at any of these properties. Exposure to Hurricane Irma is
limited to one property (0.7% of pool) located in Tampa, FL. As of
the most recent SIE reporting, the servicer is still awaiting the
borrower's response on any potential damages.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

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

Deutsche Bank is the trustee for the transaction, and also serves
as the backup advancing agent. Fitch recently downgraded Deutsche
Bank's Issuer Default Rating to 'BBB+'/'F2' from 'A-'/'F1' on Sept.
28, 2017. Fitch relies on the master servicer, Midland Loan
Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association ('A+/F1'),
which is currently the advancing agent, as a direct counterparty.

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $26 million class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $126.4 million class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $16.6 million class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $195 million class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $228.8 million class A-5 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $42.9 million class A-AB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $45.7 million class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Interest-only class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $44.5 million class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Interest-only class X-B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $49.1 million class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $57.1 million class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Interest-only class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $26.3 million class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $11.4 million class F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch does not rate the class G and H certificates.


CREDIT SUISSE 2016-C7: Fitch Affirms B-sf Rating on Cl. X-F Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 16 classes of Credit Suisse Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2016-C7 Pass-Through Certificates.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Stable Performance: The overall pool performance remains stable
since issuance. There is only one specially serviced loan,
representing 0.78% of the pool. As of the October 2017 distribution
date, the pool's aggregate balance has been reduced by 0.84% to
$761 million, from $768 million at issuance. Four loans (3.36%) are
on the servicer's watchlist, and one loan, the specially serviced
loan, is considered a Fitch Loan of Concern.

Highly Concentrated Pool by Property Type and Geography: The
largest property type concentration is retail at 40.0% of the pool,
followed by office at 24.9% and multifamily at 18.4%. The pool is
highly concentrated by geography with 30.4% of the pool in Florida
and 14.2% in Georgia. Six loans in the top 15 (34%) are secured by
retail properties, two of which (12.9%) are regional malls with
exposure to Macy's and either JC Penney or Sears.

Specially Serviced Loan: One loan is in special servicing, the
Holiday Inn Express & Suites Warrenton (0.78%), a hotel located in
Warrenton, VA. Per the servicer, the loan transferred after the
flag was called into default by the franchisor and the borrower is
on a payment plan to cure the missed payments. The loan is
currently 30 days delinquent. The most recent servicer-reported NOI
DSCR was -0.55x as of March 2017 compared to 0.66x as of YE 2016.
According to the March 2017 STAR Report the subject is performing
better than the comp set with occupancy penetration of 110.1%, ADR
penetration of 104.3%, and RevPAR penetration of 114.9%.

Above-Average Amortization: Based on the scheduled balance at
maturity, the pool will pay down 16.2%, which is above the YTD
average of 10.4%. Two loans representing 8.7% of the pool are
interest-only loans, 17 loans representing 40.2% are partial
interest-only loans, and the remaining 35 loans (51.1%) are balloon
loans with loan terms of five to 10 years.

Hurricane Impact: Six loans (5.5% of pool) are located in areas of
Texas affected by Hurricane Harvey. Exposure to Hurricane Irma
consists of nine properties (25.6% of pool) with the largest
property in the pool, Coconut Point located in Estero, FL.,
sustaining only minor damage. According to the master servicer's
most recent significant insurance event (SIE) reporting, none of
the properties in the pool sustained major damage but the servicer
is still awaiting the borrower's response on some of the
properties.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

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

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $34,046,426 class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $5,938,000 class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $15,900,000 class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $163,000,000 class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $246,354,000 class A-5 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $65,656,000 class A-SB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $52,774,000 class A-S at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $29,746,000 class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $37,422,000 class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $45,098,000 class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $23,029,000 class E at 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $9,595,000 class F at 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $583,668,426* class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $29,746,000* class X-B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $23,029,000* class X-E at 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $9,595,000* class X-F at 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.
.
*Notional amount and interest only.
Fitch does not rate Class X-NR and NR.


CWCAPITAL COBALT: Moody's Affirms C(sf) Ratings on 7 Tranches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on the following
notes issued by CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd.:

CL. A-2, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 8, 2016 Affirmed C
(sf)

CL. B, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 8, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

CL. C, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 8, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

CL. D, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 8, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

CL. E, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 8, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

CL. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 8, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

CL. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 8, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's has affirmed the ratings on the Rated Notes because the key
transaction metrics are commensurate with existing ratings. The
affirmation is the result of Moody's on-going surveillance of
commercial real estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO and
ReRemic) transactions.

CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. is a static cash transaction backed by a
portfolio of: i) CRE CDOs (69.0% of the current pool balance); and
ii) commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) (31.0%). As of the
October 26, 2017 trustee report, the aggregate note balance of the
transaction, including preferred shares, has decreased to $2.8
billion from $3.45 billion at issuance, as a result of
re-classification of interest proceeds received from impaired
securities as principal proceeds and regular amortization of the
underlying collateral.

All of the assets totaling $740.7 million (100% of the collateral
pool balance) are listed as impaired securities as of the October
26, 2017 trustee report. While there have been implied losses on
the underlying collateral to date, Moody's does expect significant
losses to occur on the impaired securities.

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 9895,
compared to 9297 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated collateral and the assessments of the non-Moody's
rated collateral follow: Ba1-Ba3 (0.0% compared to 0.2% at last
review), B1-B3 (0.0% compared to 1.4% at last review) and Caa1-Ca/C
(100.0% compared to 98.4% at last review).

Moody's modeled a WAL of 1.3 years, compared to 1.6 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying CMBS look-through loan collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 0.0%, the same as that at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 99.9%, the same as that at last review.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

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

Primary sources of assumption uncertainty are the extent of growth
in the current macroeconomic environment. Commercial real estate
property values are continuing to move in a positive direction
along with a rise in investment activity and stabilization in core
property type performance. Limited new construction, moderate job
growth and the decreased cost of debt and equity capital have aided
this improvement.


FANNIE MAE 2017-C07: Fitch Assigns 'Bsf' Ratings on 38 Tranches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following ratings and Rating
Outlooks to Fannie Mae's risk transfer transaction, Connecticut
Avenue Securities, series 2017-C07:

-- $186,170,000 class 1M-1 notes 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1M-2A notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1M-2B notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $135,218,000 class 1M-2C notes 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $401,734,000 class 1M-2 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1A-I1 exchangeable notional notes 'BBsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1E-A1 exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1A-I2 exchangeable notional notes 'BBsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1E-A2 exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1A-I3 exchangeable notional notes 'BBsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1E-A3 exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1A-I4 exchangeable notional notes 'BBsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1E-A4 exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1B-I1 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1E-B1 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1B-I2 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1E-B2 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1B-I3 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1E-B3 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1B-I4 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $133,258,000 class 1E-B4 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $135,218,000 class 1C-I1 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $135,218,000 class 1E-C1 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $135,218,000 class 1C-I2 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $135,218,000 class 1E-C2 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $135,218,000 class 1C-I3 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $135,218,000 class 1E-C3 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $135,218,000 class 1C-I4 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $135,218,000 class 1E-C4 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $266,516,000 class 1E-D1 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $266,516,000 class 1E-D2 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $266,516,000 class 1E-D3 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $266,516,000 class 1E-D4 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $266,516,000 class 1E-D5 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $268,476,000 class 1E-F1 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $268,476,000 class 1E-F2 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $268,476,000 class 1E-F3 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $268,476,000 class 1E-F4 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $268,476,000 class 1E-F5 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $266,516,000 class 1-X1 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $266,516,000 class 1-X2 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $266,516,000 class 1-X3 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $266,516,000 class 1-X4 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $268,476,000 class 1-Y1 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $268,476,000 class 1-Y2 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $268,476,000 class 1-Y3 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $268,476,000 class 1-Y4 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $107,666,000 class 2M-1 notes 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2M-2A notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2M-2B notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2M-2C notes 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $303,996,000 class 2M-2 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2A-I1 exchangeable notional notes 'BBsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2E-A1 exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2A-I2 exchangeable notional notes 'BBsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2E-A2 exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2A-I3 exchangeable notional notes 'BBsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2E-A3 exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2A-I4 exchangeable notional notes 'BBsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2E-A4 exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2B-I1 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2E-B1 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2B-I2 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2E-B2 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2B-I3 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2E-B3 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2B-I4 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2E-B4 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2C-I1 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2E-C1 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2C-I2 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2E-C2 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2C-I3 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2E-C3 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2C-I4 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $101,332,000 class 2E-C4 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2E-D1 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2E-D2 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2E-D3 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2E-D4 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2E-D5 exchangeable notes 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2E-F1 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2E-F2 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2E-F3 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2E-F4 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2E-F5 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2-X1 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2-X2 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2-X3 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2-X4 exchangeable notional notes 'BB-sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2-Y1 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2-Y2 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2-Y3 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $202,664,000 class 2-Y4 exchangeable notional notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable.

The following classes will not be rated by Fitch:

-- $19,803,186,080 class 1A-H reference tranche;
-- $9,799,029 class 1M-1H reference tranche;
-- $7,014,568 class 1M-AH reference tranche;
-- $7,014,568 class 1M-BH reference tranche;
-- $7,117,400 class 1M-CH reference tranche;
-- $97,984,000 class 1B-1 notes;
-- $5,157,594 class 1B-1H reference tranche;
-- $103,141,594 class 1B-2H reference tranche;
-- $12,766,622,601 class 2A-H reference tranche;
-- $5,666,942 class 2M-1H reference tranche;
-- $5,334,298 class 2M-AH reference tranche;
-- $5,334,298 class 2M-BH reference tranche;
-- $5,334,298 class 2M-CH reference tranche;
-- $63,333,000 class 2B-1 notes;
-- $3,333,436 class 2B-1H reference tranche;
-- $66,666,437 class 2B-2H reference tranche.

The notes are general senior unsecured obligations of Fannie Mae
(rated 'AAA'/Outlook Stable) subject to the credit and principal
payment risk of the mortgage loan reference pools of certain
residential mortgage loans held in various Fannie Mae-guaranteed
MBS. The 'BBB-sf' rating for the 1M-1 notes reflects the 3.05%
subordination provided by the 0.68% class 1M-2A, the 0.68% class
1M-2B, the 0.69% class 1M-2C, the 0.50% class 1B-1 and their
corresponding reference tranches as well as the 0.50% 1B-2H
reference tranche. The 'BBB-sf' rating for the 2M-1 notes reflects
the 3.40% subordination provided by the 0.80% class 2M-2A, the
0.80% class 2M-2B, the 0.80% class 2M-2C, the 0.50% class 2B-1 and
their corresponding reference tranches as well as the 0.50% 2B-2H
reference tranche.

The CAS 2017-C07 transaction includes two separate loan groups. One
loan group will consist of loans with loan-to-value (LTV) ratios
greater than 60% and less than or equal to 80% (Group 1), and
another that consists of loans with LTVs greater than 80% and less
than or equal to 97% (Group 2). Fitch has assigned different
subordination levels to each group, as outlined above. The cash
flow waterfall structure is identical for both groups.

Connecticut Avenue Securities, series 2017-C07 (CAS 2017-C07) is
Fannie Mae's 23rd risk transfer transaction issued as part of the
Federal Housing Finance Agency's Conservatorship Strategic Plan for
2013 to 2017 for each of the government sponsored enterprises
(GSEs) to demonstrate the viability of multiple types of risk
transfer transactions involving single family mortgages.

The objective of the transaction is to transfer credit risk from
Fannie Mae to private investors with respect to a $34 billion pool
of mortgage loans currently held in previously issued MBS
guaranteed by Fannie Mae where principal repayment of the notes are
subject to the performance of a reference pool of mortgage loans.
As loans liquidate, are modified or other credit events occur, the
outstanding principal balance of the debt notes will be reduced by
the loan's actual loss severity percentage related to those credit
events.

While the transaction structure simulates the behavior and credit
risk of traditional RMBS mezzanine and subordinate securities,
Fannie Mae will be responsible for making monthly payments of
interest and principal to investors. Due to the counterparty
dependence on Fannie Mae, Fitch's expected rating on the 1M-1,
1M-2A, 1M-2B, 1M-2C, 2M-1, 2M-2A, 2M-2B and 2M-2C notes will be
based on the lower of: the quality of the mortgage loan reference
pool and credit enhancement (CE) available through subordination
and on Fannie Mae's Issuer Default Rating.

The notes will be issued as LIBOR-based floaters. In the event that
the one-month LIBOR rate falls below the applicable negative LIBOR
trigger value described in the offering memorandum, the interest
payment on the interest-only notes will be capped at the excess of
(i) the interest amount payable on the related class of
exchangeable notes for that payment date over (ii) the interest
amount payable on the class of floating rate related combinable and
recombinable (RCR) notes included in the same combination for that
payment date. If there are no floating rate classes in the related
exchange, then the interest payment on the interest-only notes will
be capped at the aggregate of the interest amounts payable on the
classes of RCR notes included in the same combination that were
exchanged for the specified class of interest-only RCR notes for
that payment date.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

High-Quality Mortgage Pool (Positive): The mortgage loan reference
pools consist of high-quality mortgage loans that were acquired by
Fannie Mae in the first and second quarters of 2017 (1Q17 and
2Q17). The group 1 reference pool will consist of loans with LTVs
greater than 60% and less than or equal to 80%, and Group 2 will
consist of loans with LTVs greater than 80% and less than or equal
to 97%. Overall, the reference pool's collateral characteristics
are similar to recent CAS transactions and reflect the strong
credit profile of post-crisis mortgage originations.

FEMA Exclusion Loans Removed (Positive): Fannie Mae will not
include FEMA Exclusion Loans in the pool. A mortgage loan is a FEMA
Exclusion Loan if it relates to a mortgage property that is
included in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazus
damage file for Hurricane Harvey or Hurricane Irma as of the
Cut-off Date or is determined by Fannie Mae to merit exclusion from
the Reference Pool due to the effects of natural disasters.

Higher HomeReady Exposure (Negative): Both groups contain loans
(1.1% Group 1 and 10.5% Group 2) originated to Fannie Mae's
HomeReady program, the highest percentages of any Fitch-rated
transaction to date. HomeReady is an affordability program that
allows LTVs up to 97% and can allow for nonstandard sources of
income and down payment for qualifying borrowers. The credit
profile of HomeReady borrowers is weaker on average than the
overall mortgage pool, which is reflected in increased credit
enhancement.

Mortgage Insurance Guaranteed by Fannie Mae (Positive): All of the
loans in Group 2 are covered either by borrower paid mortgage
insurance (BPMI) or lender paid mortgage insurance (LPMI). Fannie
Mae will be guaranteeing 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 Fannie Mae 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%.

12.5-Year Hard Maturity (Positive): The notes benefit from a
12.5-year legal final maturity. Thus, any credit or modification
events on the reference pool that occur beyond year 12.5 are borne
by Fannie Mae and do not affect the transaction. Fitch accounted
for the 12.5-year hard maturity in its default analysis and applied
a reduction to its lifetime default expectations.

Limited Size/Scope of Third-Party Diligence (Neutral): Fitch
received third-party due diligence on a loan production basis, as
opposed to a transaction-specific review. Fitch believes that
regular, periodic third-party reviews (TPRs) conducted on a loan
production basis are sufficient for validating Fannie Mae's quality
control processes. Fitch views the results of the due diligence
review as consistent with its opinion of Fannie Mae as an
above-average aggregator; as a result, no adjustments were made to
Fitch's loss expectations based on due diligence. See Third-Party
Due Diligence for more details.

Solid Alignment of Interests (Positive): While the transaction is
designed to transfer credit risk to private investors, Fitch
believes that it benefits from a solid alignment of interests.
Fannie Mae will be retaining credit risk in the transaction by
holding the 1A-H and 2A-H senior reference tranches, which have an
initial loss protection of 4.00% and 4.25%, respectively, as well
as the first loss B-2H reference tranches, sized at 0.50% for each
group. Fannie Mae is also retaining an approximately 5% vertical
slice/interest in each group's Reference Tranches (M-1H, M-AH,
M-BH, M-CH, and B-1H).

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.

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 sMVD. It indicates 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 12%, 12% and 37% would potentially reduce the
'BBBsf' Group 1 rated class down one rating category, to
non-investment grade, and to 'CCCsf', respectively. Additional MVDs
of 11%, 11% and 36% would potentially reduce the 'BBBsf' Group 2
rated class down one rating category, to non-investment grade, and
to 'CCCsf', respectively.


GERMAN AMERICAN 2016-CD2: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Cl. F Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed all classes of German American Capital
Corp.'s CD 2016-CD2 mortgage trust commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates, series 2016-CD2.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Stable Performance: The affirmations are based on the stable
performance of the underlying collateral. There have been no
material changes to the pool since issuance; therefore, the
original rating analysis was considered in affirming the
transaction.

As of the October 2017 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
balance has been reduced by 0.19% to $973.5 million, from $975.4
million at issuance. There are no delinquent or specially serviced
loans. Three loans (22.6% of the pool balance) are on the
servicer's watch list due to low debt service coverage ratio
(DSCR). The loans are not considered Fitch Loans of Concern as the
initial low DSCR was anticipated at issuance due to rent abatements
in-place for newer tenants. All three watch listed loans are
located in Manhattan, secured by two office buildings (14.92%) and
one retail property (7.70%).

Pool Concentration: The top 10 loans compose 67% of the pool, which
is higher than the 2016 average of 54.8%. The collateral
composition of the top 10 loans include exceptionally high property
quality (85% received a property quality grade of 'B+' or higher)
and strong locations (66% of the top 10 loans are located within
the New York metro market).

Weak Amortization: Twelve loans (61.2%) are full-term interest only
and seven loans (25.6%) are partial interest only. Based on the
scheduled balance at maturity, the pool will pay down by only 5.5%

RATING SENSITIVITIES

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

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:
-- $15,600,221 class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $69,061,053 class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $34,742,105 class A-SB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $252,631,579 class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $308,873,684 class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $721,789,474b class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $39,015,789 class A-M at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $10,899,705c class V1-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $76,811,579ab class X-B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $76,811,579 class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $1,162,932c class V1-B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $42,673,684 class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $646,082c class V1-C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $57,304,211ab class X-D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $57,304,211a class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $867,589ac class V1-D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $28,043,158ab class X-E at 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $28,043,158a class E at 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $10,972,632ab class X-F at 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $10,972,632a class F at 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

(a) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144A.
(b) Notional amount and interest only.
(c) Exchangeable certificates.

A vertical credit risk retention interest representing 5% of each
class is retained as part of risk retention compliance. Fitch does
not rate the $37,797,120 class X-G, the $37,797,120 class G, the
$1,162,952 class V1-E or the $33,937,081 class V2.


GOLUB CAPITAL 23: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3 Rating to Cl. E-R Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned the following provisional
ratings to the following notes (the "Refinancing Notes") to be
issued by Golub Capital Partners CLO 23(B)-R, Ltd.:

US$384,000,000 Class A-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class A-R Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$ 66,500,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class B-R Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

US$ 38,750,000 Class C-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

US$ 38,000,000 Class D-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class D-R Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

US$ 24,750,000 Class E-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (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.

OPAL BSL LLC (the "Manager") will manage the CLO. It will direct
the selection, acquisition, and disposition of collateral on behalf
of the Issuer.

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's provisional ratings on the 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 December 7,
2017 (the " Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing
of all of the secured notes and subordinated notes (the "Refinanced
Original Notes") previously issued on May 28, 2015 (the "Original
Closing Date"). 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: extensions of the reinvestment
period, non-call period and the notes' stated maturity; changes to
certain collateral quality tests; changes to the
overcollateralization test levels; and changes to certain
concentration limits.

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 August 2017.

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:

Portfolio par: $599,601,338

Defaulted par: $797,324

Diversity Score: 62

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2950

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.65%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.50%

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
August 2017.

Factors That Would Lead to an Upgrade or 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 2950 to 3393)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-R Notes: 0

Class B-R Notes: -2

Class C-R Notes: -2

Class D-R Notes: -1

Class E-R Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF - increase of 30% (from 2950 to 3835)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-R Notes: -1

Class B-R Notes: -3

Class C-R Notes: -4

Class D-R Notes: -2

Class E-R Notes: -1


HALCYON LOAN 2017-2: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class D Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by Halcyon Loan Advisors Funding 2017-2 Ltd..

Moody's rating action is:

US$280,125,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$57,375,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class A-2 Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$31,500,000 Class B Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2030 (the "Class B Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$27,000,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2030 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$18,000,000 Class D Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2030 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Halcyon 2017-2 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up to
7.5% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and
unsecured loans. The portfolio is approximately 85% ramped as of
the closing date.

Halcyon Loan Advisors A 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 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 August 2017.

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

Par amount: $450,000,000

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2811

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.55%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8.25 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
August 2017.

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 2811 to 3233)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2 Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2811 to 3654)

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


JP MORGAN 2005-LDP5: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Class G Debt
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on one class,
affirmed the ratings on three classes and downgraded the rating on
one class in J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.
Series 2005-LDP5:

Cl. F, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Dec 1, 2016 Affirmed
Ba1 (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec 1, 2016 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Cl. H, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Dec 1, 2016
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 1, 2016 Downgraded to C
(sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 1, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating on Class F was upgraded based primarily on an increase
in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and amortization.
The deal has paid down 49% since Moody's last review.

The rating on Class G 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
on classes J and K were affirmed because the ratings are consistent
with Moody's expected loss plus realized losses.

The rating on Class H was downgraded due to anticipated losses from
specially serviced loans and single tenant concentration concerns
for the three largest performing loans.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 36.0% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 29.6% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 5.9% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 5.8% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the November 15, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 96.2% to $160
million from $4.2 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 13 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 six at Moody's last review.

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

Twenty-one loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $188.4 million (for an average loss
severity of 56.4%). One loan, the Atlantic Development Portfolio
Loan ($80.3 million -- 50% of the pool), is currently in special
servicing. The specially serviced loan was originally secured by
six office and two industrial buildings located in Warren and
Somerset, New Jersey. The loan first transferred to special
servicing in 2010 for imminent monetary default and the loan was
subsequently modified to allow for the sale of one property. The
proceeds were used to pay down the principal balance and the loan
returned to the master servicer in 2011. However, the loan
transferred back to special servicing in July 2015 due to imminent
monetary default. The portfolio's cash flow was significantly
impacted by the vacancy of two tenants in 2015, totaling
approximately 153,000 square foot (SF), which reduced the
portfolio's occupancy to 52%. As of July 2017, the remaining seven
properties had an overall occupancy of 52%, compared to 67% at the
prior review.

As of the November 15, 2017 remittance statement cumulative
interest shortfalls were $21.3 million. Moody's anticipates
interest shortfalls will continue because of the exposure to
specially serviced loans and/or modified loans. Interest shortfalls
are caused by special servicing fees, including workout and
liquidation fees, appraisal entitlement reductions (ASERs), loan
modifications and extraordinary trust expenses.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2017 operating results for 87% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 108%, compared to 96% 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 28% 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 0.98X and 1.05X,
respectively, compared to 1.41X and 1.07X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 36% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Mellon Trust Center Loan ($41.3 million --
25.8% of the pool), which is secured by a 384,000 SF suburban
office building located in Everett, Massachusetts (5 miles north of
the Boston CBD). The property is fully leased to BNY Mellon through
April 30, 2019. Due to the single tenant exposure Moody's utilized
a lit/dark analysis. The loan passed its anticipated repayment date
(ARD) in October 2015 and has a final maturity date in October
2035. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 124% and 0.76X,
respectively, compared to 115% and 0.82X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Home Depot (Vernon Hills) Loan
($10.6 million -- 6.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 111,000
SF single tenant occupied building located in Vernon Hills, IL. The
entire property is fully leased to Home Depot through December 31,
2018. Due to the single tenant exposure, Moody's utilized a
lit/dark analysis. The loan passed its anticipated repayment date
(ARD) in November 2015 and has a final maturity date in November
2035. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 148% and 0.71X,
respectively, compared to 141% and 0.75X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Precise Technology, Inc. - Buffalo
Grove, IL Loan ($5.8 million -- 3.6% of the pool), which is secured
by a 265,000 SF industrial building located in Buffalo Grove,
Illinois (33 miles north west of the Chicago CBD). The property is
fully leased to Berry Plastics Group through January 31, 2025. The
loan is fully-amortizing, has amortized 45% since securitization
and matures in December 2025. Due to the single tenant exposure,
Moody's utilized a lit/dark analysis. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 47% and 2.21X, respectively, compared to 52% and 1.99X at the
last review.


JP MORGAN 2016-ASH: Moody's Affirms B3 Rating on Class F Certs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed the ratings on seven classes of
JP Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2016-ASH,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-ASH.
Moody's rating action is:

Cl. A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 2, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Dec 2, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aa3 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on Dec 2, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned A3 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Dec 2, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec 2, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Dec 2, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned B3 (sf)

Cl. X-CP, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Dec 2, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's has affirmed the ratings on six P&I classes due to the
transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value (LTV)
ratio and Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR),
being within acceptable ranges. The rating on the IO class, Class
X-CP is affirmed based on the credit quality of the reference
classes. Moody's does not rate Class X-EXT.

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, an increase in defeasance or
an improvement in loan performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the loan 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 July 2017.

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

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the October 16, 2017 Payment Date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance remains unchanged at $415 million.
The securitization is backed by a single, 6-year (including four
one-year extension options), floating rate loan collateralized by
18 full-service, limited-service, and extended-stay hotels. The
interest only loan's final maturity date is in October 2022. There
is $35 million of mezzanine debt held outside the trust.

The transaction contains non-sequential prepayment provisions. So
long as there is no event of default under the Mortgage Loan or
Mezzanine Loan, principal prepayments attributable to the Mortgage
Loan will be allocated pro rata among the outstanding principal
balance of each of the Loan Components of the Mortgage Loan until
30% of the initial loan amount of the Mortgage Loan has been
prepaid in the aggregate. As such, principal prepayments
attributable to the Mortgage Loan would be applied pro rata to
Certificates A through F until 30% of the initial loan balance has
been prepaid.

Our rating approach considers sequential pay in connection with a
prepayment or collateral release as a credit neutral benchmark.
Although the loan's release premium mitigates the risk of a ratings
downgrade due to adverse selection, the pro rata payment structure
limits ratings upgrade potential.

The portfolio totals 3,540 guestroom located in 10 MSA's across
seven states. Except for the Embassy Suites Flagstaff property
(Hilton affiliation), the remaining 17 hotels have a Marriott
affiliation (Marriott, Courtyard, Residence Inn, Springhill Suites,
TownPlace Suites, and Sheraton). The portfolio's Net Cash Flow
(NCF) for the trailing twelve month period ending June 2017 was
$56.4 million compared to $54.9 million at securitization. Moody's
stabilized NCF is $42.0 million, the same as securitization.
Moody's stressed LTV and stressed DSCR are 109% and 1.09X,
respectively. The trust has not incurred any losses or interest
shortfalls as of the current Payment Date.


JP MORGAN 2016-WSP: Moody's Affirms B3 Rating on Class F Certs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on seven classes
in J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2016-WSP,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-WSP:

Cl. A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 30, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Sep 30, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned Aa3 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on Sep 30, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned A3 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Sep 30, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Sep 30, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Sep 30, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned B3 (sf)

Cl. X-CP, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on Sep 30, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned A3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings of the P&I Classes were affirmed due to key parameters,
including Moody's loan to value (LTV) ratio and Moody's stressed
debt service ratio (DSCR) remaining within acceptable ranges. The
rating of the interest only (IO) class, Class X-CP, was affirmed
based on the credit quality of its referenced classes.

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 pay downs 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 July 2017.

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

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the November 15, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance remains $235 million, the same as at
securitization. The Certificates are collateralized by a single
mortgage loan collateralized by a portfolio of 63 cross
collateralized and cross defaulted extended-stay hotels located in
20 states. The highest concentration of properties is in Florida,
Texas and Ohio.

The floating rate loan has an initial two-year term and three,
one-year extension options and calls for monthly interest only
payments for the entire loan term. The loan is structured with a
hard lockbox and springing cash management. Reserves were
established at securitization for real estate taxes, replacement
reserves and a Rebranding Reserve account to rebrand up to 57 of
the properties from the Value Place to WoodSpring Suites brand.
Occupancy and financial performance have both improved since
securitization. As of August 2017, the trailing twelve month
occupancy and RevPAR were 84.8% and $32.73, respectively, compared
to 84.2% and $30.20 for the trailing twelve month period at
securitization.

Moody's LTV is 107.2%, the same as at securitization. Moody's
stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) is 1.21X, the same as
at securitization. The trust has not incurred any losses or
interest shortfalls as of the current Payment Date.


MARATHON CLO V: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Class D-R Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-1-R, A-2-R,
B-R, C-R, and D-R replacement notes from Marathon CLO V Ltd., a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) originally issued in February
2013 that is managed by Marathon Asset Management LLC. S&P withdrew
its ratings on the original class A-1, A-2a, A-2b, B-1, B-2, C, and
D notes following payment in full on the Nov. 21, 2017, refinancing
date.

On the Nov. 21, 2017, refinancing date, the proceeds from the class
A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, and D-R replacement note issuances,
combined with the proceeds of the issuance of additional
subordinated notes, were used to redeem the original class A-1,
A-2a, A-2b, B-1, B-2, C, and D notes as outlined in the transaction
document provisions. Therefore, S&P withdrew its ratings on the
original notes in line with their full redemption, and we are
assigning ratings to the replacement notes.

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

-- Change the rated par amount and target initial par amount to
$522.70 million and $564.82 million, respectively, from $550.95
million and $598.50 million, respectively.

-- Extend the reinvestment period to Nov. 21, 2019, from Feb. 21,
2017.

-- Extend the non-call period to Nov. 21, 2018, from Feb. 21,
2015.

-- Extend the weighted average life test to six years calculated
from the Nov. 21, 2017, refinancing date, from Feb. 21, 2021.

-- Extend the legal final maturity date on the rated and
subordinated notes to Nov. 21, 2027, from Feb. 21, 2025.

-- Issue additional subordinated notes, increasing the
subordinated notes' balance to $84.40 million from $63.30 million.

-- Adopt the use of the non-model version of CDO Monitor. During
the reinvestment period, the non-model version of CDO Monitor may
be used for this transaction to indicate whether changes to the
collateral portfolio are generally consistent with the transaction
parameters S&P assumed when initially assigning ratings to the
notes.

-- Change the required minimum thresholds for the coverage tests.

-- Make the transaction U.S. risk retention compliant.

-- Incorporate the recovery rate methodology and updated industry
classifications outlined in our August 2016 CLO criteria update
(see "Global Methodologies And Assumptions For Corporate Cash Flow
And Synthetic CDOs," published Aug. 8, 2016).

  REPLACEMENT AND ORIGINAL NOTE ISSUANCES

  Replacement Notes
  Class                Amount    Interest                          

                     (mil. $)    rate (%)        
  A-1-R                369.30    LIBOR + 0.87
  A-2-R                 62.50    LIBOR + 1.45
  B-R                   34.10    LIBOR + 1.85
  C-R                   30.60    LIBOR + 2.75
  D-R                   26.20    LIBOR + 5.75
  Subordinated notes    84.40    N/A

  Original Notes
  Class                Amount    Interest                          

                      (mil. $)    rate (%)        
  A-1                  350.45(i) LIBOR + 1.3213
  A-2a                  50.25    LIBOR + 2.35
  A-2b                   9.00    3.5635
  B-1                   51.00    LIBOR + 3.30
  B-2                    7.50    4.7445
  C                     31.20    LIBOR + 4.25
  D                     30.90    LIBOR + 5.70
  Subordinated notes    63.30    N/A

(i)Balance reported as of October 2017. N/A--Not available.

S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow
analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction as reflected in
the trustee report, to estimate future performance. In line with
our criteria, our cash flow scenarios applied forward-looking
assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of defaults, and
recoveries upon default, under various interest rate and
macroeconomic scenarios. In addition, our analysis considered the
transaction's ability to pay timely interest or ultimate principal,
or both, to each of the rated tranches.

"The assigned ratings reflect our opinion that the credit support
available is commensurate with the associated rating levels.

"We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings
assigned to the notes remain consistent with the credit enhancement
available to support them, and we will take rating actions as we
deem necessary."

  RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Marathon CLO V Ltd.
  Replacement class         Rating        Amount (mil $)
  A-1-R                     AAA (sf)              369.30
  A-2-R                     AA (sf)                62.50
  B-R                       A (sf)                 34.10
  C-R                       BBB- (sf)              30.60
  D-R                       BB- (sf)               26.20
  Subordinated notes        NR                     84.40

  RATINGS WITHDRAWN

  Marathon CLO V Ltd.
                             Rating
  Original class       To              From
  A-1                  NR              AAA (sf)
  A-2a                 NR              AA (sf)
  A-2b                 NR              AA (sf)
  B-1                  NR              A (sf)
  B-2                  NR              A (sf)
  C                    NR              BBB (sf)
  D                    NR              BB (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


MERRILL LYNCH 2004-BPC1: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on Cl. F Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded two and affirmed nine classes of Merrill
Lynch Mortgage Trust, commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates, series 2004-BPC1.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The upgrades reflect better than expected recoveries on specially
serviced loans; the Sugarloaf Business Center and Southwood 75
Business Center loan (43.6% of pool balance at the last rating
action) repaid in full in September 2017. As of the November 2017
distribution date, the pool's aggregate principal balance has paid
down by 98.7% to $16.5 million from $1.2 billion at issuance.
Realized losses since issuance total $80 million (6.4% of original
pool balance). Interest shortfalls totaling $7.4 million are
currently impacting classes E through Q. All of the remaining loans
are current.

Concentrated Pool: The pool is highly concentrated with only three
loans remaining. 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. The ratings reflect this sensitivity analysis.

The largest loan, Courtyard Dulles Town Center (51.1% of current
pool), is secured by a 157-key limited service hotel property
located in Sterling, VA. The property recently completed a $1.6
million room and corridor refresh/renovation project in May 2017.
As of the Aug. 22, 2017 weekly STR report, the property reported an
occupancy, average daily rate (ADR) and revenue per available room
(RevPAR) of 77.1%, $108.41 and $83.60, respectively for the 28 days
ended Aug. 19, 2017, and outperforms its competitive set, which
reported 80.5%, $83.06 and $66.84, respectively. The servicer
reported year-end (YE) 2016 net operating income debt service
coverage ratio (NOI DSCR) was 1.35x.

The second largest loan, Villas del Lago (45.9%), is secured by a
288-unit multifamily property located in Miami, FL. According to
the master servicer's latest significant insurance event reporting,
the property sustained no damage from Hurricane Irma. Occupancy as
of July 2017 was 98.6%. YE 2016 NOI DSCR was 1.60x. The smallest
loan (3%) is secured by a single-tenanted industrial property
located in Valencia, CA that has been fully occupied by Wesco
Aircraft Hardware Corp. since issuance. The single tenant's lease
expires in September 2019, one month before the loan's maturity.

Loan Maturities: The remaining loans are scheduled to mature in
2019 (two loans, 54.1% of pool) and 2022 (45.9%).

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Outlook for class D reflects the class's high credit
enhancement and the high likelihood of repayment from scheduled
amortization within the next three to four months. The class D
rating has been capped at 'BBsf' to reflect pool concentration, but
factors into consideration the increase in the class's credit
enhancement. Given the pool concentration, additional upgrades are
not expected. Downgrades are possible should the performance of the
remaining loans decline significantly.

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 upgraded the following classes and assigned Rating
Outlooks as indicated:

-- $0.2 million class D to 'BBsf' from 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $9.3 million class E to 'Bsf' from 'CCsf'; assign Outlook
    Stable.

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:

-- $7.0 million class F at 'Dsf'; RE 100%;
-- $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 P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

The class A1 through C certificates have paid in full. Fitch does
not rate the class Q certificates. Fitch previously withdrew the
ratings on the interest-only class XC and XP certificates.


MORGAN STANLEY 2008-TOP29: Fitch Lowers Ratings on 3 Tranches to C
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded three subordinate classes and affirmed
14 classes of Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust (MSCI), series
2008-TOP29.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Concentrated Pool with Binary Risk: Only 21 of the original 82
loans remains; the largest 11 loans represent 89% of the pool, of
which five are specially serviced (38.8%). Due to the concentrated
nature of the pool and significant near-term loan maturities, Fitch
performed a sensitivity analysis that grouped the remaining loans
based on loan structural features, collateral quality and
performance, and ranked the loans by their perceived likelihood of
repayment. The ratings and Outlooks reflect this sensitivity
analysis in addition to the uncertainty regarding timing and amount
of loan payoffs.

Specially Serviced Assets and Near-Term Loan Maturities: The
largest loan, Shadow Lake Towne Center (19.7% of the pool),
transferred to special servicing after not paying off at its
scheduled maturity date of Nov. 1, 2017. The Hilton-Indianapolis,
the pool's third-largest loan (12%), did not pay off at loan
maturity on Nov. 1, 2017; the loan remains current and with the
master servicer as the sponsor is attempting to sell the property.
There are three specially serviced assets ($58.9 million, 14.7%)
located in Puerto Rico that had operations affected by Hurricane
Maria. Additionally, 11 loans (20.2%) have a scheduled maturity
date between December 2017 and February 2018.

Defeasance: The affirmations of the three most senior classes
reflect the defeasance of three loans ($113 million, 28.3% of the
pool), which have a scheduled maturity of January 2018. The
defeased collateral would pay off all of class A-4 and A-4FL and
approximately 35% of the current class A-M balance.

Shadow Lake Towne Center, the pool's largest loan, is specially
serviced. The loan is secured by a 636,297 sf regional lifestyle
center located in Papillion, NE, less than 15 miles south of
downtown Omaha. The property was completed in September 2007 and
was approximately 85% occupied at issuance; reported occupancy was
82% as of June 2017. The loan did not refinance at its scheduled
maturity date. Major tenants include JCPenney (lease expiration
2027), Dick's Sporting Goods (2023) and TJ Maxx (2023).

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Outlook on classes A-4, A-4FL and A-M is Stable as the two
senior classes are expected to pay off in the next two months;
class A-M should receive principal from defeased loans or principal
from loan payoffs. The Negative Outlook on classes A-J1 through E
reflects the uncertainty regarding the timing and recoveries on
loans in special servicing and loans with near-term scheduled
maturities. Downgrades are possible should additional loans not
refinance and transfer to special servicing or if recoveries on
defaulted assets are lower than expected. If loans pay off and the
transaction delevers, classes may be affirmed or paid in full.

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.

Fitch has downgraded the following ratings:

-- $10.8 million class H to 'Csf' from 'CCCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $1.5 million class J to 'Csf' from 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $4.6 million class K to 'Csf' from 'CCsf'; RE 0%.

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

-- $69.7 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $8.3 million class A-4FL at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $123.4 million class A-M at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $72.5 million class A-J1 at 'AAsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $20.1 million class B at 'Asf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $10.8 million class C at 'BBBsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $21.6 million class D at 'BBsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $12.3 million class E at 'Bsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $13.9 million class F at 'CCCsf'; RE 100%;
-- $13.9 million class G at 'CCCsf'; RE 45%;
-- $1.5 million class L at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $1.5 million class M at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $4.6 million class N at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $4.6 million class O at 'Csf'; RE 0%.

Fitch does not rate class P, which has been reduced to $3.8 million
from $15.2 million due to realized losses. Classes A-1, A-2, A-3
and A-AB are paid in full. Fitch previously withdrew the rating on
the interest-only class X.


NELNET EDUCATION 2004-1: Fitch Corrects November 16 Release
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings issued a correction of a release published Nov. 16,
2017. It corrects the rating sensitivities which were included in
the original release.

The revised release is as follows:

Fitch Ratings affirms the following Nelnet Education Loan Funding
Trust 2004-1 (NELF 2004-1) outstanding notes backed by student
loans originated under the Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFELP):

-- Class A-2 at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Class B-1 at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Class B-2 at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

The trust was modeled under the assumption that the issuer
exercises its option to allocate cash to the class B notes prior to
the class A-2 notes. With this provision the class A-2 notes hit an
event of default (EOD) under the base cases, and class B suffers an
interest shortfall, as all class B interest post-EOD is diverted to
pay class A principal. As a result, the class B notes fail the base
cases as well. The post-EOD waterfall run is the primary scenario,
given that the pre-EOD waterfall will not take into account the
class B interest disruption. Should the issuer choose not to invoke
the provision, both class A and B notes would be rated
substantially higher.

CRITERIA VARIATION

The decision to rate the A-2, B-1 and B-2 notes at 'BBsf' rather
than 'CCCsf' or below is a criteria variation. The class A-2 notes
miss the credit and maturity stress base case scenarios by
1.00-1.50 years. Fitch has considered qualitative factors such as
Nelnet's ability to call the notes upon reaching 10% pool factor,
the long time horizon until the A-2 and B maturity dates, and the
class A-2 under the base case scenarios miss the legal final
maturity date within a six quarter timeframe with the maturity date
still being over 13 years away.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

U.S. Sovereign Risk: The trust collateral comprises Federal Family
Education Loan Program (FFELP) loans with guaranties provided by
eligible guarantors and reinsurance provided by the U.S. Department
of Education (ED) for at least 97% of principal and accrued
interest. The U.S. sovereign rating is currently 'AAA'/Outlook
Stable.

Collateral Performance: Fitch assumes a base case cumulative
default rate of 12.50% and a 3.50% default rate under the 'AAA'
credit stress scenario. Fitch assumes a sustainable constant
default rate of 2.2% and a sustainable constant prepayment rate
(voluntary and involuntary) of 9.0% based on data provided by the
issuer. Fitch applies the standard default timing curve. The claim
reject rate is assumed to be 0.25% in the base case and 2.0% in the
'AAA' case.

The trailing 12 month (TTM) average of deferment, forbearance, and
income-based repayment (prior to adjustment) are 4.8%, 4.8%, and
10.8%, respectively, and are used as the starting point in cash
flow modeling. Subsequent declines or increases are modeled as per
criteria. The borrower benefit is assumed to be approximately
0.24%, based on information provided by the sponsor.

Basis and Interest Rate Risk: Basis risk for this transaction
arises from any rate and reset frequency mismatch between interest
rate indices for SAP and the securities. As of the July 2017
collection period, all of the trust student loans are indexed to
one-month LIBOR. 89.4% of the bonds are indexed to three-month
LIBOR and 10.64% of the bonds are auction-rate notes. Fitch applies
its standard basis and interest rate stresses to this transaction
as per criteria.

Payment Structure: Credit enhancement (CE) is provided by
overcollateralization, excess spread and, for the class A notes,
subordination, from the class B notes. As the July 2017 collection
period, total and senior effective parity ratio (which includes the
reserve account) are, respectively, 113.80% (12.13% CE) and 101.69%
(1.66% CE). Liquidity support is provided by a reserve account
sized at the greater of 0.25% of the bond balance, and $1,515,000.
Excess cash is currently being related from the trust.

Maturity Risk: Fitch's student loan ABS cash flow model indicates
the A-2 notes do not pay off before their maturity date in Fitch's
modelling scenarios, including the base cases. If the breach of the
class A-2 maturity date triggers an EOD, interest payments will be
diverted away from the class B notes, causing them to fail the base
cases as well.

Operational Capabilities: Day-to-day servicing is provided by
Nelnet, Inc. Fitch believes Nelnet to be an acceptable servicers,
due to its extensive track record of servicing FFELP loans.


NELNET STUDENT 2005-4: Fitch Affirms 'BBsf' Ratings on 4 Tranches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed Nelnet Student Loan Trust 2005-4:

-- Class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Class A-4L at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Class A-4AR-1 at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Class A-4AR-2 at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Class B at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

Class A-4 notes do not incur a shortfall in interest or principal
and miss the maturity by 0.25 - 1.00 years in Fitch's modelling
scenarios, including the base case, when the maturity date is still
over 14 years out. Therefore, the notes are affirmed at
'BBsf'/Outlook Stable at this time, as a slight change in future
economic environment could result in full repayment of bonds by
maturity dates.

The rating of subordinate tranches will typically not be eligible
for ratings higher than any senior tranche in the same transaction.
Given the maturity sensitivity and subsequent rating of 'BBsf' for
the A-4 notes, the class B notes will also be affirmed at 'BBsf'/
Outlook Stable.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

U.S. Sovereign Risk: The trust collateral comprises 100% Federal
Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) loans, with guaranties
provided by eligible guarantors and reinsurance provided by the
U.S. Department of Education (ED) for at least 97% of principal and
accrued interest. The U.S. sovereign rating is currently
'AAA'/Outlook Stable.

Collateral Performance: Fitch assumes a base case default rate of
15.75% and a 47.25% default rate under the 'AAA' credit stress
scenario. The base case default assumption of 15.75% implies a
constant default rate of 2.5% (assuming a weighted average life of
6.3 years) consistent with a sustainable constant default rate
utilized in the maturity stresses. Fitch applies the standard
default timing curve in its credit stress cash flow analysis. The
claim reject rate is assumed to be 0.25% in the base case and 2.0%
in the 'AAA' case. The TTM levels of deferment, forbearance, and
income-based repayment (prior to adjustment) are 4.47%, 5.46%, and
14.82%, respectively, and are used as the starting point in cash
flow modeling. The sustainable constant prepayment rate (voluntary
and involuntary) utilized for this review is 8.5%. Subsequent
declines or increases are modeled as per criteria. The borrower
benefit is assumed to be approximately 0.20%, based on information
provided by the sponsor.

Basis and Interest Rate Risk: Basis risk for this transaction
arises from any rate and reset frequency mismatch between interest
rate indices for SAP and the securities. As of Aug. 31, 2017, all
notes are indexed to three-month LIBOR and 96.35% of the trust
student loans are indexed to one-month LIBOR. The remaining 3.65%
of the trust student loans are indexed to 91 Day T-Bill.

Payment Structure: Credit enhancement (CE) is provided by excess
spread and, for the class A notes, subordination. As of August
2017, total and senior effective parity ratios (including the
reserve) are 100.65% and 105.59%. Liquidity support is provided by
a reserve, which is currently at its floor of $2,841,887.45. The
transaction will continue to release cash as long as the target
overcollateralization amount of $1,116,966.95 is maintained.

Maturity Risk: Fitch's student loan ABS cash flow model indicates
that the class A-3 notes are paid in full on or prior to the legal
final maturity dates under the 'AAA' stress scenarios. The A-4
notes do not pay off before their maturity date in Fitch's modeling
scenarios, including the base cases. If the breach of the class A-4
maturity date triggers an event of default, interest payments will
be diverted away from the class B notes to pay principal for
outstanding class A notes.

Operational Capabilities: Day-to-day servicing, for the majority of
the trust assets, is provided by Nelnet, Inc. Fitch believes Nelnet
to be an acceptable servicer, due to its extensive track record as
one of the largest servicers of FFELP loans.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

'AAAsf' rated tranches of most FFELP securitizations will likely
move in tandem with the U.S. sovereign rating, given the strong
linkage to the U.S. sovereign by nature of the reinsurance and SAP
provided by ED. Sovereign risks are not addressed in Fitch's
sensitivity analysis.

Fitch conducted a CE sensitivity analysis by stressing both the
related lifetime default rate and basis spread assumptions. In
addition, Fitch conducted a maturity sensitivity analysis by
running different assumptions for the IBR usage and prepayment
rate. The results below should only be considered as one potential
model implied outcome as the transaction is exposed to multiple
risk factors that are all dynamic variables.

Credit Stress Rating Sensitivity
-- Default increase 25%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf'
-- Default increase 50%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf'
-- Basis Spread increase 0.25%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf'
-- Basis Spread increase 0.50%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf'

Maturity Stress Rating Sensitivity
-- CPR decrease 50%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf'
-- CPR increase 100%: class A 'AAsf'; class B 'AAsf'
-- IBR Usage decrease 50%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'BBsf'
-- IBR Usage increase 100%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf'

It is important to note that the stresses are intended to provide
an indication of the rating sensitivity of the notes to unexpected
deterioration in trust performance. Rating sensitivity should not
be used as an indicator of future rating performance.



NEUBERGER BERMAN XX: Moody's Assigns B2 Rating to Class F-R Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned the following ratings to the
following notes (the "Refinancing Notes") issued by Neuberger
Berman CLO XX, Ltd.:

US$317,500,000 Class A-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2028 (the "Class A-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$62,500,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2028
(the "Class B-R Notes"), Assigned Aa1 (sf)

US$25,000,000 Class C-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2028 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$30,000,000 Class D-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2028 (the "Class D-R Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$22,750,000 Class E-R Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2028 (the "Class E-R Notes"), Assigned Ba2 (sf)

US$12,000,000 Class F-R Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2028 (the "Class F-R Notes"), Assigned B2 (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.

Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers 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 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 November 20, 2017
(the "Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of
certain classes of notes (the "Refinanced Original Notes")
previously issued on November 20, 2015, 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
August 2017.

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 Moody's to change its 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) 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.

6) 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 ratings 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% (2439)

Class A-R: 0

Class B-R: +1

Class C-R: +4

Class D-R: +3

Class E-R: +1

Class F-R: +2

Moody's Assumed WARF + 20% (3659)

Class A-R: 0

Class B-R: -3

Class C-R: -2

Class D-R: -2

Class E-R: -1

Class F-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: $500,000,000

Defaulted par: $0

Diversity Score: 64

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 3049 (corresponding to a
weighted average default probability of 26.61%)

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.29%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 49.20%

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.


ONEMAIN DIRECT 2016-1: Moody's Hikes Cl. D Debt Rating From Ba1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of four
outstanding tranches issued from OneMain Direct Auto Receivables
Trust 2016-1 (ODART 2016-1). The securitization is sponsored and
serviced by Springleaf Finance Corporation (SFC), rated B2, a
wholly owned subsidiary of OneMain Holdings, Inc., rated B2.

The complete rating actions are as follow:

Issuer: OneMain Direct Auto Receivables Trust 2016-1

Class A, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 17, 2017 Upgraded
to Aa1 (sf)

Class B, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 17, 2017 Upgraded
to Aa3 (sf)

Class C, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Apr 17, 2017 Upgraded
to A3 (sf)

Class D, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Apr 17, 2017 Upgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The upgrades are a result of the buildup of credit enhancement
owing to structural features including a sequential pay bond
structure, a non-declining reserve account and
overcollateralization. The transaction has particularly benefited
from the sequential pay bond structure because the underlying pool
of SFC's direct auto loans prepay at a much higher rate than
typical auto loans. SFC frequently refinances existing direct auto
loans for qualified borrowers which results in a prepayment of the
loan out of the trust. As long as SFC continues its renewal
practice, the transaction will benefit from high prepayments and a
rapid buildup of credit enhancement.

The lifetime cumulative net loss (CNL) expectation for ODART 2016-1
was decreased to 3.75% from 5.50%, reflecting stronger than
expected performance of the underlying loans as well as high
prepayments. Moody's CNL expectation is based on the transaction
performance to date as well as loss performance of SFC's portfolio
of hard secured loans greater than $6,000 in balance since 2006.
SFC launched the direct auto loan product in May 2014, thus there
is limited performance data. While SFC has extensive performance
data on its "hard secured" consumer loan portfolio -- which also
includes borrowing backed by vehicles -- the average balance, term,
APR and vehicle age of loans in that portfolio are significantly
different than direct auto loans. Defaults and recovery rates will
be difficult to forecast accurately until more data is gathered.
Moody's expect the direct auto loan performance to be stronger than
the historical hard secured loan performance due to its stronger
borrower characteristics as well as it's historically higher
recovery rates.

Below are key performance metrics (as of the October distribution
date) and credit assumptions for each affected transaction. The
credit assumptions include Moody's expected lifetime CNL
expectation (expressed as a percentage of the original pool
balance) and Moody's lifetime remaining CNL expectation (expressed
as a percentage of the current pool balance). Performance metrics
include the pool factor, which is the ratio of the current
collateral balance to the original collateral balance at closing;
total hard credit enhancement, which typically consists of
subordination, overcollateralization, and a reserve fund; and
excess spread per annum.

Issuer: OneMain Direct Auto Receivables Trust 2016-1

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 3.75%; prior expectation (April 2017)
-- 5.50%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 5.61%

Pool factor -- 40.44%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class A 59.92%, Class B 44.97%,
Class C 28.15%, Class D 10.47%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 10.7%

PRINCIPAL METHODOLOGY

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Auto Loan- and Lease-Backed ABS" published in
October 2016.

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

Up

Levels of credit protection that are greater than necessary to
protect investors against current expectations of loss could lead
to an upgrade of the rating. Moody's current expectations of loss
may be better than its original expectations because of lower
frequency of default by the underlying obligors or appreciation in
the value of the vehicles that secure the obligor's promise of
payment. The US job market and the market for used vehicle are
primary drivers of performance. Other reasons for better
performance than Moody's expected include changes in servicing
practices to maximize collections on the loans or refinancing
opportunities that result in a prepayment of the loan.

Down

Levels of credit protection that are insufficient to protect
investors against current expectations of loss could lead to a
downgrade of the ratings. Moody's current expectations of loss may
be worse than its original expectations because of higher frequency
of default by the underlying obligors of the loans or a
deterioration in the value of the vehicles that secure the
obligor's promise of payment. The US job market and the market for
used vehicle are primary drivers of performance. Other reasons for
worse performance than Moody's expected include poor servicing,
error on the part of transaction parties, lack of transactional
governance and fraud.


RESIDENTIAL REINSURANCE 2017: S&P Rates Class 3 Notes 'B-(sf)'
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings said it has assigned a rating of 'B-(sf)' to the
$130 million Series 2017-II Class 3 notes issued by Residential
Reinsurance 2017 Ltd. (Res Re 2017) due Dec. 6, 2021. The notes
cover losses in all 50 states and the District of Columbia from
tropical cyclones (including flood coverage for renters' policies),
earthquake (including fire following and flood coverage for
renters' policies), severe thunderstorm, winter storm, wildfire,
volcanic eruption, meteorite impact, and other perils on a
per-occurrence basis.

The ratings are based on the lowest of the natural-catastrophe
(nat-cat) risk factor ('b-'), the rating on the assets in the
Regulation 114 trust account ('AAAm'), and the rating on the ceding
insurer, various operating companies in the United Services
Automobile Association group (all currently rated
'AA+/Stable/--').

The base-case one-year probability of attachment, expected loss,
and probability of exhaustion are 4.04%, 2.84%, and 2.06%,
respectively. Using the warm sea surface temperature results, these
percentages are 4.61%, 3.24%, and 2.33%, respectively.
Additionally, this issuance has a variable reset. Beginning with
the initial reset in June 2018, the attachment probability and
expected loss can be reset to maximum of 5.54% and 3.34%,
respectively. This maximum attachment probability was used as the
baseline to determine the nat-cat risk factor for the remaining
risk periods.

Based on AIR's analysis, on a historical basis, there would be a
61% principal reduction to Class 3 from the 1938 Great New England
hurricane.

RATINGS LIST

  New Rating
  Senior Secured
   Residential Reinsurance 2017 Ltd.
    Series 2017-II Class 3 notes                   B-(sf)


SALOMON BROTHERS 2000-C3: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Cl. X Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the rating of one
interest-only (IO) class in Salomon Brothers Commercial Mortgage
Trust 2000-C3, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series
2000-C3:

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating of the IO Class, Cl. X, was affirmed based on the credit
quality of its referenced classes. The IO class is the only
outstanding Moody's-rated class in this transaction.

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 July 2017.

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 October 18, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 99% to $14.5 million
from $915 million at securitization. The Certificates are
collateralized by five mortgage loans. One loan, representing 1% of
the pool, has defeased and is secured by US Government securities.
There are no loans on the master servicer's watchlist.

Thirty-eight loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of approximately $49.6 million (26% loss
severity on average). Two loans, representing 93% of the pool, are
in special servicing.

The two specially serviced loans are the A-Note and B-Note for the
Granite State Marketplace Loan, which was previously modified to
include an A/B note split. The A-Note is a $10.3 million loan
(representing 70.6% of the pool) and the B-Note is a $3.3 million
loan (representing 22.8% of the pool). The mortgage loan is secured
by a 250,000 square foot (SF) anchored retail center located in
Hooksett, New Hampshire. The loan originally transferred to special
servicing in September 2008 for maturity default and a loan
modification was subsequently executed that included a note split
and maturity date extension. The loan did not pay off at the
extended maturity date in November 2012 and the asset is currently
real estate owned (REO).

Moody's estimates an aggregate $3.3 million loss for a specially
serviced loan (100% expected loss on average).

There are two performing non-defeased loans that represent 5.6% of
the pool balance. Both loans are fully amortizing. The largest loan
is the K-Mart Shopping Center -- Salt Lake City Loan ($713,893--
4.9% of the pool), which is secured by a single tenant retail
center located in Murray, Utah. The property is 100% leased to the
Kmart Corporation until May 2020. Given the single tenant exposure
of this property, Moody's applied a lit dark analysis for this
asset. The loan is a fully amortizing loan that has amortized 71%
since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 26% and
3.98X, respectively, compared to 32% and 3.20X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Edgewood Apartments Loan ($104,690--
0.7% of the pool), which is secured by a 24-unit multifamily
property in Duluth, Minnesota, approximately 160 miles northeast of
Minneapolis - St. Paul. The property was 100% leased as of December
2016. The loan is a fully amortizing loan and has amortized 84%
since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 9.3% and
>4.00X, respectively, compared to 14% and >4.00 X at last
review.


SARANAC CLO VII: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class E-R Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned the following ratings to the
following notes (the "Refinancing Notes") issued by Saranac CLO VII
Limited:

US$172,000,000 Class A-1A-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class A-1A-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$30,000,000 Class A-1F-R Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2029
(the "Class A-1F-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$23,000,000 Class A-2-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class A-2-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$31,500,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2029
(the "Class B-R Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$20,000,000 Class C-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$19,000,000 Class D-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class D-R Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$19,000,000 Class E-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class E-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 .

Saranac 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 ratings on the Refinancing Notes address 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 November 20, 2017
(the "Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of all
classes of the secured notes (the "Refinanced Original Notes")
previously issued on April 4, 2014 (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; changes to the
overcollateralization test levels; 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 August 2017.

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: $339,725,760

Defaulted Par: $475,460

Diversity Score: 75

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2980

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.65%

Weighted Average Spread (WAC): 5.0%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8.5 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
August 2017.

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 2980 to 3427)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1A-R: 0

Class A-1F-R: 0

Class A-2-R: -1

Class B-R: -2

Class C-R: -2

Class D-R: -1

Class E-R: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2980 to 3874)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1A-R: 0

Class A-1F-R: 0

Class A-2-R: -3

Class B-R: -3

Class C-R: -4

Class D-R: -2

Class E-R: -1


SASCO 2007-BHC1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Class A-1 Certs
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the rating on the following
certificates issued by SASCO 2007-BHC1 Trust, Commercial
Mortgage-Backed Securities Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2007-BHC1 ("SASCO 2007-BHC1"):

Cl. A-1, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec. 1, 2016 Affirmed C
(sf)

The Class A-1 Certificates are referred to herein as the "Rated
Certificates".

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's has affirmed the rating on the Rated Certificates because
the key transaction metrics are commensurate with the existing
ratings. The increase in credit quality of the outstanding pool, as
evidenced by WARF, did not more than offset the realized 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.

SASCO 2007-BHC1 is a static cash transaction solely backed by a
portfolio of commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) issued in
2005 and 2006. As of the trustee's October 20, 2017 report, the
aggregate certificate balance of the transaction, has decreased to
$41.6 million from $501.3 million at issuance, primarily as a
result of the realized losses from the underlying CMBS collateral
applied to the certificates.

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 7500,
compared to 8097 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated collateral and the assessments of the non-Moody's
rated collateral follow: A1-A3 (0.0% compared to 3.2% at last
review); Ba1-Ba3 (24.7% compared to 10.9% at last review); and
Caa1-Ca/C (75.3% compared to 85.9% 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 CMBS look-through loan collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 0.0%, same as that at last review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 100.0%, same as that at last review.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

The performance of the Rated Certificates 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
Certificates.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for the Rated
Certificates, 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 Certificates are particularly
sensitive to changes in the recovery rates 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 rating announced is sensitive to further change.

Primary sources of assumption uncertainty are the extent of growth
in the current macroeconomic environment. Commercial real estate
property values are continuing to move in a positive direction
along with a rise in investment activity and stabilization in core
property type performance. Limited new construction, moderate job
growth and the decreased cost of debt and equity capital have aided
this improvement.


SATURNS SEARS 2003-1: Moody's Lowers Rating on $60.19MM Notes to Ca
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the rating on the
following certificates issued by SATURNS Sears Roebuck Acceptance
Corp. Debenture Backed Series 2003-1:

  US$60,191,725 7.25% Callable Units due June 1, 2032 Notes
  (current outstanding balance of $46,808,075), Downgraded
  to Ca; previously on January 25, 2017 Downgraded to Caa3

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating action is a result of the change in the rating of the
7.00% Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp. debentures due June 1, 2032,
issued by Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp. ("Underlying Securities"),
which was downgraded to Ca on November 16, 2017. The transaction is
a structured note whose rating is 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 this rating was "Moody's Approach
to Rating Repackaged Securities" published in June 2015.

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

The rating will be sensitive to any change in the rating of the
7.00% Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp. debentures due June 1, 2032,
issued by Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp.


SDART 2017-1: Moody's Hikes Class E Notes Rating to Ba2
-------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded 13 tranches and affirmed 30
tranches from Santander SDART Auto Receivables Trust
securitizations issued between 2014 and 2017. The securitizations
are sponsored by Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC).

Complete rating actions are as follow:

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-3

Class C Asset Backed Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug
29, 2017 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Asset Backed Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug
29, 2017 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class E Asset Backed Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Aug
29, 2017 Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-4

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-5

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-2

Class B Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to A2 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-3

Class B Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Class E Notes, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to A2 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-4

Class B Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Class E Notes, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to A3 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-1

Class A-3 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class B Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-2

Class A-3 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class B Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Class E Notes, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-3

Class A-2 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class A-3 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class B Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Class C Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to A3 (sf)

Class E Notes, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017
Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2017-1

Class A-2 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2017
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class A-3 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2017
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class B Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2017
Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Class C Notes, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2017
Definitive Rating Assigned Aa3 (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2017
Definitive Rating Assigned Baa2 (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2017
Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The upgrades resulted from the build-up of credit enhancement due
to the sequential pay structures and non-declining reserve
accounts. The lifetime cumulative net loss (CNL) expectations
remained unchanged for the six transactions issued between 2014 and
2015 and range between 13.00% and 14.50%. The lifetime CNL
expectations were lowered to 14.50% from 15.00% for the 2016-1,
2016-2 and 2016-3 transactions, and to 15.00% from 17.00% for the
2017-1 transaction.

Below are key performance metrics (as of the October 2017
distribution date) and credit assumptions for each affected
transaction. The credit assumptions include Moody's expected
lifetime CNL expectation, expressed as a percentage of the original
pool balance; Moody's lifetime remaining CNL expectation and
Moody's Aaa level, both expressed as a percentage of the current
pool balance. The Aaa level is the level of credit enhancement that
would be consistent with a Aaa (sf) rating for the given asset pool
at this time. Performance metrics include the pool factor, which is
the ratio of the current collateral balance to the original
collateral balance at closing; total hard credit enhancement, which
typically consists of subordination, overcollateralization, and a
reserve fund as applicable; and excess spread per annum.

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-3

Lifetime CNL expectation - 13.00%, prior expectation (August 2017)
-- 13.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 11.47%

Aaa (sf) level - 34.00%

Pool factor -- 20.67%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 88.39%, Class D Notes
50.87%, Class E Notes 26.68%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 9.7%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-4

Lifetime CNL expectation - 14.00%, prior expectation (August 2017)
-- 14.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 14.42%

Aaa (sf) level - 35.00%

Pool factor -- 24.89%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 76.26%, Class D Notes
45.12%, Class E Notes 25.04%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 9.4%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-5

Lifetime CNL expectation - 14.00%, prior expectation (August 2017)
-- 14.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 13.97%

Aaa (sf) level - 35.00%

Pool factor -- 28.17%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 69.37%, Class D Notes
41.85%, Class E Notes 24.10%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 9.7%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-2

Lifetime CNL expectation - 14.00%, prior expectation (August 2017)
-- 14.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 15.98%

Aaa (sf) level - 37.00%

Pool factor -- 33.81%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class B Notes 98.08%, Class C Notes
59.63%, Class D Notes 36.71%, Class E Notes 21.92%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 10.1%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-3

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 14.00%, prior expectation (August 2017)
-- 14.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 14.80%

Aaa (sf) level - 37.00%

Pool factor -- 37.20%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class B Notes 90.60%, Class C Notes
55.65%, Class D Notes 34.82%, Class E Notes 21.38%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 9.8%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-4

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 14.50%, prior expectation (August 2017)
-- 14.50%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 14.79%

Aaa (sf) level -- 39.00%

Pool factor -- 40.85%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class B Notes 83.94%, Class C Notes
52.12%, Class D Notes 33.14%, Class E Notes 20.90%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 9.8%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-1

Lifetime CNL expectation - 14.50%, prior expectation (August 2017)
-- 15.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 15.29%

Aaa (sf) level - 42.00%

Pool factor -- 51.47%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class A Notes 93.42%, Class B Notes
69.92%, Class C Notes 44.66%, Class D Notes 29.60%, Class E Notes
19.89%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 9.7%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-2

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 14.50%, prior expectation (August 2017)
-- 15.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 15.59%

Aaa (sf) level - 44.00%

Pool factor -- 57.88%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class A Notes 84.85%, Class B Notes
63.95%, Class C Notes 41.48%, Class D Notes 28.09%, Class E Notes
19.46%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 10.2%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-3

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 14.50%, prior expectation (August 2017)
-- 15.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 16.24%

Aaa (sf) level - 46.00%

Pool factor -- 68.05%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class A Notes 74.5%, Class B Notes
56.53%, Class C Notes 37.16%, Class D Notes 26.53%, Class E Notes
19.19%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 10.6%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2017-1

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 15.00%, original expectation (February
2017) -- 17.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 16.26%

Aaa (sf) level - 48.00%

Pool factor -- 79.54%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class A Notes 65.91%, Class B Notes
52.58%, Class C Notes 36.49%, Class D Notes 23.54%, Class E Notes
18.51%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 10.2%

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Auto Loan- and Lease-Backed ABS" published in
October 2016.

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

Up

Levels of credit protection that are greater than necessary to
protect investors against current expectations of loss could lead
to an upgrade of the rating. Moody's current expectations of loss
may be better than its original expectations because of lower
frequency of default by the underlying obligors or appreciation in
the value of the vehicles that secure the obligor's promise of
payment. The US job market and the market for used vehicle are
primary drivers of performance. Other reasons for better
performance than Moody's expected include changes in servicing
practices to maximize collections on the loans or refinancing
opportunities that result in a prepayment of the loan.

Down

Levels of credit protection that are insufficient to protect
investors against current expectations of loss could lead to a
downgrade of the ratings. Moody's current expectations of loss may
be worse than its original expectations because of higher frequency
of default by the underlying obligors of the loans or a
deterioration in the value of the vehicles that secure the
obligor's promise of payment. The US job market and the market for
used vehicle are primary drivers of performance. Other reasons for
worse performance than Moody's expected include poor servicing,
error on the part of transaction parties, lack of transactional
governance and fraud.


SLC STUDENT 2004-1: Fitch Affirms B-sf Rating on 2 Tranches
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed the following classes of SLC Student
Loan Trust 2004-1:

-- Class A-6 notes at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Class A-7 notes at 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Class B notes at 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

The class A-7 notes miss their legal final maturity date under both
Fitch's credit and maturity base cases. This technical default
would result in interest payments being diverted away from class B,
which would cause that note to default as well. In affirming at
'B-sf' rather than 'CCCsf' or below, Fitch has considered
qualitative factors such as Navient's ability to call the notes
upon reaching 10% pool factor, the long time horizon until the A-7
and B maturity dates, and the eventual full payment of principal in
modelling. Since there is no revolving credit facility in place
from Navient for SLC 2004-1, the class A-7 and B notes are affirmed
at 'B-sf' rather than 'Bsf', which is the rating given to
transactions with this type of support.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

U.S. Sovereign Risk: The trust collateral comprises 100% Federal
Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) loans with guarantees
provided by eligible guarantors and reinsurance provided by the
U.S. Department of Education (ED) for at least 97% of principal and
accrued interest. The U.S. sovereign rating is currently
'AAA'/Outlook Stable.

Collateral Performance: Fitch assumes a base case default rate of
8.5% and a 25.5% default rate under the 'AAA' credit stress
scenario. The base case default assumption of 8.5% implies a
sustainable constant default rate of 1.5% (assuming a weighted
average life of 5.7years) and a sustainable constant prepayment
rate of 8.0%. Fitch applies the standard default timing curve in
its credit stress cash flow analysis. The claim reject rate is
assumed to be 0.5% in the base case and 3.0% in the 'AAA' case. The
TTM levels of deferment, forbearance, and income-based repayment
(prior to adjustment) are 3.3%, 6.8%, and 8.3%, respectively, and
are used as the starting point in cash flow modelling. Subsequent
declines or increases are modelled as per criteria. The borrower
benefit is assumed to be approximately 0.35%, based on information
provided by the sponsor.

Basis and Interest Rate Risk: Basis risk for this transaction
arises from any rate and reset frequency mismatch between interest
rate indices for SAP and the securities. As of August 2017, 100% of
the trust student loans are indexed to 1-month LIBOR. All of the
notes are indexed to 3-month LIBOR. Fitch applies its standard
basis and interest rate stresses to this transaction as per
criteria.

Payment Structure: Credit enhancement (CE) is provided by excess
spread and, for the class A notes, subordination. As of August
2017, total and senior effective parity ratios (including the
reserve) are 100.54% (0.53% CE) and 105.55% (5.26% CE). Liquidity
support is provided by a reserve sized at 0.25% of the pool balance
(with a floor of $2,250,000), currently equal to $2,250,000. The
transaction will continue to release cash as long as the target
total parity threshold of 100.0% is maintained.

Maturity Risk: Fitch's student loan ABS cash flow model indicates
that the notes are paid in full on or prior to the legal final
maturity dates under the commensurate rating scenario.

Operational Capabilities: Day-to-day servicing is provided by
Navient Solutions, LLC. (formerly known as Sallie Mae, Inc.). Fitch
believes Navient to be an acceptable servicer, due to its extensive
track record as the largest servicer of FFELP loans.


SLM STUDENT 2012-5: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class B Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed the following classes of SLM Student
Loan Trust 2012-5:

-- Class A-2 notes at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Class A-3 notes at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Class B notes at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

The class A-3 notes miss their legal final maturity date under both
Fitch's credit and maturity base cases. This technical default
would result in interest payments being diverted away from class B,
which would cause that note to default as well. In affirming at
'Bsf' rather than 'CCCsf' or below, Fitch has considered
qualitative factors such as Navient's ability to call the notes
upon reaching 10% pool factor, the long time horizon until the A-3
and B maturity dates, eventual full payment of principal in
modelling, and the revolving credit facility in place from
Navient.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

U.S. Sovereign Risk: The trust collateral comprises 100% Federal
Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) loans with guarantees
provided by eligible guarantors and reinsurance provided by the
U.S. Department of Education (ED) for at least 97% of principal and
accrued interest. The U.S. sovereign rating is currently
'AAA'/Outlook Stable.

Collateral Performance: Fitch assumes a base case default rate of
23.5% and a 70.5% default rate under the 'AAA' credit stress
scenario. The base case default assumption of 23.5% implies a
sustainable constant default rate of 4.1% (assuming a weighted
average life of 5.5 years) and a sustainable constant prepayment
rate of 11.0%. Fitch applies the standard default timing curve in
its credit stress cash flow analysis. The claim reject rate is
assumed to be 0.5% in the base case and 3.0% in the 'AAA' case. The
TTM levels of deferment, forbearance, and income-based repayment
(prior to adjustment) are 9.4%, 17.4%, and 18.5%, respectively, and
are used as the starting point in cash flow modelling. Subsequent
declines or increases are modelled as per criteria. The borrower
benefit is assumed to be approximately 0.04%, based on information
provided by the sponsor.

Basis and Interest Rate Risk: Basis risk for this transaction
arises from any rate and reset frequency mismatch between interest
rate indices for SAP and the securities. As of September 2017, 100%
of the trust student loans are indexed to 1-month LIBOR. All of the
notes are indexed to 1-month LIBOR. Fitch applies its standard
basis and interest rate stresses to this transaction as per
criteria.

Payment Structure: Credit enhancement (CE) is provided by excess
spread and, for the class A notes, subordination. As of September
2017, total and senior effective parity ratios (including the
reserve) are 101.01% (1.00% CE) and 107.22% (6.73% CE). Liquidity
support is provided by a reserve sized at 0.25% of the pool balance
(with a floor of $1,250,046), currently equal to $1,600,687. The
transaction will continue to release cash as long as the target
overcollateralization threshold of 1% and $1,300,000 is
maintained.

Maturity Risk: Fitch's student loan ABS cash flow model indicates
that the notes are paid in full on or prior to the legal final
maturity dates under the commensurate rating scenario.

Operational Capabilities: Day-to-day servicing is provided by
Navient Solutions, LLC. (formerly known as Sallie Mae, Inc.). Fitch
believes Navient to be an acceptable servicer, due to its extensive
track record as the largest servicer of FFELP loans.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

'AAAsf' rated tranches of most FFELP securitizations will likely
move in tandem with the U.S. sovereign rating, given the strong
linkage to the U.S. sovereign by nature of the reinsurance and SAP
provided by ED. Sovereign risks are not addressed in Fitch's
sensitivity analysis.

Fitch conducted a CE sensitivity analysis by stressing both the
related lifetime default rate and basis spread assumptions. In
addition, Fitch conducted a maturity sensitivity analysis by
running different assumptions for the IBR usage and prepayment
rate. The results below should only be considered as one potential
model-implied outcome, as the transaction is exposed to multiple
risk factors that are all dynamic variables. Additionally, the
results do not take into account any rating cap considerations.

Credit Stress Rating Sensitivity
-- Default increase 25%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf';
-- Default increase 50%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf';
-- Basis Spread increase 0.25%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf';
-- Basis Spread increase 0.5%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf'.

Maturity Stress Rating Sensitivity
-- CPR decrease 50%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf';
-- CPR increase 100%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf';
-- IBR Usage decrease 50%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf';
-- IBR Usage increase 100%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf'.

Stresses are intended to provide an indication of the rating
sensitivity of the notes to unexpected deterioration in trust
performance. Rating sensitivity should not be used as an indicator
of future rating performance.


TOWD POINT: Moody's Assigns Ratings to $1.3BB of Reperforming RMBS
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned definitive ratings to 67
notes from six RMBS transactions issued by Towd Point Mortgage
Trust ("TPMT"). The certificates are backed by seasoned performing
and re-performing mortgage loans with a large percentage of the
loans previously modified. The collateral pools comprised of first
lien, fixed rate and adjustable rate mortgage loans.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Towd Point Mortgage Trust 2015-1

Cl. A, Assigned Baa1 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. A2, Assigned Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. A3, Assigned Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. A4, Assigned Aa1 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. A5, Assigned A2 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. A6, Assigned Baa3 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. AE, Assigned Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 15, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. AE1, Assigned Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. AE2, Assigned Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. AE3, Assigned Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. AE4, Assigned Aa1 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. AE5, Assigned Aa1 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. AE6, Assigned Aa1 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. AE7, Assigned A1 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. AE8, Assigned A1 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. AE9, Assigned A1 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. AE10, Assigned A1 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. AE11, Assigned Baa1 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. AE12, Assigned Baa2 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. AE13, Assigned Baa2 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. AE14, Assigned Baa2 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. B, Assigned Ca (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. B1, Assigned Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. B2, Assigned C (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. C, Assigned Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 7, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Issuer: Towd Point Mortgage Trust 2015-2

Cl. 1-B1, Assigned Aa2 (sf); previously on May 27, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. 1-B2, Assigned A3 (sf); previously on May 27, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. 1-B3, Assigned B2 (sf); previously on May 27, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. 1-M2, Assigned Aaa (sf); previously on May 27, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Issuer: Towd Point Mortgage Trust 2015-5

Cl. B1, Assigned A2 (sf); previously on Oct 23, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. B2, Assigned Baa2 (sf); previously on Oct 23, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. B3, Assigned Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct 23, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. M2, Assigned Aa2 (sf); previously on Oct 23, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Issuer: Towd Point Mortgage Trust 2015-6

Cl. A2, Assigned Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. A2A, Assigned Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. A3, Assigned Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. A3A, Assigned Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. A3B, Assigned Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. A3C, Assigned Aaa (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. A4, Assigned Aa1 (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. A4A, Assigned Aa1 (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. A4B, Assigned Aa1 (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. A4C, Assigned Aa1 (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. B1, Assigned Baa2 (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. B2, Assigned Ba2 (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. M1, Assigned Aa2 (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. M1A, Assigned Aa2 (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. M2, Assigned A2 (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. M2A, Assigned A2 (sf); previously on Nov 18, 2015 Assigned NR
(sf)

Issuer: Towd Point Mortgage Trust 2016-2

Cl. A4, Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. A4A, Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. A4B, Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. A4C, Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. A5, Assigned A1 (sf)

Cl. B1, Assigned Baa3 (sf)

Cl. B2, Assigned Ba3 (sf)

Cl. B3, Assigned Ca (sf)

Cl. M1, Assigned Aa2 (sf)

Cl. M2, Assigned A3 (sf)

Issuer: Towd Point Mortgage Trust 2016-3

Cl. B1, Assigned Baa2 (sf); previously on Jul 21, 2016 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. B2, Assigned Baa3 (sf); previously on Jul 21, 2016 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. M1, Assigned Aa2 (sf); previously on Jul 21, 2016 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. M1A, Assigned Aa2 (sf); previously on Jul 21, 2016 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. M1B, Assigned Aa2 (sf); previously on Jul 21, 2016 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. M2, Assigned A2 (sf); previously on Jul 21, 2016 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. M2A, Assigned A2 (sf); previously on Jul 21, 2016 Assigned NR
(sf)

Cl. M2B, Assigned A2 (sf); previously on Jul 21, 2016 Assigned NR
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

Summary Credit Analysis and Rating Rationale

The rating actions are based on Moody's updated loss expectations
on the underlying pools and reflect the credit enhancement
available to the bonds. Moody's loss expectations incorporate
Moody's assessment of the representations and warranties frameworks
of the transactions, the due diligence findings of the third party
review received at the time of issuance, and the strength of Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ("SPS") as the transaction's servicer.

Collateral Description

The collateral pools backing the transactions are comprised of
seasoned, re-performing mortgage loans. A large percentage of the
loans in the collateral pools have been previously modified. The
majority of the loans underlying these transactions exhibit
collateral characteristics similar to that of seasoned Alt-A
mortgages.

We base Moody's expected losses on a pool of re-performing mortgage
loans 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. Moody's estimates of defaults are driven by
annual delinquency assumptions adjusted for roll-rates, prepayments
and default burnout factors. In estimating defaults on these pools,
Moody's used initial expected annual delinquency rates of 6% to 9%
and expected prepayment rates of 5% to 8% based on the collateral
characteristics of the individual pools. In applying Moody's loss
severity assumptions, Moody's accounted for the lack of principal
and interest advancing in these transactions.

In addition, Moody's used the following approach to assess expected
losses on the deferred balance in these transactions : Under
HAMP-PRA (Principal Reduction Alternative), the mortgage balance
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 and (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 the future or are 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 loans with non-PRA deferred balances, Moody's
applied a slightly higher default rate 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 these loans, Moody's assumed approximately 95% severity on the
deferred balance as servicers can recover a portion of the deferred
balance.

The pools have exhibited lower delinquencies and faster prepayment
rates since issuance of the deals than originally anticipated,
resulting in an improvement to Moody's future loss projections on
the pools. Moreover, cumulative losses realized on the pools to
date have been small and are largely driven by modification losses
recognized on principal forborne amounts. Moody's expected losses
on the pools reflect a negative adjustment for the findings from
the TPR firms at the time of issuance. Moody's expected loss also
includes a positive adjustment for the servicing quality of the
pool which reflects the presence of an asset manager and Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS) as the servicer.

Transaction Structure

The note principal allocation in the transactions is fully
sequential, where a given class of notes can only receive principal
payments when all classes of notes that are senior to it have been
paid off. Similarly, losses will be applied in reverse sequential
order. Any excess spread (the excess of net interest received on
the collateral over interest payable on the notes) is available to
pay Net WAC Shortfalls to the fixed rate notes in the transactions.
In TPMT 2015-1 and TPMT 2016-3, excess spread is available to make
interest and principal payments to the notes and therefore provides
additional credit enhancement by amortizing the senior notes at a
faster pace. Cash cannot be diverted to pay principal on the junior
tranches without completely repaying the principal on the senior
notes. The triggers usually present in mortgage-backed transactions
are not incorporated in this transaction, also the servicer will
not advance any principal or interest on delinquent loans.

Transaction Parties

The transactions benefit from a strong servicing arrangement.
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. is the primary servicer of the
collateral for these transactions. Furthermore, FirstKey Mortgage,
LLC, the asset manager, oversees the servicer, which strengthens
the overall servicing framework in the transaction. Wells Fargo
Bank, National Association and U.S. Bank National Association are
the Custodians in these transactions. Indenture Trustee for these
transactions is U.S. Bank National Association.

Representations & Warranties

Our ratings reflect the weak representations and warranties (R&Ws)
framework in the transactions. The obligation of the representation
provider, Cerberus Global Residential Mortgage Opportunity Fund,
L.P. expired thirteen payment dates from deal issuance. While the
transactions provide for a Breach Reserve Account to cover for any
breaches of R&Ws, the size of the account is small relative to the
aggregate size of the pools.

Methodology

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.

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

Down

Levels of credit protection that are insufficient to protect
investors against current expectations of loss could drive the
ratings down. Losses could rise above Moody's original expectations
as a result of a higher number of obligor defaults or deterioration
in the value of the mortgaged property securing an obligor's
promise of payment. Transaction performance also depends greatly on
the US macro economy and housing market. Other reasons for
worse-than-expected performance include poor servicing, error on
the part of transaction parties, inadequate transaction governance
and fraud.

Up

Levels of credit protection that are higher than necessary to
protect investors against current expectations of loss could drive
the ratings up. Losses could decline from Moody's original
expectations as a result of a lower number of obligor defaults or
appreciation in the value of the mortgaged property securing an
obligor's promise of payment. Transaction performance also depends
greatly on the US macro economy and housing market.


WAVE LLC 2017-1: S&P Assigns BB Rating on $480.07MM Class C Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to WAVE 2017-1 LLC's
$480.07 million fixed-rate series A, B, and C notes.

The note issuance is an asset-backed security transaction backed by
19 aircraft and the related leases and shares or beneficial
interests in entities that directly and indirectly receive aircraft
portfolio lease rental and residual cash flows, among others.

The ratings reflect:

-- The likelihood of timely interest on the series A notes
(excluding the step-up amount) on each payment date, the timely
interest on the series B notes (excluding the step-up amount) when
they are the senior-most notes outstanding on each payment date,
and ultimate interest and principal payments made to the series A,
B, and C notes on the legal final maturity in our rating stress
scenario.

-- The 69.39% loan-to-value (LTV) ratio on the series A notes, the
79.59% LTV ratio on the series B notes, and the 84.70% LTV ratio on
the series C notes. The LTV ratios are based on the S&P Global
Ratings-adjusted lower of the mean and median of the three
half-life base values and the three half-life current market
values.

-- The aircraft collateral's quality and lease rental and residual
value generating capability. The portfolio comprises 19 planes
currently leased to 17 airlines worldwide, with a weighted average
age of approximately 7.2 years and remaining average lease term of
approximately 4.1 years.

-- Many of the initial lessees' low credit quality, with 63% (by
aircraft value) domiciled in emerging markets. Our view of the
lessee credit quality, country risk, lessee concentration, and
country concentration is reflected in our lessee default rate
assumptions.

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

-- Morten Beyer & Agnew Inc.'s maintenance analysis, which it will
provide at closing and annually thereafter.

-- That the senior maintenance reserve account and junior reserve
account must keep a balance of the higher of $1 million, or if
less, the sum of the outstanding principal balance of the series A
and series B notes and the sum of forward-looking maintenance
expenses. The maintenance reserve account will be funded at $3.46
million at closing. The excess maintenance amounts divided by the
required amount will be transferred to the payment waterfall.

-- The senior indemnification, which is capped at $10 million and
is modeled to occur in the first 12 months.

-- The junior indemnification, which is uncapped and is
subordinated to the rated series' principal payment.

-- The servicer, Wings, which is a new aircraft leasing company.
Wings' in-house aircraft assets and aviation finance team is
experienced in managing new and mid-life aircraft assets.

  RATINGS ASSIGNED

  WAVE 2017-1 LLC
  Class       Rating        Amount (mil. $)
  A           A (sf)                 393.31
  B           BBB (sf)                57.84
  C           BB (sf)                 28.92


WELLS FARGO 2012-C6: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class F Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed nine classes of Wells Fargo Commercial
Mortgage Securities Inc. (WFRBS) commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2012-C6.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Generally Stable Performance; Paydown and Defeasance: The rating
affirmations reflect the stable performance of the majority of the
remaining pool and sufficient credit enhancement relative to Fitch
Ratings' loss expectations. As of the October 2017 distribution
date, the pool's aggregate principal balance had paid down by 23.3%
to $710 million from $925 million at issuance, including the payoff
of the second largest loan, Windsor Hotel Portfolio II. Six loans
(9.5% of pool), including the third largest loan, WPC Self Storage
Portfolio, are fully defeased. The pool has not incurred any losses
to date.

High Retail Concentration: Twenty-nine loans (39.2% of pool) are
backed by retail properties, including seven of the top 15 (18.8%).
The second largest property concentration is office (14.9%),
followed by self-storage (12.9%).

Fitch Loans of Concern: Fitch has designated 12 loans (14% of pool)
as Fitch Loans of Concern (FLOCs), including two loans (3.7%) in
the top 20 and two specially serviced loans (1.3%). The 13th
largest loan (1.9%), Commerce Park IV & V, which is secured by two
office buildings located in Beachwood, OH, had experienced a
decline in occupancy to 74% as of September 2017 from 93% at
issuance due to tenants vacating at or prior to lease expiration.
The 16th largest loan (1.8%), Montclair on the Park-Missouri, which
is secured by a 206-unit multifamily property located in St. Louis,
MO, reported negative property-level cash flow for 2016 due to
lower occupancy as the borrower is implementing significant
renovations at the property.

Three loans secured by hotel properties (3.2%) were flagged as
FLOCs, including the Hobbs Hotel Portfolio loan (1.2%) and the
specially serviced Holiday Inn - Odessa loan (1.0%). Performance of
the Hobbs Hotel Portfolio, which consists of two hotel properties
totaling 161 keys located in Hobbs, NM, and the Holiday Inn -
Odessa, which is secured by a 102-key hotel property in Odessa, TX,
has been impacted by the downturn of the oil and gas industry and
the oversupply in their respective markets. The remaining
performing FLOCs were flagged for low DSCR, vacating anchor
tenants, declining occupancy or cash flow and near-term lease
rollover concern. The other small specially serviced loan, which is
secured by a self-storage property in Fort Worth, TX and remains
current, was transferred due to guarantor bankruptcy.

Hurricane Exposure: Four loans (2.2% of pool) are secured by or
have underlying exposure to properties located in areas of Texas
impacted by Hurricane Harvey. According to the master servicer's
most recent significant insurance event (SIE) reporting, damage was
sustained at the Gulfgate Square property located in Houston
(1.0%), but its extent is unknown at this time. No damage was
sustained at the King's Row MHC property in Houston (0.6%) or the
Westfield Ridge Apartments property in Humble (0.3%). The servicer
is still awaiting a response from the borrower on two of the
underlying properties in the Sunwest Portfolio, 100 Cleveland S.C.
(0.2%) and 1380 North Main Street (0.1%).

Six loans (8.0%) are secured by or have underlying exposure to
properties located in areas of Florida impacted by Hurricane Irma.
The most recent SIE reporting indicated minor damage to the
following properties: Boca Industrial Park in Boca Raton (3.1%),
Hampton Inn LBV in Orlando (1.3%) and LaCarreta in Miami (0.7%).
Neither the Hillcrest RV Resort in Zephyrhills (0.7%), an
underlying property in the Parrish Portfolio, nor the Holiday Inn
Express Kendall property in Kendall (1.0%) reported damage. The
borrower was contacted and the servicer is awaiting a response for
the 800, 804, 763 Buildings properties in Miami Beach (1.2%).

Loan Maturities: Loan maturities are concentrated in 2022 (63.3% of
pool) and 2021 (36.7%).

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Rating Outlooks on classes A-3 through E reflect
increased credit enhancement and expected continued paydowns.
Future rating upgrades, although unlikely in the near term due to
increasing pool concentrations, are possible with improved pool
performance and additional paydown or defeasance. The Rating
Outlook on class F was revised to Negative due to performance
concerns surrounding the FLOCs, primarily the two loans secured by
limited-service hotel properties in Odessa, TX and Hobbs, NM. A
rating downgrade is possible should performance continue to
deteriorate or as additional loans transfer to special servicing.

Fitch has affirmed and revised Rating Outlook on the following
classes:

-- $46.7 million class A3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $385.4 million class A4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $532.7 million class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $100.6 million class AS at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $42.8 million class B at 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $31.2 million class C at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $47.4 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $13.9 million class E at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $13.9 million class F at 'Bsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable.

Fitch does not rate the class X-B or G certificates.


[*] Moody's Hikes $1.465BB of Subprime RMBS Issued 2002-2007
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 56 tranches,
from 21 transactions issued by various issuers between 2002 and
2007.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust
2006-HE4

Cl. A1A, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2016 Upgraded
to Aa1 (sf)

Cl. A2, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2016 Upgraded
to Aa2 (sf)

Cl. A5, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2016 Upgraded
to A1 (sf)

Cl. A6, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2016 Upgraded
to A2 (sf)

Issuer: Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust
Series MO 2006-HE6

Cl. A1, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. A4, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2016 Upgraded
to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. A5, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2016 Upgraded
to B1 (sf)

Issuer: C-BASS 2003-CB4 Trust

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Mar 10, 2015 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: Citicorp Residential Mortgage Trust Series 2007-1

Cl. A-4, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Mar 11, 2016 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. A-5, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 11, 2016 Upgraded
to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. A-6, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Mar 11, 2016 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Aug 20, 2012 Confirmed
at C (sf)

Issuer: Citicorp Residential Mortgage Trust Series 2007-2

Cl. A-4, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2015 Upgraded
to B1 (sf)

Cl. A-5, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2015 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. A-6, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2015 Upgraded
to B1 (sf)

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

Issuer: CSFB Home Equity Asset Trust 2006-2

Cl. 1-A-1, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2016
Upgraded to A2 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 4, 2015 Upgraded
to Ca (sf)

Issuer: CSFB Home Equity Asset Trust 2006-3

Cl. 1-A-1, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Oct 21, 2016
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Oct 21, 2016
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Oct 21, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on May 5, 2010 Downgraded
to C (sf)

Issuer: HSBC Home Equity Loan Trust (USA) 2007-3

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016 Upgraded
to Aa2 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016 Upgraded
to Aa3 (sf)

Issuer: J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. 2005-WMC1

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Jul 14, 2010 Downgraded
to C (sf)

Issuer: Nationstar Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Certificates,
Series 2007-C

Cl. 1-AV-1, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016
Upgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. 2-AV-3, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016
Upgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. 2-AV-4, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016
Upgraded to B1 (sf)

Issuer: Nationstar Home Equity Loan Trust 2007-B

Cl. 1-AV-1, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. 2-AV-3, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016
Upgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. 2-AV-4, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016
Upgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on May 5, 2010 Downgraded
to C (sf)

Issuer: Ownit Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-1

Cl. AV, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Aug 30, 2016 Upgraded to
Baa1 (sf)

Issuer: Popular ABS Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2005-A

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Feb 16, 2016 Upgraded
to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2016 Upgraded
to B1 (sf)

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2016 Upgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: Popular ABS Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2006-D

Cl. A-2, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 21, 2016 Upgraded
to Aa3 (sf)

Cl. A-3, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Apr 21, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa1 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Jul 21, 2010 Downgraded
to C (sf)

Issuer: RAMP Series 2005-EFC6 Trust

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on May 16, 2016 Upgraded
to Aa2 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on May 16, 2016 Upgraded
to A1 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on May 16, 2016 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on May 16, 2016 Upgraded
to Ca (sf)

Issuer: RAMP Series 2006-RZ2 Trust

Cl. A-3, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Jun 2, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa1 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jun 25, 2015 Upgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: RASC Series 2005-KS12 Trust

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on May 18, 2016 Upgraded
to Aa2 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on May 18, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on May 18, 2016 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 5, 2013 Affirmed
C (sf)

Issuer: Salomon Brothers Mortgage Securities VII, Inc. Union
Planters Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-UP1

Cl. A, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 7, 2011 Downgraded
to B1 (sf)

Issuer: Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2002-2

Cl. AF-5, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Feb 5, 2015
Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. AF-6, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Feb 5, 2015
Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Issuer: Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC Trust 2007-NC2

Cl. A-1, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Feb 25, 2016 Upgraded
to B1 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust 2003-BC7

Cl. 3-A2, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Feb 18, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa1 (sf)

Cl. M1, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Mar 4, 2011 Downgraded
to B3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The upgrades are primarily due to an increase in 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 4.1% in October 2017 from 4.8% in
October 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 Takes Action on $198.7MM of RMBS Issued 2001-2007
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 13 bonds,
downgraded the ratings of two bonds, and confirmed the ratings of
21 bonds from 18 RMBS transactions issued between 2001 and 2007.
The action resolves the review of 24 interest-only (IO) bonds. Two
of the IO bonds were among those placed on review on 15 August 2017
in connection with a correction of errors in Moody's earlier
analysis of certain RMBS IO bonds. The rest of the IO bonds were
among those placed on review 29 August 2017 in connection with a
reassessment of Moody's internal linkage of certain IO bonds to
their reference bond(s) or pool(s).

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Bear Stearns Asset-Backed Securities Trust 2002-AC1

Cl. X-3, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 Ca (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2005-7

Cl. 2-X, Confirmed at C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 C (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Cl. 1-X, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 Caa3
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: CWALT, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2005-J6

Cl. 1-X, Confirmed at Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 Caa2
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: CWALT, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2006-OA7

Cl. 3-A-1, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Nov 23, 2010
Downgraded to Ca (sf)

Cl. 1-A-1, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Aug 6, 2015
Confirmed at Ca (sf)

Cl. 1-X, Confirmed at C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 C (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Cl. 2-X, Confirmed at C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 C (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-9

Cl. 1-PO, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2016 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. 2-PO, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2016 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. 3-PO, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2016 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. 1-X, Confirmed at Ba1 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 Ba1 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Cl. 2-X, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 Ba1 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Cl. 3-X, Confirmed at C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 C (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: Lehman XS Trust Series 2007-12N

Cl. 1-AX, Confirmed at C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 C (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Cl. 2-AX, Confirmed at C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 C (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Cl. 3-A1, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 22, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: MASTR Asset Securitization Trust 2004-1

Cl. 5-A-20, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Aug 15, 2017 Ba1
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-11AR

Cl. 1-X-B, Confirmed at C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 C (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-2AR

Cl. A, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Oct 6, 2015 Upgraded to
Ba3 (sf)

Cl. X, Confirmed at Ca (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 Ca (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: MRFC Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-TBC1

Cl. X, Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 B3 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: RAAC Series 2005-SP2 Trust

Cl. M-I-2, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Jun 19, 2017 Upgraded
to A3 (sf)

Cl. M-I-3, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Nov 10, 2015
Upgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. M-I-5, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on May 4, 2009
Downgraded to C (sf)

Cl. M-I-4, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 6, 2015
Upgraded to Ca (sf)

Cl. A-II-IO-B, Confirmed at C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 C
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: RALI Series 2005-QO1 Trust

Cl. X, Confirmed at C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 C (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2005-A5

Cl. A-X, Confirmed at Caa1 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 Caa1
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2007-2, Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-2

Cl. 1-XA, Confirmed at B2 (sf); previously on Aug 15, 2017 B2 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2006-AR3

Cl. I-2X, Confirmed at C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 C (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Cl. II-X, Confirmed at C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 C (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2006-AR4

Cl. III-A-1, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Dec 14, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. III-X, Confirmed at C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 C (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: Terwin Mortgage Trust 2004-13ALT

Cl. 2-B-X, Confirmed at C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 C (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Issuer: Thornburg Mortgage Securities Trust 2004-2

Cl. A-X, Confirmed at B3 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 B3 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions reflect the recent performance of the underlying
pools and 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 and / or the realignment based on the current pro rata
payment and loss allocation since credit supports have depleted.
The rating downgrades are due to the weaker performance of the
underlying collateral and / or the erosion of enhancement available
to the bonds.

The action resolves the review of 24 IO bonds. The factors that
Moody's considers in rating an IO bond depend on the type of
referenced securities or assets to which the IO bond is linked. The
final ratings on the IO bonds reflect the linkage reassessment, the
performance of the respective transactions, and the application of
the IO methodology.

Two of the IO bonds in action were among those placed on watch in
connection with data input errors in prior analyses. In prior
rating actions, incorrect data inputs were used in the analysis for
Class 5-A-20 from MASTR Asset Securitization Trust 2004-1, and
Class 1-XA from Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2007-2, Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-2. Following the linkage
reassessment and performance review of the transactions, the rating
on Class 1-XA from Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2007-2, Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-2 was confirmed. The rating
on Class 5-A-20 from MASTR Asset Securitization Trust 2004-1 was
downgraded to reflect the correction of the data input as well as
the downgrade of one of the referenced bonds in September 2017.

The action also resolves the review of 22 IO bonds which were among
those placed on watch in connection with a reassessment of the IO
bond linkages captured in Moody's internal database. Following the
linkage reassessment, Moody's determined that the ratings of these
22 IO bonds correctly reflect the linkage of the bonds to their
referenced securities or asset pools, as well as the performance of
the respective transactions. The rating on Class X-3 from Bear
Stearns Asset-Backed Securities Trust 2002-AC1 was downgraded to C
primarily due to the losses on the referenced bonds. The rating on
Class 2-X from HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-9 was upgraded
to Baa2 because of the rating upgrade of Class 2-PO.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in January 2017.

Additionally, the methodology used in rating Bear Stearns
Asset-Backed Securities Trust 2002-AC1 Cl. X-3, CHL Mortgage
Pass-Through Trust 2005-7 Cl. 2-X and Cl. 1-X, CWALT, Inc. Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-J6 Cl. 1-X, CWALT, Inc.
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-OA7 Cl. 1-X and Cl.
2-X, HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-9 Cl. 1-X, Cl. 2-X, and
Cl. 3-X, Lehman XS Trust Series 2007-12N Cl. 1-AX and Cl. 2-AX,
MASTR Asset Securitization Trust 2004-1 Cl. 5-A-20, Morgan Stanley
Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-11AR Cl. 1-X-B, Morgan Stanley Mortgage
Loan Trust 2005-2AR Cl. X, MRFC Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2001-TBC1 Cl. X, RAAC Series 2005-SP2 Trust Cl. A-II-IO-B,
RALI Series 2005-QO1 Trust Cl. X, Residential Asset Securitization
Trust 2005-A5 Cl. A-X, Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2007-2, Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-2 Cl. 1-XA, Structured Asset
Mortgage Investments II Trust 2006-AR3 Cl. I-2X and Cl. II-X,
Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2006-AR4 Cl. III-X,
Terwin Mortgage Trust 2004-13ALT Cl. 2-B-X, Thornburg Mortgage
Securities Trust 2004-2 Cl. A-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 4.1% in October 2017 from 4.8% in
October 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.

An IO bond may be upgraded or downgraded, within the constraints
and provisions of the IO methodology, based on lower or higher
realized and expected loss due to an overall improvement or decline
in the credit quality of the reference bonds and/or pools.


[*] S&P Takes Various Action on 50 Classes From Nine US RMBS Deals
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 50 classes from seven
U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and two
resecuritized real estate mortgage investment conduits (re-REMIC)
transactions issued between 2002 and 2010. All of these
transactions are backed by mixed collateral. The review yielded 14
downgrades, 27 affirmations, six withdrawals, and three
discontinuances.

Analytical Considerations

S&P incorporates various considerations into its decisions to
raise, lower, or affirm ratings when reviewing the indicative
ratings suggested by its 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;
-- Underlying collateral performance;
-- Loan modification criteria; Small loan count; and
-- Available subordination and/or overcollateralization.

Rating Actions

S&P said, "Please see the ratings list for the rationales for
classes with rating transitions. The affirmations of ratings
reflect our opinion that our projected credit support and
collateral performance on these classes has remained relatively
consistent with our prior projections.

"We lowered our ratings on classes V-A11 and VI-A11 from BCAP LLC
2010-RR1 Trust and on classes 21-A2, 21-A3, and 21-A4 from
Jefferies Resecuritization Trust 2009-R5. Both transactions are
re-REMICs. These downgrades reflect the application of our loan
modification criteria, "Methodology For Incorporating Loan
Modification And Extraordinary Expenses Into U.S. RMBS Ratings,"
April 17, 2015, and "Principles For Rating Debt Issues Based On
Imputed Promises," Dec. 19, 2014, which resulted in a maximum
potential rating (MPR) lower than the previous rating on these
classes. In addition, the class factor of 86.77% on class VI-A11
and 100% on classes 21-A3 and 21-A4 contributed to these classes'
interest losses.

"Based on our loan modification criteria, we apply a MPR cap to
those classes of securities that are affected by reduced interest
payments over time due to loan modifications and/or other
credit-related events. The underlying classes' pool composition
consists mostly of hybrid adjustable-rate mortgage loans. The
interest rates on the loans underlying these securities reset less
frequently than the interest rates on the securities themselves. As
a result, the consideration of the securities' interest rate
adjustments under our loan modification criteria may not properly
capture the actual interest rate adjustments that may be occurring
on the underlying loans. Accordingly, we observed and considered
the less frequent interest rate adjustments on the underlying loans
in order to correctly calculate the applicable MPR for these
classes under our loan modification criteria."

A list of affected ratings can be viewed at:

          http://bit.ly/2hDEwIt


[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 105 Classes From 8 US RMBS Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings, on Nov. 20, 2017, completed its review of 105
classes from eight U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities
(RMBS) transactions issued between 1999 and 2004. All of these
transactions are backed by prime jumbo collateral. The review
yielded 16 downgrades, 82 affirmations, three withdrawals and four
discontinuances.

Analytical Considerations

S&P said, "We incorporate various considerations into our decisions
to raise, lower, or affirm ratings when reviewing the indicative
ratings suggested by our 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;
-- Tail risk; and
-- Available subordination and/or overcollateralization.

Rating Actions

Please see the ratings list for the rationales for classes with
rating transitions. The affirmations of ratings reflect S&P's
opinion that our projected credit support and collateral
performance on these classes has remained relatively consistent
with our prior projections.

S&P said, "We lowered our ratings on class II-A-1 to 'BB+ (sf)'
from 'AA- (sf)' and on class V-A-1 to 'BB+ (sf)' from 'A+ (sf)'
from CSFB Mortgage-Backed Trust Series 2004-6. We believe that
pools with less than 100 loans remaining create an increased risk
of credit instability, because a liquidation and subsequent loss on
one loan, or a small number of loans, at the tail end of a
transaction's life may have a disproportionate impact on a given
RMBS tranche's remaining credit support. We refer to this as "tail
risk." The remaining credit support is $139,862 for class II-A-1
and $110,101 for class V-A-1. The highest balance loan remaining in
the pool is $156,347 and it has been real-estate owned (REO) for
the last 20 months. The liquidation of this loan or other loans
remaining in the pool could significantly reduce subordination and
expose these classes to losses.

"We also lowered our ratings (see ratings list) on classes 1-A-1,
1-A-2, 1-A-3, 2-A-1, 2-A-2, 2-A-3, and 3-A-1 from Banc of America
Mortgage 2003-C Trust to reflect the increase in our projected
losses and our belief that the projected credit support for the
affected classes will be insufficient to cover the projected losses
we applied at the previous rating levels. The increase in our
projected losses is due to higher reported delinquencies during the
most recent performance periods when compared to those reported
during the previous review dates. Further, the total number of
loans outstanding in this pool is only 25, which expose the classes
to "tail risk."

A list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at:

         http://bit.ly/2mObuvl


[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 26 Classes From 12 US RMBS Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 26 classes from 12 U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions issued
between 1999 and 2005. All of these transactions are backed by
prime jumbo and Alternative-A collateral. The review yielded 24
downgrades, one withdrawal, and one discontinuance.

Analytical Considerations

The lowered ratings are based on the implementation of our tail
risk analysis per our criteria "U.S. RMBS Surveillance Credit And
Cash Flow Analysis For Pre-2009 Originations," published March 2,
2016. S&P applies this analysis when the transaction contains fewer
than 100 loans on the structure level or on the group level
(group-level analysis is performed only if the transaction has
multiple groups and cross-subordination is depleted).

As RMBS transactions become more seasoned, the number of
outstanding mortgage loans backing them declines as loans are
prepaid and default. As a result, a liquidation and subsequent loss
on one or a small number of remaining loans at the tail end of a
transaction's life may have a disproportionate impact on remaining
credit enhancement, which could result in a level of credit
instability that is inconsistent with high ratings.

According to S&P's criteria, additional minimum loss projection
estimations are calculated at each rating category based on a
certain number of loans defaulting and liquidating. To address the
potential that greater losses could result if the loans with higher
balances were to default, the criteria use the largest liquidation
amounts for each rating category.

S&P said, "If the transaction's structure contains multiple
collateral groups and cross-subordination remains outstanding, we
will apply our tail risk analysis on the structure level since
cross-subordination is shared among all groups. In this situation
we would calculate tail risk caps using the structure level loan
count irrespective of the groups' loan counts.

"If the transaction's structure contains multiple collateral groups
and cross-subordination no longer remains outstanding, we will
apply our tail risk analysis on the respective group since group
level losses are not absorbed from cross-subordination. In this
situation we would calculate tail risk caps using the group level
loan count irrespective of the structure loan count."

A list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at:

          http://bit.ly/2zV6wlm


[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 52 Classes From 11 US RMBS Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 52 classes from 11 U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions issued
between 2002 and 2006. All of these transactions are backed by a
mix of collateral. The review yielded eight upgrades, 13
downgrades, and 31 affirmations.

Analytical Considerations

S&P incorporates various considerations into its decisions to
raise, lower, or affirm ratings when reviewing the indicative
ratings suggested by our 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;
-- Priority of principal payments;
-- Proportion of reperforming loans in the pool;
-- Tail risk; and
-- Available subordination and/or overcollateralization.

Rating Actions

Please see the ratings list for the rationales for classes with
rating transitions. The affirmations of ratings reflect our opinion
that our projected credit support and collateral performance on
these classes has remained relatively consistent with our prior
projections.

A list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at:

         http://bit.ly/2zV6wlm


[*] S&P Withdraws Ratings on 80 Classes From 12 U.S. RMBS Deals
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings, on Nov. 20, 2017, completed its review of 80
classes from 12 U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS)
transactions issued between 2002 and 2004. All of these
transactions are backed by prime jumbo, Alternative-A, and
closed-end second lien collateral. The review yielded 80
withdrawals.

A list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at:

          http://bit.ly/2jIYd6b


                            *********

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 ***