TCR_Public/171224.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, December 24, 2017, Vol. 21, No. 357

                            Headlines

AMERICAN CREDIT 2017-4: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E Notes
ANTARES CLO 2017-2: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E Notes
ATRIUM HOTEL 2017-ATRM: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating to Cl. F Certs
BANK 2017-BNK9: Fitch Assigns 'B+sf' Rating to 2 Tranches
BARINGS CLO 2013-I: S&P Assigns B-(sf) Rating on Class FR Notes

BEAR STEARNS 2003-PWR2: Fitch Affirms Dsf Rating on Cl. N Certs
BEAR STEARNS 2006-TOP24: Moody's Hikes Class A-J Certs to Ba1
CARLYLE US 2017-5: S&P Assigns Prelim BB-(sf) Rating on D Notes
CARNOW AUTO 2017-1: S&P Assigns BB(sf) Rating on Class C Notes
CATAMARAN CLO 2013-1: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Class F-R Notes

CHT 2017-COSMO: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Class F Certificates
CITIGROUP 2007-C6: S&P Lowers Ratings on 2 Tranches to D
CITIGROUP 2012-GC8: Moody's Cuts Rating on 2 Tranches to B1(sf)
CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL 2006-C5: Fitch Affirms CC Rating on A-J Certs
CONN'S RECEIVABLES 2017-B: Fitch Rates $78.64MM Cl. C Notes 'B-'

CPS AUTO 2016-A: S&P Affirms B Rating on Class F Certs
CREDIT SUISSE 2007-C1: Fitch Affirms Bsf Rating on 3 Tranches
CREST CDO 2004-1: Fitch Affirms 'Csf' Ratings on 6 Tranches
CSFB MORTGAGE 2004-C1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Class A-X Certs
CSMC TRUST 2017-PFHP: S&P Assigns B-(sf) Rating on Class F Certs

CVP CLO 2017-2: S&P Assigns Prelim BB-(sf) Rating on Cl. E Notes
CWABS REVOLVING 2004-E: Moody's Hikes Cl. 2-A Debt Rating to Ba3
EAGLE LTD 2014-1: S&P Affirms BB(sf) Rating on Class C Notes
ELEVATION CLO 2017-7: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class E Notes
ELEVATION CLO 2017-8: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating to Cl. F Notes

FINANCE OF AMERICA 2017-HB1: Moody's Assigns Ba2 Rating to M4 Debt
FINANCE OF AMERICA 2017-HB1: Moody's Rates Cl. M4 Debt '(P)Ba2'
FIRST INVESTORS 2016-2: S&P Affirms BB(sf) Rating on Class E Notes
FORTRESS CREDIT V: S&P Assigns Prelim BB(sf) Rating on Cl. E Notes
FREMF 2011-K703: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Class X-2 Certs

FREMF 2011-K704: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Cl. X2 Certs
FREMF 2012-K705: Moody's Affirms Ba2 Rating on Class X2 Certs
GALAXY CLO XXIV: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class E Notes
GLENN POOL II: Moody's Hikes Senior Secured Notes Rating to B2
GOLDMAN SACHS 2013-GC10: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Cl. F Certs

GOLUB CAPITAL 22(B)-R: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3 Rating to E-R Notes
GOLUB CAPITAL 22: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class E-R Notes
GS MORTGAGE 2005-GG4: Moody's Affirms C Ratings on 2 Tranches
GS MORTGAGE 2011-GC3: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Class X Certs
GS MORTGAGE 2014-GC18: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Cl. F Certs

JP MORGAN 2005-LDP1: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Class G Certs
JP MORGAN 2005-LDP2: Moody's Hikes Class F Debt Rating to Ba2(sf)
JP MORGAN 2011-C5: Moody's Lowers Class X-B Certs Rating to B1
JP MORGAN 2016-JP4: Fitch Affirms 'BB-sf' Rating on Cl. E Certs
JP MORGAN 2017-6: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating to Cl. B-5 Certs

KVK CLO 2013-1: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Class E-R Notes
LEHMAN BROTHERS-UBS 2001-C3: Fitch Cuts Cl. F Certs Rating to Csf
MARBLE POINT XI: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class E Notes
MERRILL LYNCH 1997-C2: Fitch Affirms Dsf Rating on Cl. H Certs
MERRILL LYNCH 2004-KEY2: Fitch Affirms CC Rating on Class E Certs

MIDOCEAN CREDIT II: S&P Assigns B-(sf) Rating on Class F Notes
MMCF CLO 2017-1: S&P Assigns BB(sf) Rating on $352MM Class D Notes
MORGAN STANLEY 2017-ASHF: S&P Assigns B-(sf) Rating on Cl. F Certs
MORGAN STANLEY 2017-CLS: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Cl. F Certs
MORGAN STANLEY 2017-HR2: Fitch to Rate Class H-RR Certs 'B-sf'

MSC 2017-JWDR: Fitch Assigns B-sf Rating to Class F Certs
OCP CLO 2017-14: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Class D Notes
OCTAGON INVESTMENT 34: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Ratings on 2 Tranches
OCTAGON INVESTMENT XXII: S&P Gives Prelim B- Rating on F-RR Notes
ONEMAIN DIRECT 2017-2: Moody's Assigns Ba2 Rating to Cl. E Notes

PALMER SQUARE 2014-1: S&P Gives Prelim BB-(sf) Rating on D-R2 Notes
PPLUS TRUST RRD-1: S&P Lowers $60MM Class A & B Debt Ratings to 'B'
PRIMA CAPITAL 2016-VI: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Class C Notes
REVERSE MORTGAGE REV 2007-2: S&P Raises Cl. A Debt Rating to BB(sf)
RFC CDO 2006-1: Moody's Affirms C(sf) Ratings on 6 Tranches

ROCKFORD TOWER 2017-3: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class E Notes
SCF EQUIPMENT 2017-1: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Cl. D Notes
SCRT 2017-4: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Rating to Class M Notes
SORIN REAL ESTATE I: S&P Raises Class B Debt Rating to B-(sf)
STACR 2017-HRP1: Fitch Assigns Bsf Rating on 14 Note Classes

STEELE CREEK 2017-1: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Cl. E Notes
THL CREDIT 2017-4: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Cl. E Notes
TIAA CLO III: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class E Notes
UBS COMMERCIAL 2017-C5: Fitch Corrects Nov. 16 Release
UBS COMMERCIAL 2017-C6: Fitch Assigns B- Rating to Class F Certs

UBS COMMERCIAL 2017-C7: Fitch to Rate Class G-RR Certs 'B-sf'
UBS-BARCLAYS COMMERCIAL 2013-C5: Fitch Affirms Bsf on Cl. F Certs
WACHOVIA BANK 2006-C28: Fitch Affirms BBsf Rating on Cl. A-J Certs
WELLS FARGO 2015-C26: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class F Certs
WELLS FARGO 2017-SMP: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3 Rating to Cl. E Certs

WFCG COMMERCIAL 2015-BXRP: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Cl. G Certs
WFRBS COMMERCIAL 2012-C6: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Cl. F Notes
YORK CLO-2: Moody's Assigns B3(sf) Rating to Class F Notes
[*] Fitch Lowers 43 Distressed Bonds in 32 RMBS Deals to 'Dsf'
[*] Moody's Takes Action on $105MM of RMBS Issued 2004 & 2006

[*] Moody's Takes Action on $46.8MM of RMBS Issued 2015-2016
[*] Moody's Takes Actions on 11 U.S. RMBS Bonds From 8 Deals
[*] Moody's: Credit Quality of US CMBS to Remain Steady in 2018
[*] S&P Cuts Ratings on 3 MBIA-Insured Classes From 5 US CDO Deals
[*] S&P Cuts Ratings on 9 MBIA-Insured Classes From 9 US ABS Deals

[*] S&P Discontinues Ratings on 16 Classes From 2 CDO/2 CLO Deals
[*] S&P Discontinues Ratings on 25 Classes From Six CDO Deals
[*] S&P Discontinues Six 'D(sf)' Ratings on Five U.S. CMBS Deals
[*] S&P Takes Actions on 74 iShares Fixed-Income ETFs
[*] S&P Takes Various Action on 9 Classes From Four US RMBS Deals

[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 10 Classes From 3 US RMBS Deals
[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 54 Classes From 12 US RMBS Deals
[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 64 Classes From 21 US RMBS Deals
[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 70 Classes From 17 US RMBS Deals
[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 82 Classes From 16 US RMBS Deals

[*] S&P Withdraws Ratings on 118 Classes From 61 US RMBS Deals

                            *********

AMERICAN CREDIT 2017-4: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to American Credit
Acceptance Receivables Trust 2017-4's $200 million asset-backed
notes series 2017-4.

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

The ratings reflect:

-- The availability of approximately 66.5%, 59.7%, 50.2%, 41.1%,
and 37.0% credit support for the class A, B, C, D, and E notes,
respectively, based on break-even stressed cash flow scenarios
(including excess spread). These credit support levels provides
coverage of approximately 2.30x, 2.05x, 1.67x, 1.35x, and 1.20x our
28.25%-29.25% expected net loss range for the class A, B, C, D, and
E notes, respectively.

-- The timely interest and principal payments made to the rated
notes by the assumed legal final maturity dates under our stressed
cash flow modeling scenarios that S&P believes are appropriate for
the assigned ratings.

-- S&P said, "The expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
scenario, all else being equal, the ratings on the class A, B, and
C notes would remain within the same rating category as our 'AAA
(sf)', 'AA (sf)', and 'A (sf)' ratings; the ratings on the class D
notes would remain within two rating categories of our 'BBB (sf)'
rating; and the rating on the class E notes would remain within two
rating categories of our 'BB- (sf)' rating in the first year, but
that class is expected to default by its legal final maturity date
with approximately 56%-97% repayment. These potential rating
movements are consistent with our credit stability criteria, which
outline the outer boundaries of credit deterioration equal to a
one-rating category downgrade within the first year for 'AAA' and
'AA' rated securities and a two-rating category downgrade within
the first year for 'A' through 'BB' rated securities under moderate
stress conditions. Eventual default for a 'BB' rated class under a
moderate ('BBB') stress scenario is also consistent with our credit
stability criteria."

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

-- The backup servicing arrangement with Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

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

-- The transaction's legal structure.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

  American Credit Acceptance Receivables Trust 2017-4
  Class    Rating          Type            Interest    Amount
                                           rate        (mil. $)
  A        AAA (sf)        Senior          Fixed        82.95
  B        AA (sf)         Subordinate     Fixed        23.00
  C        A (sf)          Subordinate     Fixed        40.00
  D        BBB (sf)        Subordinate     Fixed        35.75
  E        BB- (sf)        Subordinate     Fixed        18.30


ANTARES CLO 2017-2: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to Antares CLO 2017-2
Ltd./Antares CLO 2017-2 LLC's $1.062 billion floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is a collateralized loan obligation transaction
backed primarily by middle-market senior secured term loans.

The ratings reflect:

-- The diversified collateral pool, which consists primarily of
middle-market speculative-grade senior secured term loans that are
governed by collateral quality tests.

-- The credit enhancement provided through the subordination of
cash flows, excess spread, and overcollateralization.

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

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

  RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Antares CLO 2017-2 Ltd./Antares CLO 2017-2 LLC  
  Class                  Rating          Amount (mil. $)
  A                      AAA (sf)                 690.00
  B                      AA (sf)                  138.00
  C (deferrable)         A (sf)                    90.00
  D (deferrable)         BBB- (sf)                 78.00
  E (deferrable)         BB- (sf)                  66.00
  Subordinated notes     NR                       146.75

  NR--Not rated.


ATRIUM HOTEL 2017-ATRM: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating to Cl. F Certs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to six
classes of CMBS securities, issued by Atrium Hotel Portfolio Trust
2017-ATRM, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
ATRM:

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

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

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

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

Cl. E, Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

Cl. F, Assigned (P)B3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The Certificates are collateralized by a single loan secured by the
fee and leasehold interests in 29 limited- and full-service hotels
containing a total of 7,015 guestrooms located across 16 states.
The ratings are based on the collateral and the structure of the
transaction.

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

The credit risk of loans is determined primarily by two factors: 1)
Moody's assessment of the probability of default, which is largely
driven by each loan's DSCR, and 2) Moody's assessment of the
severity of loss upon a default, which is largely driven by each
loan's LTV ratio.

The first mortgage balance of $600,000,000 represents a Moody's LTV
of 103.1%. The Moody's First Mortgage Actual DSCR is 3.20X and
Moody's First Mortgage Actual Stressed DSCR is 1.19X. The financing
is subject to two mezzanine loans totaling $150,000,000. The
Moody's Total Debt LTV (inclusive of the mezzanine loans) is 128.8%
while the Moody's Total Debt Actual DSCR is 2.01X and Moody's Total
Debt Stressed DSCR is 0.95X.

The loan is secured by the fee and leasehold interests in 29
limited- and full-service hotels totaling 7,015 guestrooms. The
properties are geographically diversified across sixteen states
with the largest state concentration represented by South Carolina
(3 properties; 14.0% of the ALA and 13.8% of the TTM NCF). No
single property represents more than 9.3% of the total ALA. The
loan's property-level Herfindal Index score is 22.9 based on the
allocated loan amount.

The portfolio operates under nine different flags across three
hotel franchises and includes a single, independently managed
property. Fifteen hotels representing 55.0% of the ALA operate
under the Hilton brand and are managed as a Hilton, Embassy Suites,
Hampton Inn, and Homewood Suites. Eight hotels representing 25.5%
of the ALA operate under the Marriott brand and are managed as a
Marriott, Sheraton, and Renaissance. Five hotels representing 17.8%
of the ALA operate under the IHG brand and are managed as a Holiday
Inn and Crowne Plaza. As of TTM September 30, 2017, the Portfolio
was 70.1% occupied and reported an average ADR and RevPAR of
$127.64 and $89.46.

Approximately 94.2% of the portfolio by ALA is comprised of
full-service hotels and 5.8% of the portfolio by ALA are comprised
of limited-service hotels. The Properties were constructed between
1979 and 2000 and have an average age of approximately 26 years,
with renovations taking place between 2005 and 2016 for 22 of the
29 Properties. From 2011 to YTD October 2017, the Borrower Sponsor
invested approximately $171.4 million ($24,431/key) of capital into
these properties. Additionally, $25.0 million of the loan proceeds
were reserved at closing to fund scheduled property improvements.

Notable strengths of the transaction include: portfolio diversity
as the properties are located across 16 states, strong brand
affiliation under the Hilton, Marriott and IHG hotel franchises,
strong sponsorship from Atrium Holding Company, capital investment
in the amount of $171.4 million since 2011, and cross
collateralization and cross defaulting which results in lower cash
flow volatility given pooling.

Notable credit challenges of the transaction include: subordinate
debt, limited recourse as the "bad-boy" guaranty is limited to 15%
of the total loan amount, the weighted average age of the
properties which is approximately 26 years, the increased
volatility of hotels versus other commercial real estate asset
classes, the lack of amortization and variable debt service
payments which increases term risk.

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.

Moody's approach for single borrower and large loan multi-borrower
transactions evaluates credit enhancement levels based on an
aggregation of adjusted loan level proceeds derived from Moody's
Moody's loan level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to determining
proceeds include leverage, loan structure, and property type. These
aggregated proceeds are then further adjusted for any pooling
benefits associated with loan level diversity, other concentrations
and correlations.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: If Moody's value of the collateral
used in determining the initial rating were decreased by 5.0%,
13.8%, and 21.9%, the model-indicated rating for the currently
rated (P) Aaa (sf) classes would be Aa1 (sf), Aa3 (sf), and A1
(sf), respectively. Parameter Sensitivities are not intended to
measure how the rating of the security might migrate over time;
rather they are designed to provide a quantitative calculation of
how the initial rating might change if key input parameters used in
the initial rating process differed. The analysis assumes that the
deal has not aged. Parameter Sensitivities only reflect the ratings
impact of each scenario from a quantitative/model-indicated
standpoint. Qualitative factors are also taken into consideration
in the ratings process, so the actual ratings that would be
assigned in each case could vary from the information presented in
the Parameter Sensitivity analysis.

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

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

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range may
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or weaker
than Moody's had previously anticipated. Factors that may cause an
upgrade of the ratings include significant loan paydowns or
amortization, an increase in the pool's share of defeasance or
overall improved pool performance. Factors that may cause a
downgrade of the ratings include a decline in the overall
performance of the pool, loan concentration, increased expected
losses from specially serviced and troubled loans or interest
shortfalls.

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

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



BANK 2017-BNK9: Fitch Assigns 'B+sf' Rating to 2 Tranches
---------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following final ratings and Rating
Outlooks to BANK 2017-BNK9 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2017-BNK9:

-- $26,278,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $27,104,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $39,690,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $170,000,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $437,655,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $700,727,000a class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $175,182,000a class X-B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $41,293,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $82,586,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $51,303,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $47,549,000ab class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $21,273,000ab class X-E 'BB+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $15,015,000ab class X-F 'B+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $47,549,000b class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $21,273,000b class E 'BB+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $15,015,000b class F 'B+sf'; Outlook Stable.

The following classes are not rated by Fitch:

-- $41,293,526ab class X-G;
-- $41,293,526b class G;
-- $52,686,291bc RR Interest.

(a) Notional amount and interest-only.
(b) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144A.
(c) Vertical credit risk retention interest representing no less
than 5% of the estimated fair value of all classes of regular
certificates issued by the issuing entity as of the closing date.

Since Fitch published its expected ratings on Nov. 28, 2017, the
class X-B rating changed from 'A-sf' to 'AA-sf' based on the final
deal structure.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 45 loans secured by 89
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
$1,053,725,818 as of the cut-off date. The loans were contributed
to the trust by Bank of America, National Association, Morgan
Stanley Mortgage Capital Holding LLC, and Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 78.7% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis of 87.7%, and asset summary reviews
on 100.0% of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Average Fitch Leverage: The pool has average leverage relative to
other recent Fitch-rated multiborrower transactions. The pool's
Fitch DSCR of 1.25x falls between the YTD 2017 average of 1.26x and
the 2016 average of 1.21x. The pool's Fitch LTV of 105.9% is higher
than the YTD 2017 average of 101.1% and in line with the 2016
average of 105.2%.

Highly Concentrated Pool: The pool is very concentrated with the
top 10 loans totaling 63.6% of the pool. This exceeds the YTD 2017
and 2016 averages of 52.9% and 54.8%, respectively. Additionally,
the loan concentration index (LCI) is 507, which also exceeds the
YTD 2017 and 2016 averages of 395 and 421, respectively.

Investment-Grade Credit Opinion Loan: The seventh largest loan,
Colorado Center (5.69% of the pool) has a credit opinion of 'A+sf*'
on a stand-alone basis; this is below the YTD 2017 average of 11.8%
credit opinion loans in other Fitch-rated multiborrower
transactions. Net of this loan, the Fitch DSCR and LTV are 1.23x
and 108.5%, respectively for this transaction.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 3.4% below
the most recent year's net operating income (NOI) for properties
for which a full-year NOI was provided, excluding properties that
were stabilizing during this period. Unanticipated further declines
in property-level NCF could result in higher defaults and loss
severities on defaulted loans and in potential rating actions on
the certificates.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to the BANK
2017-BNK9 certificates and found that the transaction displays
average sensitivities to further declines in NCF. In a scenario in
which NCF declined a further 20% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade of
the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'AA-sf' could result. In a more
severe scenario, in which NCF declined a further 30% from Fitch's
NCF, a downgrade of the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'A-sf' could
result.


BARINGS CLO 2013-I: S&P Assigns B-(sf) Rating on Class FR Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class AR, BR, CR,
DR, ER, and FR replacement notes from Barings CLO Ltd.
2013-I/Barings CLO 2013-I LLC, a collateralized loan obligation
(CLO) originally issued in 2013 that is managed by Barings LLC, a
member of MassMutual Financial Group (MassMutual).

On the Dec. 20, 2017, refinancing date, the proceeds from the class
AR, BR, CR, DR, ER, and FR replacement note issuances were used to
redeem the original class A, B, C, D, E, and F 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 assigned ratings to the replacement notes.

The replacement notes are being issued via a proposed supplemental
indenture, which, in addition to outlining the terms of the
replacement notes, will also: All replacement classes, except class
FR, were issued at a lower spread than the original notes.

The stated maturity, reinvestment period, and non-call period end
date will be extended by 4.75, 2.75, and 3.25 years, respectively.
Updated S&P Global Ratings industry categories, recoveries, and
country groupings for recovery purposes will be used.

The manager has an option to use a formula-based Standard & Poor's
CDO Monitor and a deemed rating agency confirmation process on the
refinancing effective date. 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."

S&P said, "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 further rating actions
as we deem necessary."

  RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Barings CLO Ltd. 2013-I/Barings CLO 2013-I LLC
  Replacement class         Rating      Amount (mil. $)
  AR                        AAA (sf)             362.50
  BR                        AA (sf)               49.90
  CR                        A (sf)                35.00
  DR                        BBB- (sf)             36.50
  ER                        BB- (sf)              22.00
  FR                        B- (sf)                7.80
  Subordinated notes        NR                    67.46

  RATINGS WITHDRAWN

  Barings CLO Ltd. 2013-I/Barings CLO 2013-I LLC                   
         
                            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)
  F                    NR              B (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


BEAR STEARNS 2003-PWR2: Fitch Affirms Dsf Rating on Cl. N Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded two classes and affirmed five classes of
Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates series 2003-PWR2 (BS 2003-PWR2).


KEY RATING DRIVERS

High Credit Enhancement and Continued Amortization: The senior
classes benefit from high and increasing credit enhancement and the
upgrades are due to continued amortization since Fitch's last
rating action, as well as the stable performance of the remaining
seven loans. The largest loan in the transaction (85% of the pool)
is collateralized by 3 Times Square, which currently has a loan per
square foot of $38. There are no Fitch Loans of Concern.

As of the November 2017 distribution date, the transaction has paid
down 98% since issuance, to $20 million from $1.1 billion. One
loan, 0.4% of the pool, is defeased.

Concentrated Pool: The pool is highly concentrated with only seven
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 and ranked them by their perceived likelihood of
repayment. This includes the defeased loan, fully amortizing loans,
and balloon loans. The ratings reflect this sensitivity analysis.

Largest Loan is 3 Times Square: The largest loan (85% of the pool)
is collateralized by an 883,405 square foot 30-story office
property located in Manhattan, also known as The Reuters Building.
At issuance the loan was split into two A notes; since Fitch's last
rating action the A note securitized in another transaction has
paid in full. The property's major tenants include Thomson Reuters
(78.0%, lease expiration November 2021), BMO Harris Bank (17.6%,
November 2021) (subleasing space from Bain & Co.), and JP Morgan
Chase (1.9%, November 2021). The most recent servicer reported debt
service coverage ratio (DSCR) and occupancy were as of June 2017
and were 1.69x and 100%, respectively. The loan has an interest
rate of 7.4%, is fully amortizing and matures in October 2021, and
as of the November 2017 distribution date, the loan per square foot
was $38.

Amortization and Maturity Schedule: Five (91%) of the seven loans
are fully amortizing; the remaining two are balloon loans. The
largest loan (85%) matures in 2021 and the remaining loans mature
in 2018.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Outlooks on classes G through M reflect the expectations
that ratings will remain unchanged. Classes G through L are
expected to pay in full given the low leverage of the remaining
loans. Additional upgrades to class M are unlikely in the near term
given the long-dated maturity of the largest loan (2021).
Downgrades, while not expected, are possible if several loans
default.

Fitch has upgraded the following classes:

-- $4 million class L to 'AAAsf' from 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $5.3 million class M to 'BBBsf' from 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:

-- $3.8 million class G at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $13.3 million class H at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $5.3 million class J at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $5.3 million class K at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch has affirmed the rating and revised the recovery rating for
the following:

-- $2.7 million class N at 'Dsf'; RE 90% from RE 0%.

The class A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, B, C, D, E and F certificates have
paid in full. Fitch does not rate the class P certificates. Fitch
previously withdrew the ratings on the interest-only class X-1 and
X-2 certificates.



BEAR STEARNS 2006-TOP24: Moody's Hikes Class A-J Certs to Ba1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on two classes
and affirmed the rating on one class in Bear Stearns Commercial
Mortgage Securities Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2006-TOP24:

Cl. A-J, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Feb 2, 2017 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Feb 2, 2017 Downgraded to
C (sf)

Cl. X-1, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017 Downgraded to C
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on the two remaining P&I classes were upgraded due to
anticipated losses and realized losses from specially serviced and
troubled loans that were lower than Moody's had previously
expected.

The rating on the single IO class was affirmed based on the credit
quality of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 8.4% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 41.5% at Moody's last review.
Both the numerical and percentage base expected loss figures
declined given the magnitude of paydowns since last review combined
with lower than anticipated realized losses. The pool paid down 71%
since last review. Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses
is now 8.7% of the original pooled balance, compared to 10.8% 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. The methodologies used in rating Cl.
X-1 were "Moody's Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single
Asset/Single Borrower CMBS" published in July 2017 and "Moody's
Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the December 12th, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 98% to $29 million
from $1.53 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by nine mortgage loans ranging in size from 2% to
51% of the pool. One loan, constituting 51% of the pool, has an
investment-grade structured credit assessment. One loan,
constituting 5% of the pool, has defeased and is secured by US
government securities.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 3, compared to 2 at Moody's last review.

Two loans, constituting 13% 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-two loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $131 million (for an average loss
severity of 40%). Two loans, constituting 16% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced loan
is the Woodland Harvest Square loan ($2.3 million -- 7.8% of the
pool), which is secured by a 12,000 square foot(SF) strip shopping
center located in Woodland, California. Property cash flow has been
negatively impacted by erratic occupancy over the last few years.
The loan transferred to special servicing effective July 2016 for
imminent maturity default. As of August 2017 the property was 76%
leased to four tenants.

The other specially serviced loan is the Parkside Cintas loan ($2.3
million -- 7.8% of the pool), which is secured by a 19,416 SF
industrial property located in Phoenix, Arizona. The loan
transferred to special servicing effective August 2017 for imminent
maturity default. This single tenant industrial property was
vacated by the sole tenant in February 2017.

Moody's estimates an aggregate $2.5 million loss for the specially
serviced loans (54% expected loss on average).

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and partial year 2017 operating results for 67% of the pool
(excluding specially serviced and defeased loans).

The loan with a structured credit assessment is the 461 Fifth
Avenue Loan ($15 million -- 51.4% of the pool), which is secured by
a fee position in a parcel of land under a 25-story office building
measuring 204,000 SF. The collateral is located on the corner of
East 40th Street and Fifth Avenue, in the Grand Central office
submarket of Manhattan, New York. Moody's structured credit
assessment and stressed DSCR are aaa (sca.pd) and 1.51X,
respectively.

The top three performing loans represent 24% of the pool balance.
The largest performing loan is the Residence Inn by Marriott Loan
($3.2 million -- 11.1% of the pool), which is secured by a 74-room,
14-story, limited service hotel and parking garage located along
Bigelow Boulevard in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. There is an assisted
living facility attached to the hotel on the opposite side of the
parking garage. The two buildings are connected by a courtyard
above the parking garage. The property is located within a mile of
the University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University, UPMC
Hospitals (including the New Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh),
Hillman Cancer Center and approximately 3.5 miles from Heinz Field.
The December 2016 trailing twelve month occupancy, average daily
rate (ADR) and revenue per available room (RevPar) were 73.6%,
$122.90 and $90.45, respectively. The loan has amortized 64% since
securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 33.5% and 3.79X,
respectively, compared to 36.4% and 3.49X at the last review.

The second largest performing loan is the 5226 Hwy 153 Loan ($2.6
million -- 9.0% of the pool), which is secured by an 84,000 SF
retail center located in Hixon, Tennessee approximately 10 miles
from Chattanooga, Tennessee. As per the September 2017 rent roll,
the property was 99% occupied. The loan is fully amortizing and has
paid down 39% since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 51.0% and 1.97X, respectively, compared to 54.7% and 1.84X at
the last review.

The third largest performing loan is the Chatham Square Apartments
loan ($1.0 million -- 3.4% of the pool), which is secured by a
16-unit multifamily located in Bayshore, Long Island, New York. As
of June 2017, the property was 100% occupied. The loan is fully
amortizing and has paid down 39% since securitization. Moody's LTV
and stressed DSCR are 43.7% and 2.17X, respectively, compared to
45.3% and 2.10X at the last review.


CARLYLE US 2017-5: S&P Assigns Prelim BB-(sf) Rating on D Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Carlyle US
CLO 2017-5 Ltd.'s $509.95 million broadly syndicated collateralized
loan obligation (CLO).

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Dec. 11,
2017. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

-- The diversified collateral pool, which consists primarily of
broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior secured term loans that
are  governed by collateral quality tests.

-- The credit enhancement provided through the subordination of
cash flows, excess spread, and overcollateralization.

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

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

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED
  Carlyle US CLO 2017-5 Ltd./Carlyle US CLO 2017-5 LLC
  Class                     Rating    Interest           Amount
                                      rate (%)         (mil. $)
  A-1A                    AAA (sf)    3ML+1.07           287.00
  A-1B                    NR          3ML+1.20            44.50
  A-2                     AA (sf)     3ML+1.50            51.80
  B                       A (sf)      3ML+1.80            28.20
  C                       BBB- (sf)   3ML+2.60            30.75
  D                       BB- (sf)    3ML+5.75            17.75
  Subordinated notes      NR          N/A                 49.95

NR--Not rated.
N/A--Not available.
3ML--Three-month LIBOR


CARNOW AUTO 2017-1: S&P Assigns BB(sf) Rating on Class C Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to CarNow Auto Receivables
Trust 2017-1's $126.32 million automobile receivables-backed notes
series 2017-1.

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

The ratings reflect:

-- The availability of approximately 56.0%, 46.0%, and 41.5%
credit support for the class A, B, and C notes, respectively, based
on stressed break-even cash flow scenarios (including excess
spread). These credit support levels provide coverage of
approximately 1.65x, 1.35x, and 1.20x S&P's expected net loss range
of 33.00%-34.00% for the class A, B, and C notes, respectively.

-- The timely interest and principal payments by our assumed legal
final maturity dates made under stressed cash flow modeling
scenarios that are appropriate to the assigned ratings.

-- S&P said, "Our expectation that under a moderate, or 'BBB',
stress scenario, the class A notes would not be downgraded over the
transaction's lifetime, the rating on the class B notes would
remain within two categories of its rating over its lifetime, and
the rating on the class C notes would remain within two categories
of its rating over the first year. However, we would expect the
class C notes to eventually default under a moderate loss scenario
(all else being equal). These potential rating movements are
consistent with our credit stability criteria, which outline the
outer bound of credit deterioration within one year equal to a
two-category downgrade for 'A', 'BBB', and 'BB' rated securities
under moderate stress conditions."

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

-- The collateral characteristics of the subprime pool being
securitized. The pool is approximately seven months seasoned, and
all of the loans have an original term of 60 months or less, which
S&P expects will result in the pool being paid down faster relative
to many other subprime pools with longer loan terms and less
seasoning.

-- The transaction's payment and legal structures.

RATINGS ASSIGNED
  CarNow Auto Receivables Trust 2017-1

  Class    Rating          Type           Interest       Amount
                                          rate         (mil. $)
  A        A (sf)          Senior         Fixed          91.47
  B        BBB (sf)        Subordinate    Fixed          23.09
  C        BB (sf)         Subordinate    Fixed          11.76


CATAMARAN CLO 2013-1: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Class F-R Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to seven classes of
notes including six classes of refinancing notes and the Class X
Notes (the "CLO Refinancing Notes") issued by Catamaran CLO 2013-1
Ltd.:

Moody's rating action is:

US$4,200,000 Class X Floating Rate Notes due 2028 (the "Class X
Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$341,250,000 Class A-R Floating Rate Notes due 2028 (the "Class
A-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$57,400,000 Class B-R Floating Rate Notes due 2028 (the "Class
B-R Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$28,900,000 Class C-R Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2028
(the "Class C-R Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$31,300,000 Class D-R Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2028
(the "Class D-R Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$24,100,000 Class E-R Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2028
(the "Class E-R Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

US$10,500,000 Class F-R Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2028
(the "Class F-R Notes"), Assigned B3 (sf)

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

Trimaran Advisors, L.L.C. (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 CLO 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 CLO Refinancing Notes on December 20,
2017 (the "Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of
all classes of the secured notes (the "Refinanced Original Notes")
previously issued on June 27, 2013 (the "Original Closing Date").
Proceeds from the issuance of the Refinancing Notes, will redeem in
full the Refinanced Original Notes. On the Original Closing Date,
the Issuer also issued one class of subordinated notes that will
remain outstanding.

In addition to the issuance of the CLO Refinancing Notes and
additional subordinated notes, a variety of other changes to
transaction features will occur in connection with the refinancing.
These include: reinstatement and 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: $523,250,000

Defaulted par: $0

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2973

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.30%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 49.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 6 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
August 2017.

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

The performance of the CLO Refinancing Notes is subject to
uncertainty. The performance of the CLO Refinancing 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 CLO 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 CLO 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 CLO
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% (3419)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-R Notes: 0

Class B-R Notes: -1

Class C-R Notes: -2

Class D-R Notes: -1

Class E-R Notes: 0

Class F-R Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (3865)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-R Notes: 0

Class B-R Notes: -3

Class C-R Notes: -3

Class D-R Notes: -2

Class E-R Notes: -1

Class F-R Notes: -3


CHT 2017-COSMO: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Class F Certificates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned definitive ratings to six
classes of CMBS securities, issued by CHT 2017-COSMO Mortgage
Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2017-COSMO:

Cl. A, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa3 (sf)

Cl. C, Definitive Rating Assigned A3 (sf)

Cl. D, Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

Cl. E, Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

Cl. F, Definitive Rating Assigned B3 (sf)

Note: Moody's previously assigned a provisional rating to Class
X-CP of (P) Aaa (sf), described in the prior press release, dated
November 28, 2017. Subsequent to the release of the provisional
ratings for this transaction, Class X-CP was eliminated and will
not be offered.

RATINGS RATIONALE

The Certificates are collateralized by a single loan backed by a
first lien commercial mortgage related to one property, The
Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas (the "Property"). The ratings are based
on the collateral and the structure of the transaction.

The Property is a full-service, luxury hotel and casino centrally
located on the Las Vegas Strip and one of the newest hotel and
casino properties in the market, opening in December 2010. Total
construction cost was approximately $3.8 billion, with the mortgage
loan representing 36.3% of construction cost. The Property features
3,027, condo-quality rooms and suites situated within two high-rise
towers, a 111,500 SF casino, more than 30 restaurants, lounges and
bars, a nightclub/dayclub, full-service spa, two fitness centers, a
live theater, approximately 23,500 square feet of retail, three
outdoor swimming pools, various public and private spa pools, two
rooftop tennis courts, business center, and approximately 250,000
SF of meeting/conference space. The Property has consistently
achieved some of the highest ADR and RevPAR levels in Las Vegas due
to the location, quality and amenities of the Property.

The Property is centrally located on the Las Vegas Strip between
The Bellagio and MGM's City Center and across the Strip from the
Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino. The Property maintains direct
frontage on Las Vegas Boulevard and benefits from the pedestrian
traffic on the Strip.

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

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

The first mortgage balance of $1,380,000,000 represents a Moody's
LTV of 99.6%. The Moody's First Mortgage Actual DSCR is 3.64X and
Moody's First Mortgage Actual Stressed DSCR is 1.26X.

Moody's also grades properties on a scale of 0 to 5 (best to worst)
and considers those grades when assessing the likelihood of debt
payment. The factors considered include property age, quality of
construction, location, market, and tenancy. The Property's quality
grade is 1.50, reflecting the strong quality of the asset.

Notable strengths of the transaction include: asset quality,
property location, operating performance trends, and an experienced
and committed Sponsor.

Notable credit challenges of the transaction include: lack of
diversity for this single asset transaction, property type
volatility, dependence on tourism, subordinate debt, and the lack
of loan amortization.

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.

Moody's approach for single borrower and large loan multi-borrower
transactions evaluates credit enhancement levels based on an
aggregation of adjusted loan level proceeds derived from Moody's
Moody's loan level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to determining
proceeds include leverage, loan structure, and property type. These
aggregated proceeds are then further adjusted for any pooling
benefits associated with loan level diversity, other concentrations
and correlations.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: If Moody's value of the collateral
used in determining the initial rating were decreased by 5.0%,
13.7%, and 21.7%, the model-indicated rating for the currently
rated Aaa (sf) classes would be Aa1 (sf), Aa2 (sf), and Aa3 (sf),
respectively. Parameter Sensitivities are not intended to measure
how the rating of the security might migrate over time; rather they
are designed to provide a quantitative calculation of how the
initial rating might change if key input parameters used in the
initial rating process differed. The analysis assumes that the deal
has not aged. Parameter Sensitivities only reflect the ratings
impact of each scenario from a quantitative/model-indicated
standpoint. Qualitative factors are also taken into consideration
in the ratings process, so the actual ratings that would be
assigned in each case could vary from the information presented in
the Parameter Sensitivity analysis.

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

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

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range may
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or weaker
than Moody's had previously anticipated. Factors that may cause an
upgrade of the ratings include significant loan pay downs or
amortization, an increase in the pool's share of defeasance or
overall improved pool performance. Factors that may cause a
downgrade of the ratings include a decline in the overall
performance of the pool, loan concentration, increased expected
losses from specially serviced and troubled loans or interest
shortfalls.

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

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


CITIGROUP 2007-C6: S&P Lowers Ratings on 2 Tranches to D
--------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its ratings to 'D(sf)' on the class A-J,
A-JFX, and B commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C6, a U.S. commercial
mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction. The downgrades
reflect the principal losses on these certificates, as detailed on
the Dec. 12, 2017, trustee remittance report.

The reported principal losses on classes A-J, A-JFX, and B were
$11.4 million, $6.9 million, and $23.8 million, respectively, as
detailed in the December 2017 trustee remittance report, which
resulted from the liquidation of 23 of 24 specially serviced assets
totalling a $238.8 million loss to the trust. Consequently, classes
B, C, D, E, F, and G experienced a 100% loss of their respective
beginning balances, while classes A-J and A-JFX experienced a 4.6%
loss of their beginning balances. Classes C, D, E, F, and G are not
rated by S&P Global Ratings.

  RATINGS LIST

  Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C6
  Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2007-C6
                                     Rating                        
        
  Class          Identifier         To           From              

  A-J            17311QBN9          D (sf)       CCC (sf)         

  B              17311QBP4          D (sf)       CCC- (sf)        
  A-JFX          17311QAE0          D (sf)       CCC (sf)          


CITIGROUP 2012-GC8: Moody's Cuts Rating on 2 Tranches to B1(sf)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on eight classes
and downgraded the ratings on three classes in Citigroup Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2012-GC8, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2012-GC8:

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 21, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-AB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 21, 2017 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 21, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-S, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 21, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Apr 21, 2017 Affirmed Aa3
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on Apr 21, 2017 Affirmed A3
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Apr 21, 2017 Affirmed Baa3
(sf)

Cl. E, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 21, 2017 Affirmed
Ba2 (sf)

Cl. F, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Apr 21, 2017 Affirmed
B2 (sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 21, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. X-B, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 21, 2017 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

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

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

The rating on IO Class X-B was downgraded due to a decline in the
credit quality of its referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 6.0% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 3.2% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 4.6% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 2.9% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The methodologies used in these ratings were "Approach to Rating US
and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017 and
"Moody's Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single
Borrower CMBS" published in July 2017. The methodologies used in
rating Cl. X-A and Cl. X-B were "Approach to Rating US and Canadian
Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017, "Moody's Approach to
Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower CMBS" published
in July 2017, and "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance
Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the December 10, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 24% to $791.1
million from $1.04 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 49 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 13% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 63% of the pool. Ten loans, constituting
11% of the pool, have defeased and are secured by US government
securities.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 14, compared to 16 at Moody's last review.

Fifteen loans, constituting 60% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

No loans have been liquidated from the pool and no loans are
currently in special servicing. Moody's has assumed a high default
probability for three poorly performing loans, constituting 11% of
the pool, and has estimated an aggregate loss of $16.8 million (an
19% expected loss based on a 52% probability default) from these
troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 98% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2017 operating results for 99% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 104%, compared to 100% at Moody's
last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 9.9% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.6%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.40X and 1.04X,
respectively, compared to 1.53X and 1.08X 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 34% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Miami Center Loan ($105.5 million -- 13.3% of
the pool), which is secured by a pari-passu portion of a $158.4
million first mortgage loan. The collateral property is a 35-story,
787,000 square foot (SF) office tower located on South Biscayne
Boulevard in Miami, Florida. The property is located adjacent to an
Intercontinental Hotel and contains a 9-story parking garage. The
collateral was 68% leased as of June 2017, up slightly from 65% at
year-end 2016. The loan is currently on the watchlist for a low
DSCR. The property has experienced a decline in revenue due to
tenant rollover, however, four new tenants totaling 52,000 SF are
expected to take occupancy through May 2018. The loan has amortized
8% since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 114% and
0.88X, respectively, compared to 112% and 0.89X at the last
review.

The second largest loan is the 17 Battery Place South Loan ($87.8
million -- 11.1% of the pool), which is secured by the office
portion of a 31-story, mixed use tower located in lower Manhattan.
As of the June 2017 rent roll, the property was 76% leased, down
slightly from 79% a year-end 2016. Since securitization, the
property has experienced an approximate 60% increase in operating
expenses, largely driven by higher than expected property tax,
utilities and repairs and maintenance. The asset is also encumbered
with $14 million of mezzanine debt. The loan has amortized 3.5%
since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 125% and
0.80X, respectively, compared to 112% and 0.90X at the last
review.

The third largest loan is the Pinnacle at Westchase Loan ($73.1
million -- 9.2% of the pool), which is secured by a 471,000 SF
class A suburban office complex in the Westchase submarket of
Houston, Texas. The largest tenant, Phillips 66 (45% of NRA),
vacated the property in July 2016 and is currently marketing their
space for sublease through the balance of their lease term. The
second largest tenant, Frontica Business Solutions (42% of NRA),
exercised a one-time, $1.28 million early termination option to
reduce their space by 53,500 SF in 2016. As of the September 2017
rent roll, the property was 89% leased, with a physical occupancy
of 44%. Moody's considers this a troubled asset.


CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL 2006-C5: Fitch Affirms CC Rating on A-J Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 14 classes of Citigroup Commercial
Mortgage Trust, commercial mortgage pass-through certificates,
series 2006-C5 (CGCMT 2006-C5).

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Although credit enhancement has improved since Fitch's last rating
action from amortization and the liquidation of five specially
serviced loans/assets at better than expected recoveries, the
affirmations reflect adverse selection of the remaining pool and
the high certainty of losses based on the significant concentration
of specially serviced loans/assets.

Adverse Selection; High Concentration of Specially Serviced
Loans/Assets: Only eight of the original 208 loans/assets remain,
five of which are in special servicing (95.2% of current pool).
Four of these specially serviced assets (71.8%) are real-estate
owned (REO), including the largest asset (IRET Portfolio; 57.2%),
and one loan (23.5%) is classified as in foreclosure. The three
non-specially serviced loans (4.8%) are secured by multifamily
properties located in secondary and tertiary markets.

IRET Portfolio: The IRET Portfolio asset (57.2% of pool), which
became REO in January 2016, was initially comprised of a portfolio
of nine suburban office properties totaling approximately 937,000
sf located in the Omaha, NE metropolitan statistical area (MSA)
(four properties), the greater Minneapolis, MN MSA (two), the St.
Louis, MO MSA (two) and Leawood, KS (one). Four of the underlying
assets were sold at auction in March and September 2017. In
addition, the servicer indicated that the Miracle Hills Executive
Center asset in Omaha, NE had been recently sold in a November 2017
auction. Occupancy across the five remaining assets has continued
to decline further to 71.1% as of November 2017 from 83.5% one year
earlier and remains significantly below the 95.7% total portfolio
occupancy reported at issuance. Upcoming lease rollover consists of
19% of the remaining portfolio net rentable area (NRA) in 2018. An
additional 6.9% of the NRA consisted of month-to-month leases.
Significant losses are expected upon liquidation.

As of the November 2017 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 92% to $170.3 million from
$2.1 billion at issuance. Realized losses since issuance total $179
million (8.4% of original pool balance). Cumulative interest
shortfalls totaling $9.6 million are currently impacting classes D,
G through K and M through P.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Upgrades are not likely due to the high concentration of specially
serviced loans/assets. The distressed classes are subject to
further downgrades as additional losses are realized or if losses
exceed Fitch's expectations.

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:

-- $97.2 million class A-J at 'CCsf'; RE 90%;
-- $42.5 million class B at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $21.2 million class C at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $9.5 million class D at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class E at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class F at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class G at 'Dsf''; RE 0%;
-- $0 class H at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class O at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

Classes A-1, A-2, A-3, A-SB, A-4, A-1A, A-M, AMP-1, AMP-2 and AMP-3
have paid in full. Fitch previously withdrew the ratings on the
interest-only XP and XC certificates. Fitch does not rate class P.


CONN'S RECEIVABLES 2017-B: Fitch Rates $78.64MM Cl. C Notes 'B-'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following ratings to Conn's
Receivables Funding 2017-B, LLC (Conn's 2017-B), which consists of
notes backed by retail loans originated and serviced by Conn
Appliances, Inc. (Conn's):

-- $361,400,000 class A notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $132,180,000 class B notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $78,640,000 class C notes 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- class R notes 'NR'.

Although the cash flows for the class C indicated a higher rating,
a rating of 'B-sf' is recommended due to the sensitivity to
back-loaded defaults and dependence on trust triggers.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Collateral Quality: The pool characteristics are largely consistent
with previous transactions. The weighted average (WA) Fair Isaac
Corp. (FICO) score is 607, and the WA borrower rate has increased
to 28.52%.

Fitch's base case default rate for the 2017-B pool is 25.25% and a
2.2x stress is applied at the 'BBBsf' level, reflecting the high
absolute value of the historical defaults, along with the
variability of default performance in recent years and the high
geographic concentration. Although the default assumption is higher
than past Conn's transactions due to worsening performance, this is
partially mitigated by a slightly better pool mix than past deals,
a marginally longer time on book and stable WA FICO.

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

Dependence on Trust Triggers: The trust depends on the three trust
performance triggers to ensure the payments due on the notes are
paid during times of degrading collateral performance. This is most
apparent for the class C notes where, in back-loaded default
scenarios, excess cash is released before the triggers go into
effect.

Credit Enhancement: The expected initial hard credit enhancement
(CE) for class A, B and C is 47.5%, 27.75% and 16%, respectively.
The trust must build to an overcollateralization (OC) target of 35%
before any excess cash can be released. This target remains at the
same level as Conn's 2017-A after being reduced from 40% in Conn's
2016-B. This lowering of the target OC is mitigated by the higher
trust annual percentage rate than past deals due to Conn's direct
loan program.

Servicing Capabilities: Conn Appliances, Inc. has a long track
record as an originator, underwriter, and servicer. The credit risk
profile of the entity is mitigated by the backup servicing provided
by Systems & Services Technologies, Inc. (SST), which has committed
to a servicing transition period of 30 days.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

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

Fitch conducts sensitivity analysis by increasing a transaction's
initial base case chargeoff assumption by 10%, 25%, and 50%, and
examining the rating implications. The 10%, 25%, and 50% increase
of the base case chargeoffs are intended to provide an indication
of the rating sensitivity of the notes to unexpected deterioration
of a transaction's performance.

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

Rating sensitivity to increased charge-off rate:
Class A, B and C current ratings (Base Case: 25.25%): 'BBBsf',
'BBsf', 'B-sf':

-- Increase base case by 10% for class A, B and C: 'BBB-sf',
    'BBsf', 'B-sf';
-- Increase base case by 25% for class A, B and C: 'BB+sf',
    'B+sf', 'CCCsf';
-- Increase base case by 50% for class A, B and C: 'BBsf', 'B-
    sf', 'lower than CCCsf'.


CPS AUTO 2016-A: S&P Affirms B Rating on Class F Certs
------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on six classes and affirmed
its ratings on five classes from two CPS Auto Receivables Trust
asset-backed securities (ABS) transactions.

S&P said, "The rating actions reflect each transactions' collateral
performance to date, our views regarding future collateral
performance, our current economic forecast, and the transactions'
structures and the credit enhancement levels. In addition, we
incorporated secondary credit factors into our analysis such as
credit stability, payment priorities under certain scenarios, and
sector- and issuer-specific analyses. In addition, we considered
Consumer Portfolio Services Inc.'s securitization and servicing
experience along with its loan origination, underwriting,
collections, and general operational practices. Considering all
these factors, we believe the creditworthiness of the notes remains
consistent with the raised and affirmed ratings.

"The transactions are performing worse than our initial
expectations, and, as a result, we increased our lifetime loss
expectations for both transactions.

"Since the two transactions closed, the credit support for each
series has increased as a percentage of the amortizing pool
balance. In our opinion, the total credit support, as a percentage
of the current amortizing pool balance and compared with our
revised remaining loss expectations, is adequate for the raised and
affirmed ratings."

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

                  Pool  Current   60+ day
  Series   Mo.  factor      CNL   delinq.
  2016-A   22   57.15      8.05      5.76
  2016-B   19   64.59      6.81      5.88

  Mo.--Month.
  CNL--Cumulative net loss.
  Delinq.--Delinquencies.

  Table 2
  CNL Expectations (%)
  As of the November 2017 distribution month

                Initial              Revised
               lifetime             lifetime
  Series       CNL exp.          CNL exp.(i)
  2016-A    16.00-16.50          18.00-18.50
  2016-B    17.00-18.00          18.00-18.50

  (i)The expected CNLs were revised in September 2017. CNL exp.--

  Cumulative net loss expectations. N/A–-Not applicable.

Each transaction has a sequential principal payment structure with
credit enhancement consisting of overcollateralization (O/C),
subordination, a nonamortizing reserve account, and excess spread.
O/C is structured to build over time to its target (as a percentage
of the current pool balance), and the spread account is
nonamortizing at its initial amount. When the O/C reaches its
target percentage, credit enhancement grows significantly, along
with the spread account, as a percentage of the amortizing pool
balance. Since issuance, the credit enhancement for each
transaction has increased.

Each transaction also contains noncurable performance-related
triggers, which step up the credit enhancement level if breached.
None of the transactions have breached a trigger.

  Table 3
  Hard Credit Support (%)
  As of the November 2017 distribution month

                         Total hard         Current total hard
                     credit support             credit support
  Series    Class    at issuance(i)           % of current)(i)
  2016-A     A                   48.75                   89.30
  2016-A     B                   36.25                   67.43
  2016-A     C                   21.00                   40.74
  2016-A     D                   10.25                   21.93
  2016-A     E                    4.10                   11.17
  2016-A     F                    1.00                    5.75
  2016-B     A                   53.10                   84.53
  2016-B     B                   37.30                   60.07
  2016-B     C                   20.75                   34.45
  2016-B     D                   10.45                   18.50
  2016-B     E                    3.15                    7.20

(i)Calculated as a percentage of the total gross receivables pool
balance, consisting of a reserve account, overcollateralization,
and, if applicable, subordination. Excess spread is excluded from
the hard credit support that can also provide additional
enhancement.

S&P said, "Our review of these transactions included our cash flow
analysis, which used current and historical performance to estimate
future performance. Our various cash flow scenarios included
forward-looking assumptions on recoveries, timing of losses and
voluntary absolute prepayment speeds that we believe are
appropriate given each transaction's performance to date. Various
scenarios were run to evaluate ratings in both pro rata and
sequential payment scenarios.

"In addition to our break-even cash flow analysis, we conducted
sensitivity analyses to determine the impact that a moderate
('BBB') stress level scenario would have on our ratings if losses
trended higher than our revised base-case loss expectations. The
results demonstrated, in our view, that all of the classes have
adequate credit enhancement at their respective affirmed or raised
rating levels.

"We will continue to monitor the performance of all the outstanding
transactions to ensure that the credit enhancement remains
sufficient, in our view, to cover our revised cumulative net loss
expectations under our stress scenarios for each of the rated
classes."

  RATINGS RAISED

  CPS Auto Receivables Trust
                            Rating
  Series     Class      To         From
  2016-A     B          AAA (sf)   AA (sf)
  2016-A     C          AA (sf)    A- (sf)
  2016-A     D          BBB+ (sf)  BBB (sf)
  2016-B     B          AAA (sf)   AA- (sf)
  2016-B     C          A+ (sf)    A- (sf)
  2016-B     D          BBB (sf)   BBB- (sf)

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  CPS Auto Receivables Trust
  Series     Class      Rating   
  2016-A     A          AAA (sf)
  2016-A     E          BB- (sf)
  2016-A     F          B (sf)
  2016-B     A          AAA (sf)
  2016-B     E          BB- (sf)


CREDIT SUISSE 2007-C1: Fitch Affirms Bsf Rating on 3 Tranches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed all 20 classes of Credit Suisse
Commercial Mortgage Trust (CSMC) series 2007-C1 commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Pool Concentration: The transaction is concentrated with 14 of the
original 265 loans remaining. The two largest loans in the
transaction represent 42.5% of the pool balance. Both of these
loans are performing after being modified in 2017. There is one
other performing loan that has also been modified and 11 specially
serviced assets. Due to the concentrated nature of the pool, Fitch
performed a sensitivity analysis that grouped the remaining loans
and assets based on loan structural features, collateral quality
and performance and ranked them by their perceived likelihood of
repayment (or amount of liquidation proceeds). The ratings and
outlooks reflect this sensitivity analysis.

Modified Loans: There are three performing loans remaining, all of
which have been modified and granted maturity extensions. The
largest remaining loan is Koger Center (22.45), which is a 849,765
square foot (sf) office complex located in Tallahassee, FL. The
loan was modified in July 2017 and its maturity was extended to
February 2020. The State of Florida is the largest tenant occupying
63% of the net rentable area (NRA) and has a lease expiration in
October 2019. The property was 88% occupied as of August 2017.

High Concentration of Specially Serviced Loans: There are 11 assets
in special servicing representing 47.3% of the pool. Of the
specially serviced assets, seven (41.5%) are real estate owned
(REO) or in foreclosure. The largest specially serviced asset is
Wells Fargo Place (18.1%), which is a 656,000-sf office property
located in St. Paul, MN. The loan transferred to the special
servicer in May 2016 for imminent default and the servicer is
moving forward with foreclosure. The largest tenants at the
property include Minnesota State Colleges and Universities,
Agribank, IRS and Wells Fargo. According to the September 2017 rent
roll, the property was 86.2% occupied.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Negative Outlooks on the A-M classes reflect that all of the
assets remaining in the pool have either been modified or are in
special servicing. Downgrades are possible if losses on the
specially serviced assets are higher than expected. The distressed
class A-J may be subject to a downgrade as losses are realized.
Upgrades or removal of Negative Outlooks for the A-M classes are
possible should loans in special servicing dispose with better than
expected recoveries.

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:

-- $136.7 million class A-M at 'Bsf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $58.0 million class A-MFL at 'Bsf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $22.6 million class A-MFX at 'Bsf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $286.6 million class A-J at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $9.6 million class B at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class C at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class D at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class E at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class F at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class G at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class H at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class O at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class Q at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class S at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.



CREST CDO 2004-1: Fitch Affirms 'Csf' Ratings on 6 Tranches
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed eight classes issued by Crest CDO 2004-1
Ltd./Corp. (Crest 2004-1).  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Stable Performance: Since Fitch's last rating action in December
2016 there has been no ratings migration of the remaining bonds in
the portfolio. Over this period, the class E notes have paid down
by an additional $9.6 million.

Portfolio Concentration: Only 13 bonds from eight obligors remain.
Currently, 68.4% of the portfolio has a Fitch-derived
below-investment grade rating, with 17.9% having a rating in the
'CCC' category and below.

This transaction was analyzed under the framework described in the
criteria reports, 'Global Structured Finance Rating Criteria' and
'Structured Finance CDOs Surveillance Rating Criteria'. Due to
portfolio concentration, the transaction was not analyzed within
the Portfolio Credit Model or cash flow model framework. The impact
of any structural features was also determined to be minimal in the
context of these outstanding collateralized debt obligation (CDO)
ratings and the hedge has expired. A look-through analysis of each
of the remaining underlying bonds was performed to determine the
collateral coverage for the remaining CDO liabilities. Based on
this analysis, the class E notes have credit characteristics
consistent with a 'BBsf' rating.

The 'Csf' rating on the class F through H notes indicate that
default is considered inevitable. These classes are reliant on
bonds carrying distressed ratings, and Fitch recognizes the high
probability of default for a number of these underlying assets and
the expected limited recovery upon default. Further, the class G
and H notes and the preferred shares are also undercollateralized.
The rating of the preferred shares addresses the likelihood that
investors will receive the ultimate return of the aggregate
outstanding rated balance by the legal final maturity date.

Crest 2004-1 is a static CDO that closed on Nov. 18, 2004. The
current portfolio consists of 92% commercial mortgage backed
securities (from the 1999 through 2004 vintages) and 8% structured
finance CDOs (from the 2003 vintage).

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Rating Outlook on class E reflects the class' seniority
and expected continued paydowns. A future upgrade of the class may
be limited due to increasing pool concentration. A downgrade is
possible should the underlying bond ratings experience negative
credit migration beyond Fitch's expectations or with an increasing
concentration in assets of a weaker credit quality.

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $5.6 million class E-1 notes at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $4.8 million class E-2 notes at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $6.4 million class F notes at 'Csf';
-- $2.6 million class G-1 notes at 'Csf';
-- $16.5 million class G-2 notes at 'Csf';
-- $10.3 million class H-1 notes at 'Csf';
-- $1.8 million class H-2 notes at 'Csf';
-- $96.4 million preferred shares notes (Principal Only) at
    'Csf'.


CSFB MORTGAGE 2004-C1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Class A-X Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on one class and
affirmed the ratings on three classes of CSFB Mortgage Securities
Corp. Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 2004-C1:

Cl. G, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Dec 8, 2016 Upgraded to
A1 (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Dec 8, 2016 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

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

Cl. A-Y, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 8, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating on Class G was upgraded due to an increase in
defeasance, to 38% of the current pool balance from 24% at the last
review. The deal has also paid down 6% since last review and 99%
since securitization.

The rating on Class H was affirmed because the rating is consistent
with Moody's expected loss.

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

The rating on one IO class, Class A-Y, was affirmed based on the
credit performance of the referenced New York City coop loans.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 0% of the
current balance, the same at last review. Moody's base expected
loss plus realized losses is now 4.3% of the original pooled
balance, the same as at the last review. Moody's does not
anticipate losses from the remaining collateral in the current
environment. However, over the remaining life of the transaction,
losses may emerge from macro stresses to the environment and
changes in collateral performance. Moody's ratings reflect the
potential for future losses under varying levels of stress. Moody's
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. The methodologies used in rating Cl.
A-X and Cl. A-Y were "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance
Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June 2017, and "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the November 17, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 99% to $20.2 million
from $1.62 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by ten mortgage loans ranging in size from 1% to 38%
of the pool. Two loans, constituting 8.7% of the pool, have
investment-grade structured credit assessments. Three loans,
constituting 38.1% of the pool, have defeased and are secured by US
government securities.

Four loans, constituting 48.8% 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 $69.2 million (for an average loss
severity of 57.9%). No loans are currently in special servicing.

The structured credit assessments are associated with two
residential New York City coop loans which represent $1.9 million
in total loan balance, or an 8.2% share of the overall pool
balance. Moody's credit assessment for these loans is aaa (sca.pd),
the same as at last review.

The top three performing loans represent 49.8% of the pool balance.
The largest loan is the Irving Towne Center Loan ($7.6 million --
38% of the pool), which is secured by a Target shadow-anchored
retail center located in Irving, Texas. Major tenants include
Tuesday Morning, Anna's Linens, Chili's and Anytime Fitness. The
property was 71% leased as of September 2017, compared to 77%
leased at last review. The loan is fully amortizing and has
amortized 35% since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 67% and 1.56X, respectively, compared to 70% and 1.51X at the
last review.

The second largest loan is the Amistad Apartments Loan ($1.6
million -- 8% of the pool), which is by a 76-unit multifamily
property in Donna, Texas, about 250 miles south of San Antonio and
less than ten miles north of the US-Mexico border. The property was
84% leased as of June 2017, compared to 93% at last review. The
loan has amortized 19% since securitization. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 86% and 1.16X, respectively, compared to 70% and
1.43X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Budget Self Storage Loan ($873,404 --
4.3% of the pool), which is by an 83,212 SF self-storage property
in Richmond, California. The property was 97% leased as of December
2015. The loan has amortized 51.2% since securitization. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 11% and >4.0X, respectively, compared
to 13% and 8.12X at the last review.


CSMC TRUST 2017-PFHP: S&P Assigns B-(sf) Rating on Class F Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to CSMC Trust
2017-PFHP's $240.0 million commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed securities
transaction backed by one two-year floating-rate commercial
mortgage loan totaling $240.0 million, with three, one-year
extension options, secured by cross-collateralized and
cross-defaulted mortgages on the fee simple interests in 20
limited-service, full-service, and extended-stay hotels.

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

  RATINGS ASSIGNED
  CSMC Trust 2017-PFHP

  Class       Rating(i)          Amount ($)
  A           AAA (sf)           61,500,000
  X-CP        AAA (sf)           25,500,000(ii)
  X-EXT       AAA (sf)           25,500,000(ii)
  B           AA- (sf)           21,400,000
  C           A- (sf)            15,900,000
  D           BBB- (sf)          21,100,000
  E           BB- (sf)           33,100,000
  F           B- (sf)            29,400,000
  G           NR                 45,500,000
  HRR         NR                 12,100,000

(i)The issuer will issue the certificates to qualified
institutional buyers in line with Rule 144A of the Securities Act
of 1933.
(ii)Notional balance. The class X-CP and X-EXT certificates'
notional amounts will be reduced by the aggregate amount of
principal distributions and realized losses allocated to certain
portions of the class A certificates.
NR--Not rated.


CVP CLO 2017-2: S&P Assigns Prelim BB-(sf) Rating on Cl. E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to CVP CLO
2017-2 Ltd./CVP CLO 2017-2's $367.75 million floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is a collateralized loan obligation
securitization backed by primarily broadly syndicated
speculative-grade senior secured term loans that are governed by
collateral quality tests.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Dec. 18,
2017. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

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

-- The diversified collateral pool, which consists primarily of
broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior secured term loans that
are governed by collateral quality tests;

-- The credit enhancement provided through the subordination of
cash flows, excess spread, and overcollateralization;

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

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

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED
  CVP CLO 2017-2 Ltd./CVP CLO 2017-2  
  Class                Rating          Amount
                                   (mil. $)
  A                    AAA (sf)        238.50
  B                    AA (sf)          67.00
  C (deferrable)       A (sf)           22.25
  D (deferrable)       BBB- (sf)        19.75
  E (deferrable)       BB- (sf)         20.25
  Subordinated notes   NR               40.90

  NR--Not rated.


CWABS REVOLVING 2004-E: Moody's Hikes Cl. 2-A Debt Rating to Ba3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 20 tranches
issued in 10 CWABS and CWHEQ transactions. The underlying
securities' collateral consists primarily of second lien home
equity lines of credit (HELOCs).

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: CWABS Revolving Home Equity Loan Asset Backed Notes, Series
2004-E

Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jun 10, 2010 Downgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. 2-A, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jan 11, 2017 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Revolving Home Equity Loan Asset Backed Notes, Series
2004-F

Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Jun 10, 2010 Downgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. 2-A, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jan 11, 2017 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Revolving Home Equity Loan Asset Backed Notes, Series
2004-K

Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jun 10, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. 2-A, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jan 11, 2017 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Revolving Home Equity Loan Asset Backed Notes, Series
2004-L

Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jan 11, 2017 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. 2-A, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jun 10, 2010
Downgraded to Ca (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Revolving Home Equity Loan Asset Backed Notes, Series
2004-M

Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul 29, 2016 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. 2-A, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jun 10, 2010
Confirmed at Ca (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Revolving Home Equity Loan Asset Backed Notes, Series
2004-N

Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jun 10, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. 2-A, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jun 10, 2010
Downgraded to Ca (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2004-R

Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Nov 8, 2012 Confirmed
at Ca (sf)

Cl. 2-A, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Nov 8, 2012 Confirmed
at Ca (sf)

Issuer: CWABS Revolving Home Equity Loan Asset Backed Notes, Series
2004-D

Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jul 29, 2016 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. 2-A, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jan 11, 2017 Upgraded
to B3 (sf)

Issuer: CWHEQ Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2005-G

Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Aug 13, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. 2-A, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jul 29, 2016 Upgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: CWHEQ Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2005-H

Cl. 1-A, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Aug 13, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. 2-A, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 13, 2010
Downgraded to Ca (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The actions reflect the recent performance of the underlying pools
and Moody's updated loss expectations on the pools. The upgrades
are primarily due to the build-up in credit enhancement available
to the bonds and the faster paydown of the bonds due to excess cash
flow available in these transactions.

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 November 2017 from 4.6% in
November 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.


EAGLE LTD 2014-1: S&P Affirms BB(sf) Rating on Class C Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings affirmed its ratings on Eagle I Ltd.'s series
2014-1 A-1, A-2, B, and C notes.

Eagle I Ltd. is an asset-backed securities (ABS) transaction backed
by a portfolio of 21 Embraer E-Jets and their related leases.

The affirmations on the series A-1 and A-2 notes reflect the rating
of the liquidity provider (DVB Bank SE), paydowns on the notes
since closing, and the portfolio's stable performance. The rating
on DVB Bank SE was lowered to 'BBB' from 'A+' on Dec. 15, 2017. As
a result of the rating action, the highest rating on Eagle I Ltd.
is capped at 'A' for a 'BBB-rated' counterparty classified as
direct support obligation (limited).

The affirmations on the series B and C notes reflect the
portfolio's stable performance and sufficient credit support at
their respective rating levels.

Since the transaction closed in 2014, the notes have received a
combined principal paydown of $135.58 million, $118.78 million of
which was received by the series A-1 and A-2 notes. According to
the Nov. 15, 2017, payment report, the series A-1 notes had $36.97
million outstanding and the series A-2 notes had $112.75 million
outstanding, resulting in note factors of 27% and 85%,
respectively. The combined note factor for the series A-1 and A-2
notes is 56%.

The series A-1, A-2, and B notes are receiving principal according
to their schedule. The series C notes (deferrable), however, are
receiving lower principal paydowns than scheduled, and as of
November 2017, had an unpaid interest amount of $1.77 million,
which we also considered in our analysis.

As of November 2017, the portfolio was backed by 21 aircraft (one
E-170, four E-175s, two E-195s, and 14 E-190s). The number of
aircraft has remained the same since closing. The depreciated lower
of the mean and median of the half-life base value appraisals of
the aircraft as of November 2017 was $382.70 million. Thus, the
loan-to-value ratio for the series A-1 and A-2 notes was 39.12%,
down from 53.97% in 2014.

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

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  Eagle I Ltd. (Series 2014-1)
  Series               Rating
  A-1                  A (sf)
  A-2                  A (sf)     
  B                    BBB (sf)
  C                    BB (sf)


ELEVATION CLO 2017-7: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by Elevation CLO 2017-7, Ltd. (the "Issuer" or
"Elevation 2017-7").

Moody's rating action is:

US$288,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class A Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$54,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class B Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$24,500,000 Class C Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$27,500,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$20,000,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Elevation 2017-7 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will
be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated senior secured
corporate loans. At least 90% of the portfolio must consist of
senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up to 10% of the
portfolio may consist of senior unsecured loans, second lien loans,
and first-lien last-out loans. The portfolio is approximately 80%
ramped as of the closing date.

325 Fillmore LLC (the "Manager") will direct the selection,
acquisition and disposition of the assets on behalf of the Issuer
and may engage in trading activity, including discretionary
trading, during the transaction's 4.5 year reinvestment period.
Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest unscheduled principal payments
and proceeds from sales of credit risk assets, subject to certain
restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer 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): 2669

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.20%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 46.25%

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 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 2669 to 3069)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2669 to 3470)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -4

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1


ELEVATION CLO 2017-8: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating to Cl. F Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to seven
classes of notes to be issued by Elevation CLO 2017-8, Ltd. (the
"Issuer" or "Elevation CLO 2017-8").

Moody's rating action is:

US$254,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$7,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class A-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$42,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class B Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

US$20,000,000 Class C Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

US$26,000,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

US$19,000,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

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

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

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Elevation CLO 2017-8 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes
will be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90.0% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up to
10.0% of the portfolio may consist of senior unsecured loans,
second lien loans and first-lien last-out loans. Moody's expect the
portfolio to be approximately 94% ramped as of the closing date.

325 Fillmore 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 approximately five year
reinvestment period. Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest
unscheduled principal payments and proceeds from sales of credit
risk assets, subject to certain restrictions.

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

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

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in August 2017.

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

Par amount: $400,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2850

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.70%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 5.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 46.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8.75 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: -1

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Class F 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: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1

Class F Notes: -1


FINANCE OF AMERICA 2017-HB1: Moody's Assigns Ba2 Rating to M4 Debt
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned definitive ratings to five
classes of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) issued by
Finance of America Structured Securities Trust 2017-HB1 (FASST
2017-HB1). The ratings range from Aaa (sf) to Ba2 (sf).

The certificates are backed by a pool that includes 2,078 inactive
home equity conversion mortgages (HECMs) and 228 real estate owned
(REO) properties. The servicer for the deal is Finance of America
Reverse LLC.

The complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Finance of America Structured Securities Trust 2017-HB1

Cl. A, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. M1, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

Cl. M2, Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

Cl. M3, Definitive Rating Assigned Baa2 (sf)

Cl. M4, Definitive Rating Assigned Ba2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The collateral backing FASST 2017-HB1 consists of first-lien
inactive HECMs covered by Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
insurance secured by properties in the US along with Real-Estate
Owned (REO) properties acquired through conversion of ownership of
reverse mortgage loans that are covered by FHA insurance. If a
borrower or their estate fails to pay the amount due upon maturity
or otherwise defaults, the sale of the property is used to recover
the amount owed. Finance of America acquired the mortgage assets
from Ginnie Mae sponsored HECM mortgage backed (HMBS)
securitizations. All of the mortgage assets are covered by FHA
insurance for the repayment of principal up to certain amounts.
There are 2,306 mortgage assets with a balance of $419,545,210. The
assets are in either default, due and payable, referred,
foreclosure or REO status. Loans that are in default may move to
due and payable; due and payable loans may move to foreclosure; and
foreclosure loans may move to REO. 12.10% of the assets are in
default of which 0.82% (of the total assets) are in default due to
non-occupancy, 11.28% (of the total assets) are in default due to
taxes and insurance. 26.52% of the assets are due and payable,
45.93% of the assets are in foreclosure, 0.82% of the assets are in
referred status, 5.79% were in active status, and 0.03% were in
bankruptcy status. Finally, 8.82% of the assets are REO properties
and were acquired through foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of
foreclosure on the associated loan. If the value of the related
mortgaged property is greater than the loan amount, some of these
loans may be settled by the borrower or their estate.

Compared to the Nationstar transactions, FASST 2017-HB1 has loans
that have a lower LTV and a greater proportion of properties in
non-judicial states.

Approximately, 12.2% of the mortgage assets are by unpaid principal
balance backed by properties that may have been affected by
Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico HECMs pose additional
risk due to the poor state of the Puerto Rican economy, the
uncertainty in the housing market, the state of the country due to
Hurricane Maria leading to mass exodus, and the bureaucratic
foreclosure process. In addition, Puerto Rico has a tax exoneration
policy that exempts many seniors from property taxes. Due to the
territory's bureaucratic tax exoneration process, it may require a
significant amount of time to liquidate Puerto Rican HECMs with tax
delinquencies. Moody's applied additional stress in Moody's
analysis to account for the risk posed by properties in Puerto
Rico.

In addition, 8.2% of the mortgage assets by unpaid principal
balance are backed by properties in areas that have been affected
by Hurricane Harvey or Hurricane Irma (FEMA Zone).

Moody's credit ratings reflect state-specific foreclosure timeline
stresses as well as adjustments for risks associated with the
recent hurricanes.

Servicing

Finance of America Reverse LLC will be the named servicer under the
sale and servicing agreement. Finance of America has the necessary
processes, staff, technology and overall infrastructure in place to
effectively oversee the servicing of this transaction.

Finance of America will use Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. (RMS)
and Compu-Link Corporation, d/b/a Celink (Celink) as subservicers
to service the mortgage assets. RMS will subservice 49.28% of the
pool and Celink 50.72%. Based on operational review of Finance of
America, it has strong subservicing monitoring processes, seasoned
servicing oversight team and direct system access to subservicers
core systems.

On November 30, 2017, RMS' corporate parent Walter Investment
Management Corp. (Walter) filed a pre-packaged plan of
reorganization under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy
Code. Although, RMS is expected to remain out of the chapter 11
filing, there is uncertainty as to the overall impact that Walter's
filing may have on RMS and it servicing operations.

To mitigate the risk, Finance of America has engaged Celink as a
backup subservicer for RMS and Celink will assume RMS's
subservicing duties should RMS fail to perform its obligations
under its subservicing agreement. The subservicing agreement
between Finance of America and RMS will automatically terminate at
the end of each thirty (30) day period reducing the operational
risk should RMS go into bankruptcy. If RMS is terminated as
subservicer, Celink will complete a servicing transfer of the loans
in the pool from RMS within 90 days following termination. Celink
has mapped RMS' portfolio for easier transfer. Moody's have taken
these factors into consideration in Moody's analysis and increased
foreclosure timelines by three months for loans subserviced by
RMS.

Transaction Structure

The securitization has a sequential liability structure amongst six
classes of notes with overcollateralization and structural
subordination. All funds collected, prior to an acceleration event,
are used to make interest payments to the notes, then principal
payments to the Class A notes, then to a redemption account until
the amount on deposit in the redemption account is sufficient to
cover future principal and interest payments for the subordinate
notes up to their expected final payment dates. The subordinate
notes will not receive principal until the beginning of their
respective target amortization periods (in the absence of an
acceleration event). The notes benefit from overcollateralization
and structural subordination as credit enhancement, and an interest
reserve account and the M5 initial interest payment account funded
with cash received from the initial purchasers of the notes for
liquidity and credit enhancement.

The transaction is callable on or after six months with a 1.0%
premium and on or after 12 months without a premium. The mandatory
call date for the Class A notes is in November 2019. For the Class
M1 notes, the expected final payment date is in April 2020. For the
Class M2 notes, the expected final payment date is in June 2020.
For the Class M3 notes, the expected final payment date is in
August 2020. For the Class M4 notes, the expected final payment
date is in October 2020. For the Class M5 notes, the expected final
payment date is in January 2021. For each of the subordinate notes,
there are various target amortization periods that conclude on the
respective expected final payment dates. The legal stated maturity
of the transaction is 10 years.

Available funds to the transaction are expected to primarily come
from the liquidation of REO properties and receipt of FHA insurance
claims. These funds will be received with irregular timing. In the
event that there are insufficient funds to pay interest in a given
period, the interest reserve account or the M5 initial interest
payment account may be utilized. Additionally, any shortfall in
interest will be classified as a cap carryover. These cap carryover
amounts will have priority of payments in the waterfall and will
also accrue interest at the respective note rate.

Certain aspects of the waterfall are dependent upon Finance of
America remaining as servicer. Servicing fees and servicer related
reimbursements are subordinated to interest and principal payments
while Finance of America is servicer. However, servicing advances
will instead have priority over interest and principal payments in
the event that Finance of America defaults and a new servicer is
appointed.

Moody's analysis considers the expected loss to investors by the
legal final maturity date, which is ten years from closing, and not
by certain acceleration dates that may occur earlier. Moody's noted
the presence of automatic acceleration events for failure to pay
the Class A notes by the Class A mandatory call date, failure to
pay the classes of Class M notes by their expected final payment
dates, and the failure to pay the classes of Class M notes their
targeted amortization amounts. The occurrence of any of these
acceleration events would not by itself lead us to bring the
outstanding rating to a level consistent with impairment, because
such event would not necessarily be indicative of an economic
distress. Furthermore these acceleration events lack effective
legal consequences other than changing payment priorities and
interest rates, which are modeled in Moody's analysis. Liquidation
of the collateral would require 100% consent of any class of notes
that would not be paid in full.

Third-Party Review

A third party firm conducted a review of certain characteristics of
the mortgage assets on behalf of Finance of America. The review
focused on data integrity, FHA insurance coverage verification,
accuracy of appraisal recording, accuracy of occupancy status
recording, borrower age documentation, identification of excessive
corporate advances, documentation of servicer advances, and
identification of tax liens with first priority in Texas. Also,
broker price opinions (BPOs) were ordered for 344 properties in the
pool.

The TPR firm conducted an extensive data integrity review. Certain
data tape fields, such as the MIP rate, the current UPB, current
interest rate, and marketable title date were reviewed against
Finance of America's servicing system. However, a significant
number of data tape fields were reviewed against imaged copies of
original documents of record, screen shots of HUD's HERMIT system,
or HUD documents. Some key fields reviewed in this manner included
the original note rate, the debenture rate, foreclosure first legal
date, and the called due date.

Reps & Warranties (R&W)

Finance of America is the loan-level R&W provider. Finance of
America is unrated. This risk is mitigated by the fact that a
third-party due diligence firm conducted a review on the loans for
evidence of FHA insurance.

Finance of America represents that the mortgage loans are covered
by FHA insurance that is in full force and effect. Finance of
America provides further R&Ws including those for title, first lien
position, enforceability of the lien, regulatory compliance, and
the condition of the property. Finance of America provides a no
fraud R&W covering the origination of the mortgage loans,
determination of value of the mortgaged properties, and the sale
and servicing of the mortgage loans. Although certain
representations are knowledge qualified, the transaction documents
contain language specifying that if a representation would have
been breached if not for the knowledge qualifier then Finance of
America will repurchase the relevant asset as if the representation
had been breached.

Upon the identification of an R&W breach, Finance of America has to
cure the breach. If Finance of America is unable to cure the
breach, Finance of America must repurchase the loan within 90 days
from receiving the notification. Moody's believe the absence of an
independent third party reviewer who can identify any breaches to
the R&W makes the enforcement mechanism weak in this transaction.

When analyzing the transaction, Moody's reviewed the transaction's
exposure to large potential indemnification payments owed to
transaction parties due to potential lawsuits. In particular,
Moody's assessed the risk that the acquisition trustee would be
subject to lawsuits from investors for a failure to adequately
enforce the R&Ws against the Seller. Moody's believe that FASST
2017-HB1 is adequately protected against such risk in part because
a third-party data integrity review was conducted on a significant
random sample of the loans. In addition, the third-party due
diligence firm verified that all of the loans in the pool are
covered by FHA insurance.

Trustees

The acquisition and owner trustee for the FASST 2017-HB1
transaction is Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB. The paying
agent and cash management functions will be performed by U.S. Bank
National Association. U.S. Bank National Association will also
serve as the claims payment agent and as such will be the HUD
mortgagee of record for the mortgage assets in the pool.

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 "Moody's Global Approach to
Rating Reverse Mortgage Securitizations," published in May 2015.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's quantitative asset analysis is based on a loan-by-loan
modeling of expected payout amounts and timing of payouts given the
structure of FHA insurance and with various stresses applied to
model parameters depending on the target rating level. However, the
modeling assumptions are different for the Puerto Rican portion of
the pool and the portion of the pool located in areas affected by
Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

FHA insurance claim types: Funds come into the transaction
primarily through the sale of REO properties and through FHA
insurance claim receipts. There are uncertainties related to the
extent and timing of insurance proceeds received by the trust due
to the mechanics of the FHA insurance. HECM mortgagees may suffer
losses if a property is sold for less than its appraised value.

The amount of insurance proceeds received from the FHA depends on
whether a sales based claim (SBC) or appraisal based claim (ABC) is
filed. SBCs are filed in cases where the property is successfully
sold within the first six months after the servicer has acquired
it. ABCs are filed six months after the servicer has obtained
marketable title if the property has not yet been sold. For an SBC,
HUD insurance will cover the difference between (i) the loan
balance and (ii) the higher of the sales price and 95.0% of the
latest appraisal, with the transaction bearing losses if the sales
price is lower than 95.0% of the latest appraisal. For an ABC, HUD
only covers the difference between the loan amount and 100% of the
appraised value, so failure to sell the property at the appraised
value results in loss.

Moody's expect ABCs to have higher levels of losses than SBCs. The
fact that there is a delay in the sale of the property usually
implies some adverse characteristics associated with the property.
FHA insurance will not protect against losses to the extent that an
ABC property is sold at a price lower than the appraisal value
taken at the six month mark of REO. Additionally, ABCs do not cover
the cost to sell properties (broker fees) while SBCs do cover these
costs. For SBCs, broker fees are reimbursable up to 6.0%
ordinarily. Moody's base case expectation is that properties will
be sold for 13.5% less than their appraisal value for ABCs. To make
this assumption, Moody's considered industry data and the
historical experience of Finance of America. Moody's stressed this
percentage at higher credit rating levels. In a Aaa scenario,
Moody's assumed that these ABC appraisal haircuts could reach up to
30.0%.

In Moody's asset analysis, Moody's also assumed there would be some
losses for SBCs, albeit lower amounts than for ABCs. Based on
historical performance, in the base case scenario Moody's assumed
that SBCs would suffer 1.0% losses due to a failure to sell the
property for an amount equal to or greater than 95.0% of the most
recent appraisal. Moody's stressed this percentage at higher credit
rating levels. In a Aaa scenario, Moody's assumed that SBC
appraisal haircuts could reach up to 11.0% (i.e., 6.0% below
95.0%).

Under Moody's analytical approach, each loan is modeled to go
through both the ABC and SBC process with a certain probability.
Each loan will thus have both ABC and SBC sales disposition
payments and associated insurance payments (four payments in
total). All payments are then probability weighted and run through
a modeled liability structure. Moody's considered industry data and
the historical experience of Finance of America in Moody's
analysis. For the base case scenario, Moody's assumed that 85% of
claims would be SBCs and the rest would be ABCs. Moody's stressed
this assumption and assumed higher ABC percentages for higher
rating levels. At a Aaa rating level, Moody's assumed that 85% of
insurance claims would be submitted as ABCs.

Liquidation process: Each asset is categorized into one of four
categories: default, due and payable, foreclosure and REO. In
Moody's analysis, Moody's assume loans that are in referred status
to be either in the foreclosure or REO category. The loans are
assumed to move through each of these stages until being sold out
of REO. Moody's assumed that loans would be in default status for
six months. Due and payable status is expected to last six to 12
months depending on the default reason. REO disposition is assumed
to take place in six months for SBCs and 12 months for ABCs.

The timeline for foreclosure status is based on the state in which
the related property is located. To arrive at the base case
foreclosure timeline, Moody's considered the FHA foreclosure
diligence time frames (per HUD guidelines as of February 5, 2016)
and the historical foreclosure timeline information provided by
FAR. Moody's stress state foreclosure timelines by a multiplicative
factor for various rating levels (e.g., state foreclosure timelines
are multiplied by 1.6x for Moody's Aaa level rating stress).

Debenture interest: The receipt of debenture interest is dependent
upon performance of certain actions within certain timelines by the
servicer. If these timeline and performance benchmarks are not met
by the servicer, debenture interest is subject to curtailment.
Moody's base case assumption is that 95.0% of debenture interest
will be received by the trust. Moody's stressed the amount of
debenture interest that will be received at higher rating levels.
Moody's debenture interest assumptions reflect the requirement that
Finance of America reimburse the trust for debenture interest
curtailments due to servicing errors or failures to comply with HUD
guidelines. However, the transaction documents do not specify a
required time frame within which the servicer must reimburse the
trust for debenture interest curtailments. As such, there may be a
delay between when insurance payments are received and when
debenture interest curtailments are reimbursed. Moody's debenture
interest assumptions take this into consideration.

Additional model features: Moody's incorporated certain additional
considerations into Moody's analysis, including the following:

In most cases, the most recent appraisal value was used as the
property value in Moody's analysis. However, for seasoned
appraisals Moody's applied a 15.0% haircut to account for potential
home price depreciation between the time of the appraisal and the
cut-off date.

Mortgage loans with borrowers that have significant equity in their
homes are likely to be paid off by the borrowers or their heirs
rather than complete the foreclosure process. Moody's estimated
which loans would be bought out of the trust by comparing each
loan's appraisal value (post haircut) to its UPB.

Moody's assumed that foreclosure costs will average $4,500 per
loan, two thirds of which will be reimbursed by the FHA. Moody's
then applied a negative adjustment to this amount based on the TPR
results.

Moody's increased timeline calculations for taxes and insurance
defaulted loans to reflect historical data.

Moody's estimated monthly tax and insurance advances based on
cumulative tax and insurance advances to date.

Moody's also ran additional stress scenarios that were designed to
mimic expected cash flows in the scenario where Finance of America
is no longer the servicer. Moody's assumed the following in such a
scenario:

Servicing advances and servicing fees: while Finance of America
subordinates their recoupment of servicing advances, servicing
fees, and MIP payments; a replacement servicer will not subordinate
these amounts.

Finance of America indemnifies the trust for lost debenture
interest due to servicing errors or failure to comply with HUD
guidelines. In an event of bankruptcy, Finance of America went will
not have the financial capacity to do so.

A replacement servicer may require an additional fee and thus
Moody's assume a 25 bps strip will take effect if the servicer is
replaced.

One third of foreclosure costs will be removed from sales proceeds
to reimburse a replacement servicer for such advances (one third of
foreclosure costs are not reimbursable under FHA insurance). This
is typically on the order of $1,500 per loan.

Moody's has increased foreclosure timelines by three months for RMS
subserviced loans in Moody's analysis. Celink is backup servicer
for RMS. If RMS is terminated as subservicer by FAR it will take 90
days for transfer servicing from RMS to Celink.

To account for risks posed by the recent hurricanes Irma and
Harvey, Moody's considered the following:

To account for delays in the foreclosure process due to the
hurricanes, Moody's added a full 180 days for HUD foreclosure
moratorium and scaled the impact down the rating levels.

For properties located in hurricane impacted areas, Moody's assumed
that a higher percentage of insurance claims would be submitted as
ABCs as a result of the hurricanes.

For properties located in hurricane impacted areas, Moody's
increased the amount of non-reimbursable expenses that Moody's
expect would be incurred by a replacement servicer following a
servicer termination event.

For properties located in hurricane impacted areas, Moody's
increased timeline calculations for taxes and insurance defaulted
loans to reflect historical data.

For properties in the hurricane area that were confirmed damaged or
pending status, Moody's increased the amount of non-reimbursable
expenses resulting from the cost of repair.

Furthermore, to account for risks posed by Puerto Rico loans,
Moody's considered the following:

To account for delays in the foreclosure process in Puerto Rico due
to the hurricanes, Moody's used five years as Moody's full stress
foreclosure timeline, which accounts for the 180 day foreclosure
moratorium, and scaled the impact down the rating levels.

For properties located in Puerto Rico, Moody's assumed that all
insurance claims would be submitted as an ABC as a result of the
hurricanes. In addition, Moody's assumed that properties will sell
significantly lower than their appraised values. Moody's also
increased the amount of non-reimbursable expenses that Moody's
expect would be incurred by a replacement servicer following a
servicer termination event. Furthermore, Moody's assumed increased
foreclosure costs taking into consideration historical data.

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

Up

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

Down

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


FINANCE OF AMERICA 2017-HB1: Moody's Rates Cl. M4 Debt '(P)Ba2'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to five
classes of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) issued by
Finance of America Structured Securities Trust 2017-HB1 (FASST
2017-HB1). The ratings range from (P)Aaa (sf) to (P)Ba2 (sf).

The certificates are backed by a pool that includes 2,078 inactive
home equity conversion mortgages (HECMs) and 228 real estate owned
(REO) properties. The servicer for the deal is Finance of America
Reverse LLC. The complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Finance of America Structured Securities Trust 2017-HB1

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

Cl. M1, Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

Cl. M2, Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

Cl. M3, Assigned (P)Baa2 (sf)

Cl. M4, Assigned (P)Ba2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The collateral backing FASST 2017-HB1 consists of first-lien
inactive HECMs covered by Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
insurance secured by properties in the US along with Real-Estate
Owned (REO) properties acquired through conversion of ownership of
reverse mortgage loans that are covered by FHA insurance. If a
borrower or their estate fails to pay the amount due upon maturity
or otherwise defaults, the sale of the property is used to recover
the amount owed. Finance of America acquired the mortgage assets
from Ginnie Mae sponsored HECM mortgage backed (HMBS)
securitizations. All of the mortgage assets are covered by FHA
insurance for the repayment of principal up to certain amounts.
There are 2,306 mortgage assets with a balance of $419,545,210. The
assets are in either default, due and payable, referred,
foreclosure or REO status. Loans that are in default may move to
due and payable; due and payable loans may move to foreclosure; and
foreclosure loans may move to REO. 12.10% of the assets are in
default of which 0.82% (of the total assets) are in default due to
non-occupancy, 11.28% (of the total assets) are in default due to
taxes and insurance. 26.52% of the assets are due and payable,
45.93% of the assets are in foreclosure, 0.82% of the assets are in
referred status, 5.79% were in active status, and 0.03% were in
bankruptcy status. Finally, 8.82% of the assets are REO properties
and were acquired through foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of
foreclosure on the associated loan. If the value of the related
mortgaged property is greater than the loan amount, some of these
loans may be settled by the borrower or their estate.

Compared to the Nationstar transactions, FASST 2017-HB1 has loans
that have a lower LTV and a greater proportion of properties in
non-judicial states.

Approximately, 12.2% of the mortgage assets are by unpaid principal
balance backed by properties that may have been affected by
Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico HECMs pose additional
risk due to the poor state of the Puerto Rican economy, the
uncertainty in the housing market, the state of the country due to
Hurricane Maria leading to mass exodus, and the bureaucratic
foreclosure process. In addition, Puerto Rico has a tax exoneration
policy that exempts many seniors from property taxes. Due to the
territory's bureaucratic tax exoneration process, it may require a
significant amount of time to liquidate Puerto Rican HECMs with tax
delinquencies. Moody's applied additional stress in Moody's
analysis to account for the risk posed by properties in Puerto
Rico.

In addition, 8.2% of the mortgage assets by unpaid principal
balance are backed by properties in areas that have been affected
by Hurricane Harvey or Hurricane Irma (FEMA Zone).

Moody's credit ratings reflect state-specific foreclosure timeline
stresses as well as adjustments for risks associated with the
recent hurricanes.

Servicing

Finance of America Reverse LLC will be the named servicer under the
sale and servicing agreement. Finance of America has the necessary
processes, staff, technology and overall infrastructure in place to
effectively oversee the servicing of this transaction. Finance of
America will use Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. (RMS) and
Compu-Link Corporation, d/b/a Celink (Celink) as subservicers to
service the mortgage assets. RMS will subservice 49.28% of the pool
and Celink 50.72%. Based on operational review of Finance of
America, it has strong subservicing monitoring processes, seasoned
servicing oversight team and direct system access to subservicers
core systems.

On November 30, 2017, RMS' corporate parent Walter Investment
Management Corp (Walter) filed a pre-packaged plan of
reorganization under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy
Code. Although, RMS is expected to remain out of the chapter 11
filing, there is uncertainty as to the overall impact that Walter's
filing may have on RMS and it servicing operations.

To mitigate the risk, Finance of America has engaged Celink as a
backup subservicer for RMS and Celink will assume RMS's
subservicing duties should RMS fail to perform its obligations
under its subservicing agreement. The subservicing agreement
between Finance of America and RMS will automatically terminate at
the end of each thirty (30) day period reducing the operational
risk should RMS go into bankruptcy. If RMS is terminated as
subservicer, Celink will complete a servicing transfer of the loans
in the pool from RMS within 90 days following termination. Celink
has mapped RMS' portfolio for easier transfer. Moody's have taken
these factors into consideration in Moody's analysis and increased
foreclosure timelines by three months for loans subserviced by
RMS.

Transaction Structure

The securitization has a sequential liability structure amongst six
classes of notes with overcollateralization and structural
subordination. All funds collected, prior to an acceleration event,
are used to make interest payments to the notes, then principal
payments to the Class A notes, then to a redemption account until
the amount on deposit in the redemption account is sufficient to
cover future principal and interest payments for the subordinate
notes up to their expected final payment dates. The subordinate
notes will not receive principal until the beginning of their
respective target amortization periods (in the absence of an
acceleration event). The notes benefit from overcollateralization
and structural subordination as credit enhancement, and an interest
reserve account and the M5 initial interest payment account funded
with cash received from the initial purchasers of the notes for
liquidity and credit enhancement.

The transaction is callable on or after six months with a 1.0%
premium and on or after 12 months without a premium. The mandatory
call date for the Class A notes is in November 2019. For the Class
M1 notes, the expected final payment date is in April 2020. For the
Class M2 notes, the expected final payment date is in June 2020.
For the Class M3 notes, the expected final payment date is in
August 2020. For the Class M4 notes, the expected final payment
date is in October 2020. For the Class M5 notes, the expected final
payment date is in January 2021. For each of the subordinate notes,
there are various target amortization periods that conclude on the
respective expected final payment dates. The legal stated maturity
of the transaction is 10 years.

Available funds to the transaction are expected to primarily come
from the liquidation of REO properties and receipt of FHA insurance
claims. These funds will be received with irregular timing. In the
event that there are insufficient funds to pay interest in a given
period, the interest reserve account or the M5 initial interest
payment account may be utilized. Additionally, any shortfall in
interest will be classified as a cap carryover. These cap carryover
amounts will have priority of payments in the waterfall and will
also accrue interest at the respective note rate.

Certain aspects of the waterfall are dependent upon Finance of
America remaining as servicer. Servicing fees and servicer related
reimbursements are subordinated to interest and principal payments
while Finance of America is servicer. However, servicing advances
will instead have priority over interest and principal payments in
the event that Finance of America defaults and a new servicer is
appointed.

Moody's analysis considers the expected loss to investors by the
legal final maturity date, which is ten years from closing, and not
by certain acceleration dates that may occur earlier. Moody's noted
the presence of automatic acceleration events for failure to pay
the Class A notes by the Class A mandatory call date, failure to
pay the classes of Class M notes by their expected final payment
dates, and the failure to pay the classes of Class M notes their
targeted amortization amounts. The occurrence of any of these
acceleration events would not by itself lead us to bring the
outstanding rating to a level consistent with impairment, because
such event would not necessarily be indicative of an economic
distress. Furthermore these acceleration events lack effective
legal consequences other than changing payment priorities and
interest rates, which are modeled in Moody's analysis. Liquidation
of the collateral would require 100% consent of any class of notes
that would not be paid in full.

Third-Party Review

A third party firm conducted a review of certain characteristics of
the mortgage assets on behalf of Finance of America. The review
focused on data integrity, FHA insurance coverage verification,
accuracy of appraisal recording, accuracy of occupancy status
recording, borrower age documentation, identification of excessive
corporate advances, documentation of servicer advances, and
identification of tax liens with first priority in Texas. Also,
broker price opinions (BPOs) were ordered for 344 properties in the
pool.

The TPR firm conducted an extensive data integrity review. Certain
data tape fields, such as the MIP rate, the current UPB, current
interest rate, and marketable title date were reviewed against
Finance of America's servicing system. However, a significant
number of data tape fields were reviewed against imaged copies of
original documents of record, screen shots of HUD's HERMIT system,
or HUD documents. Some key fields reviewed in this manner included
the original note rate, the debenture rate, foreclosure first legal
date, and the called due date.

Reps & Warranties (R&W)

Finance of America is the loan-level R&W provider. Finance of
America is unrated. This risk is mitigated by the fact that a
third-party due diligence firm conducted a review on the loans for
evidence of FHA insurance.

Finance of America represents that the mortgage loans are covered
by FHA insurance that is in full force and effect. Finance of
America provides further R&Ws including those for title, first lien
position, enforceability of the lien, regulatory compliance, and
the condition of the property. Finance of America provides a no
fraud R&W covering the origination of the mortgage loans,
determination of value of the mortgaged properties, and the sale
and servicing of the mortgage loans. Although certain
representations are knowledge qualified, the transaction documents
contain language specifying that if a representation would have
been breached if not for the knowledge qualifier then Finance of
America will repurchase the relevant asset as if the representation
had been breached.

Upon the identification of an R&W breach, Finance of America has to
cure the breach. If Finance of America is unable to cure the
breach, Finance of America must repurchase the loan within 90 days
from receiving the notification. Moody's believe the absence of an
independent third party reviewer who can identify any breaches to
the R&W makes the enforcement mechanism weak in this transaction.

When analyzing the transaction, Moody's reviewed the transaction's
exposure to large potential indemnification payments owed to
transaction parties due to potential lawsuits. In particular,
Moody's assessed the risk that the acquisition trustee would be
subject to lawsuits from investors for a failure to adequately
enforce the R&Ws against the Seller. Moody's believe that FASST
2017-HB1 is adequately protected against such risk in part because
a third-party data integrity review was conducted on a significant
random sample of the loans. In addition, the third-party due
diligence firm verified that all of the loans in the pool are
covered by FHA insurance.

Trustees

The acquisition and owner trustee for the FASST 2017-HB1
transaction is Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB. The paying
agent and cash management functions will be performed by U.S. Bank
National Association. U.S. Bank National Association will also
serve as the claims payment agent and as such will be the HUD
mortgagee of record for the mortgage assets in the pool.

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 "Moody's Global Approach to
Rating Reverse Mortgage Securitizations" published in May 2015.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's quantitative asset analysis is based on a loan-by-loan
modeling of expected payout amounts and timing of payouts given the
structure of FHA insurance and with various stresses applied to
model parameters depending on the target rating level. However, the
modeling assumptions are different for the Puerto Rican portion of
the pool and the portion of the pool located in areas affected by
Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

FHA insurance claim types: Funds come into the transaction
primarily through the sale of REO properties and through FHA
insurance claim receipts. There are uncertainties related to the
extent and timing of insurance proceeds received by the trust due
to the mechanics of the FHA insurance. HECM mortgagees may suffer
losses if a property is sold for less than its appraised value.

The amount of insurance proceeds received from the FHA depends on
whether a sales based claim (SBC) or appraisal based claim (ABC) is
filed. SBCs are filed in cases where the property is successfully
sold within the first six months after the servicer has acquired
it. ABCs are filed six months after the servicer has obtained
marketable title if the property has not yet been sold. For an SBC,
HUD insurance will cover the difference between (i) the loan
balance and (ii) the higher of the sales price and 95.0% of the
latest appraisal, with the transaction bearing losses if the sales
price is lower than 95.0% of the latest appraisal. For an ABC, HUD
only covers the difference between the loan amount and 100% of the
appraised value, so failure to sell the property at the appraised
value results in loss.

Moody's expect ABCs to have higher levels of losses than SBCs. The
fact that there is a delay in the sale of the property usually
implies some adverse characteristics associated with the property.
FHA insurance will not protect against losses to the extent that an
ABC property is sold at a price lower than the appraisal value
taken at the six month mark of REO. Additionally, ABCs do not cover
the cost to sell properties (broker fees) while SBCs do cover these
costs. For SBCs, broker fees are reimbursable up to 6.0%
ordinarily. Moody's base case expectation is that properties will
be sold for 13.5% less than their appraisal value for ABCs. To make
this assumption, Moody's considered industry data and the
historical experience of Finance of America. Moody's stressed this
percentage at higher credit rating levels. In a Aaa scenario,
Moody's assumed that these ABC appraisal haircuts could reach up to
30.0%.

In Moody's asset analysis, Moody's also assumed there would be some
losses for SBCs, albeit lower amounts than for ABCs. Based on
historical performance, in the base case scenario Moody's assumed
that SBCs would suffer 1.0% losses due to a failure to sell the
property for an amount equal to or greater than 95.0% of the most
recent appraisal. Moody's stressed this percentage at higher credit
rating levels. In a Aaa scenario, Moody's assumed that SBC
appraisal haircuts could reach up to 11.0% (i.e., 6.0% below
95.0%).

Under Moody's analytical approach, each loan is modeled to go
through both the ABC and SBC process with a certain probability.
Each loan will thus have both ABC and SBC sales disposition
payments and associated insurance payments (four payments in
total). All payments are then probability weighted and run through
a modeled liability structure. Moody's considered industry data and
the historical experience of Finance of America in Moody's
analysis. For the base case scenario, Moody's assumed that 85% of
claims would be SBCs and the rest would be ABCs. Moody's stressed
this assumption and assumed higher ABC percentages for higher
rating levels. At a Aaa rating level, Moody's assumed that 85% of
insurance claims would be submitted as ABCs.

Liquidation process: Each asset is categorized into one of four
categories: default, due and payable, foreclosure and REO. In
Moody's analysis, Moody's assume loans that are in referred status
to be either in the foreclosure or REO category. The loans are
assumed to move through each of these stages until being sold out
of REO. Moody's assumed that loans would be in default status for
six months. Due and payable status is expected to last six to 12
months depending on the default reason. REO disposition is assumed
to take place in six months for SBCs and 12 months for ABCs.

The timeline for foreclosure status is based on the state in which
the related property is located. To arrive at the base case
foreclosure timeline, Moody's considered the FHA foreclosure
diligence time frames (per HUD guidelines as of February 5, 2016)
and the historical foreclosure timeline information provided by
Finance of America. Moody's stress state foreclosure timelines by a
multiplicative factor for various rating levels (e.g., state
foreclosure timelines are multiplied by 1.6x for Moody's Aaa level
rating stress).

Debenture interest: The receipt of debenture interest is dependent
upon performance of certain actions within certain timelines by the
servicer. If these timeline and performance benchmarks are not met
by the servicer, debenture interest is subject to curtailment.
Moody's base case assumption is that 95.0% of debenture interest
will be received by the trust. Moody's stressed the amount of
debenture interest that will be received at higher rating levels.
Moody's debenture interest assumptions reflect the requirement that
Finance of America reimburse the trust for debenture interest
curtailments due to servicing errors or failures to comply with HUD
guidelines. However, the transaction documents do not specify a
required time frame within which the servicer must reimburse the
trust for debenture interest curtailments. As such, there may be a
delay between when insurance payments are received and when
debenture interest curtailments are reimbursed. Moody's debenture
interest assumptions take this into consideration.

Additional model features: Moody's incorporated certain additional
considerations into Moody's analysis, including the following:

In most cases, the most recent appraisal value was used as the
property value in Moody's analysis. However, for seasoned
appraisals Moody's applied a 15.0% haircut to account for potential
home price depreciation between the time of the appraisal and the
cut-off date.

Mortgage loans with borrowers that have significant equity in their
homes are likely to be paid off by the borrowers or their heirs
rather than complete the foreclosure process. Moody's estimated
which loans would be bought out of the trust by comparing each
loan's appraisal value (post haircut) to its UPB.

Moody's assumed that foreclosure costs will average $4,500 per
loan, two thirds of which will be reimbursed by the FHA. Moody's
then applied a negative adjustment to this amount based on the TPR
results.

Moody's increased timeline calculations for taxes and insurance
defaulted loans to reflect historical data.

Moody's estimated monthly tax and insurance advances based on
cumulative tax and insurance advances to date.

Moody's also ran additional stress scenarios that were designed to
mimic expected cash flows in the scenario where Finance of America
is no longer the servicer. Moody's assumed the following in such a
scenario:

Servicing advances and servicing fees: while Finance of America
subordinates their recoupment of servicing advances, servicing
fees, and MIP payments; a replacement servicer will not subordinate
these amounts.

Finance of America indemnifies the trust for lost debenture
interest due to servicing errors or failure to comply with HUD
guidelines. In an event of bankruptcy, Finance of America went will
not have the financial capacity to do so.

A replacement servicer may require an additional fee and thus
Moody's assume a 25 bps strip will take effect if the servicer is
replaced.

One third of foreclosure costs will be removed from sales proceeds
to reimburse a replacement servicer for such advances (one third of
foreclosure costs are not reimbursable under FHA insurance). This
is typically on the order of $1,500 per loan.

Moody's has increased foreclosure timelines by three months for RMS
subserviced loans in Moody's analysis. Celink is backup servicer
for RMS. If RMS is terminated as subservicer by Finance of America
it will take 90 days for transfer servicing from RMS to Celink.

To account for risks posed by the recent hurricanes Irma and
Harvey, Moody's considered the following:

To account for delays in the foreclosure process due to the
hurricanes, Moody's added a full 180 days for HUD foreclosure
moratorium and scaled the impact down the rating levels.

For properties located in hurricane impacted areas, Moody's assumed
that a higher percentage of insurance claims would be submitted as
ABCs as a result of the hurricanes.

For properties located in hurricane impacted areas, Moody's
increased the amount of non-reimbursable expenses that Moody's
expect would be incurred by a replacement servicer following a
servicer termination event.

For properties located in hurricane impacted areas, Moody's
increased timeline calculations for taxes and insurance defaulted
loans to reflect historical data.

For properties in the hurricane area that were confirmed damaged or
pending status, Moody's increased the amount of non reimbursable
expenses resulting from the cost of repair.

Furthermore, to account for risks posed by Puerto Rico loans,
Moody's considered the following:

To account for delays in the foreclosure process in Puerto Rico due
to the hurricanes, Moody's used five years as Moody's full stress
foreclosure timeline, which accounts for the 180 day foreclosure
moratorium, and scaled the impact down the rating levels.

For properties located in Puerto Rico, Moody's assumed that all
insurance claims would be submitted as an ABC as a result of the
hurricanes. In addition, Moody's assumed that properties will sell
significantly lower than their appraised values. Moody's also
increased the amount of non-reimbursable expenses that Moody's
expect would be incurred by a replacement servicer following a
servicer termination event. Furthermore, Moody's assumed increased
foreclosure costs taking into consideration historical data.

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

Up

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

Down

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



FIRST INVESTORS 2016-2: S&P Affirms BB(sf) Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on three classes and affirmed
its ratings on nine classes from two First Investors Auto Owner
Trust (FIAOT) transactions issued in 2016.

The collateral pools for the FIAOT transactions comprise auto loan
receivables that were originated to mainly subprime borrowers.

S&P said, "The rating actions reflect each transaction's collateral
performance to date and our expectations regarding future
collateral performance, as well as each transaction's structure and
credit enhancement levels. Additionally, we incorporated secondary
credit factors, including credit stability, payment priorities
under various scenarios, and sector and issuer-specific analyses.
Considering these factors, we believe the notes' creditworthiness
is consistent with the raised and affirmed ratings.

"These two transactions are experiencing higher gross losses and
lower recovery rates to date resulting in higher cumulative net
losses (CNLs) than we originally expected. As a result, we revised
our expected CNLs upward in October and December 2017. We expect
CNLs to be in the 11.00%-11.50% range for the series 2016-1 pool
and 12.00%-12.50% for the series 2016-2 pool.

"Nonetheless, since each transaction closed, the credit support for
each class has increased as a percentage of the amortizing pool
balance and is, in our view, adequate to support the raised or
affirmed ratings."

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

                    Pool   Current       60+ days
  Series   Month  factor       CNL  delinquencies
  2016-1   21      51.75      6.13           4.15
  2016-2   14      69.06      4.39           3.50

  CNL--Cumulative net loss.

  Table 2
  CNL Expectations (%)
  As of the November 2017 distribution date

              Initial            Current
              lifetime           lifetime
  Series      CNL exp.           CNL exp.
  2016-1      9.25-9.75          11.00-11.50(i)
  2016-2      9.00-9.50          12.00-12.50

  (i)Revised as of October 2017.
  CNL exp. -- Cumulative net loss expectation.

Each transaction contains a sequential principal payment structure
in which the notes are paid principal by seniority. Each also has
credit enhancement in the form of a nonamortizing reserve account,
overcollateralization, subordination for the higher-rated tranches,
and excess spread. The credit enhancement for each of the
transactions is at the specified target. The credit enhancement
levels have grown for all of the outstanding classes as a
percentage of their current collateral balances and are a major
consideration behind the upgrades and affirmations.

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

                                                   Current
                          Total hard            total hard
                      credit support    credit support(ii)
  Series      Class   at issuance(i)        (% of current)
  2016-1      A(iii)           26.90                 55.41
  2016-1      B                21.65                 45.26
  2016-1      C                13.80                 30.07
  2016-1      D                 6.95                 16.83
  2016-1      E                 2.10                  7.45
  2016-2      A(iii)           25.50                 42.08
  2016-2      B                20.63                 35.02
  2016-2      C                12.63                 23.44
  2016-2      D                 5.98                 13.81
  2016-2      E                 1.50                  7.32

(i)Consists of a reserve account and overcollateralization as well
as subordination for the higher-rated tranches and excludes excess
spread, which can also provide additional enhancement.
(ii)Calculated as a percent of the total gross receivables pool
balance.
(iii)Class A consists of the class A-1 and A-2 notes.

S&P said, "We incorporated cash flow analysis to assess the loss
coverage levels, giving credit to excess spread. Our various cash
flow scenarios included forward-looking assumptions on recoveries,
timing of losses, and voluntary absolute prepayment speeds that we
believe are appropriate given each transaction's performance to
date. Aside from our break-even cash flow analysis, we also
conducted sensitivity analyses for these series to determine the
impact that a moderate ('BBB') stress scenario would have on our
ratings if losses began trending higher than our revised base-case
loss expectation.

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

  RATINGS RAISED

  First Investors Auto Owner Trust
                           Rating
  Series    Class     To          From
  2016-1    B         AA+ (sf)    AA (sf)
  2016-1    C         AA (sf)     A (sf)
  2016-1    D         A- (sf)     BBB (sf)

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  First Investors Auto Owner Trust
  Series   Class      Rating
  2016-1   A-1        AAA (sf)
  2016-1   A-2        AAA (sf)
  2016-1   E          BB (sf)
  2016-2   A-1        AAA (sf)
  2016-2   A-2        AAA (sf)
  2016-2   B          AA (sf)
  2016-2   C          A (sf)
  2016-2   D          BBB (sf)
  2016-2   E          BB (sf)


FORTRESS CREDIT V: S&P Assigns Prelim BB(sf) Rating on Cl. E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Fortress
Credit BSL V Ltd./Fortress Credit BSL V LLC's $547 million
floating- and fixed-rate notes.

The note issuance is collateralized loan obligation securitization
backed by primarily broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior
secured term loans that are governed by collateral quality tests.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Dec. 14,
2017. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

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

-- The diversified collateral pool, which consists primarily of
broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior secured term loans that
are governed by collateral quality tests.

-- The credit enhancement provided through the subordination of
cash flows, excess spread, and overcollateralization.

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

-- The transaction's exposure to closing date participations,
which are expected to be mitigated via certain rating
considerations.

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED
  
  Fortress Credit BSL V Ltd./Fortress Credit BSL V LLC
  Class                Rating          Amount
                                     (mil. $)
  A                    AAA (sf)        372.00
  B-1                  AA (sf)          43.00
  B-2                  AA (sf)          41.00
  C (deferrable)       A (sf)           36.00
  D (deferrable)       BBB (sf)         35.00
  E (deferrable)       BB (sf)          20.00
  Subordinated notes   NR               63.00

  NR--Not rated.


FREMF 2011-K703: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Class X-2 Certs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has corrected the ratings on two classes
of Structured Pass-Through Certificates ("the SPC Classes") issued
by Freddie Mac Structured Pass-Through Certificates (SPCs), Series
K-703 (the "SPC Trust"), and affirmed the ratings on four classes
of related CMBS securities (the "REMIC Classes"), issued by FREMF
2011-K703 Mortgage Trust, Multifamily Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2011-K703 (the "REMIC Trust").

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: FREMF 2011-K703 Mortgage Trust, Multifamily Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2011-K703

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July 27, 2017 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on July 27, 2017 Upgraded to
Aa2 (sf)

Cl. X-1*, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July 27, 2017 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. X-2*, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on July 27, 2017 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Issuer: Freddie Mac Structured Pass-Through Certificates (SPCs),
Series K-703

Cl. A-2, Assigned Guaranteed Rating Aaa (sf); Underlying Rating
Affirmed Aaa (sf); Underlying Rating previously on July 27, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Cl. X-1*, Assigned Guaranteed Rating Aaa (sf); Underlying Rating
Affirmed Aaa (sf); Underlying Rating previously on July 27, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

* Reflects interest-only classes.

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating action results from the correction of an error in
Moody's prior analysis of the SPC Classes, in which Moody's did not
take into account guarantees provided by the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corp. ("Freddie Mac") for the benefit of the SPC Classes.

The SPC Classes issued by the SPC Trust are associated with the
REMIC Classes issued by the REMIC Trust. Each of the SPC Classes
represents a pass-through interest in an associated REMIC Class
issued by the REMIC Trust. Class A-2 SPC represents a pass-through
interest in REMIC Class A-2; and Class X-1 SPC represents a
pass-through interest in REMIC Class X-1. The two trusts are
interrelated given that the aggregate certificate amount of
$1,112,259,238 as of the November 2017 remittance statement,
comprised of $934,631,295 in offered SPCs and $177,627,943 in
offered REMIC Classes, equals the underlying mortgage loan pool
balance of $1,112,259,238.

The four rated REMIC Classes are collateralized by a pool of 69
fixed rate loans. Of these four classes, two REMIC Classes (Classes
B and X-2) were offered to investors, while the remaining two
classes (Classes A-2 and X-1, or the "Underlying Guaranteed
Classes") were acquired and guaranteed by Freddie Mac and
subsequently deposited into the SPC Trust to back the SPCs that
were offered to investors. As a result, any guarantee payments made
by Freddie Mac on the Underlying Guaranteed Classes will be passed
through to the holders of the corresponding SPC Classes. Freddie
Mac also guarantees the SPC Classes themselves. Moody's rates
Freddie Mac's senior unsecured debt Aaa.

In the prior rating action on the SPC Classes, Moody's did not take
into account the benefit, if any, of the guarantees that Freddie
Mac provides for these classes. Instead, Moody's assigned one
rating to each SPC Class, which reflected the certificate's credit
quality absent the Freddie Mac guarantees (the "Underlying
Rating"). The action corrects this by assigning a new Rating to
each of the SPC Classes, which incorporates the benefit, if any, of
the Freddie Mac guarantees (the "Guaranteed Rating"). Moody's will
now maintain two ratings on each SPC Class, a Guaranteed Rating and
an Underlying Rating. The SPC Classes involved in this transaction
previously carried ratings of Aaa (sf), which reflected the SPCs'
credit quality absent the Freddie Mac guarantees.

In connection with the prior rating actions on the REMIC Classes
and the SPC Classes, information about the ratings was displayed on
a single web page on Moody's website, moodys.com, associated with
the REMIC Trust. As part of action, a separate web page has been
created on moodys.com for the SPC Trust. The Guaranteed Ratings and
the Underlying Ratings on the SPC Classes will now be displayed on
the SPC Trust web page, along with the rating history for the
Underlying Ratings. The rating history of the Underlying Rating on
each SPC Class will match the rating history of the related REMIC
Class as shown on moodys.com. Moody's will also update certain
identifier and disclosure items related to both the REMIC Classes
and the SPC Classes.

In rating the four REMIC Classes for action, Moody's applied its
CMBS ratings methodology, which combines both commercial real
estate and structured finance analysis. Based on commercial real
estate analysis, Moody's determines the credit quality of each
mortgage loan and calculates an expected loss on a loan specific
basis. In structured finance, the credit enhancement for each
certificate typically depends on the expected frequency, severity,
and timing of future losses. Moody's also considers a range of
qualitative issues as well as the transaction's structural and
legal aspects.

The credit risk of loans is determined primarily by two factors: 1)
Moody's assessment of the probability of default, which is largely
driven by each loan's DSCR, and 2) Moody's assessment of the
severity of loss upon a default, which is largely driven by each
loan's LTV ratio.

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

The interest-only (IO) REMIC Classes were affirmed based on the
credit quality of their referenced classes.

Under the transaction documents, Freddie Mac guarantees payments on
the Underlying Guaranteed Classes and the SPC Classes, including
(a) timely payment of interest, (b) payment of related principal on
the distribution date following the maturity date of each balloon
mortgage loan to the extent such principal would have been
distributed to Class A-2, (c) realized losses and other
fees/expenses allocated to Class A-2, and (d) ultimate payment of
principal by the final distribution date for Class A-2.

Moody's believes that the Freddie Mac guarantees that enhance SPC
Class A-2 support complete credit substitution given the strong
incentives for Freddie Mac to fulfill its guarantee obligations
under this transaction. The failure to fulfill its guarantee
obligations under this transaction would have negative credit
implications for Freddie Mac. As a result, the Guaranteed Rating on
the SPC Class A-2 is the higher of the support provider's financial
strength rating (Aaa, senior unsecured) and the Underlying Rating
of the SPC Classes absent Freddie Mac's guarantees.

Moody's notes that the Freddie Mac guarantees on the interest-only
SPC Class X-1 do not provide additional enhancement. Freddie Mac's
guarantee does not cover any loss of yield on this interest-only
class following a reduction of notional amount due to a reduction
of the principal balance of the REMIC Underlying Guaranteed
Classes. Therefore, SPC Class X-1's Guaranteed Rating and
Underlying Rating reflect only the class' underlying credit risk
without credit for the guarantees.

Given the repack nature of the structure, SPC note holders are
exposed to the credit risk of the underlying SPC assets, namely,
the rated REMIC Underlying Guaranteed Classes. The SPC Trust
contains separate pass-through pools, designated as Pass-Through
Pool A-2 and X-1, and each holds a corresponding rated REMIC
Underlying Guaranteed Class, including REMIC Classes A-2 and X-1,
respectively. All cash flow received by each of the Underlying
Guaranteed Classes is applied to make pass-through payments to the
corresponding SPC Class. Repayment of the rated SPC Classes depends
primarily on the performance of the rated REMIC Underlying
Guaranteed Certificates, as well as any payments made by Freddie
Mac pursuant to its guarantees.

In assigning the Guaranteed Ratings on the two SPC Classes, Moody's
considered the repack nature of the structure, the credit quality
of the underlying collateral, and, other than with respect to the
Underlying Ratings, the guarantees that Freddie Mac provides for
the benefit of the SPCs.

The Underlying Ratings on the SPC Classes were affirmed based on
the underlying credit risk of the related REMIC Underlying
Guaranteed Classes without credit for the guarantee provided by
Freddie Mac.

DEAL PERFORMANCE:

As of the November 2017 remittance statement, the REMIC Classes
certificate balance has decreased by 9% to $1.11 billion from $1.23
billion at securitization.

The pool contains no loans with investment-grade structured credit
assessments.

Thirty-seven loans are defeased.

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

No loans have been liquidated from the pool and there are no loans
in special servicing.

Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 85%, compared to 84% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and cooperative loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 11.1% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 8.7%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.61X and 1.22X,
respectively, compared to 1.62X and 1.24X 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
8.75% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

Methodologies Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodologies used in rating REMIC Class A-2 and
REMIC Class B were "Approach to Rating US and Canadian
Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017 and "Moody's Approach
to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower CMBS"
published in July 2017. The principal methodologies used in rating
REMIC Class X-1 and REMIC Class X-2 were "Approach to Rating US and
Canadian Conduit/ Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017, "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017, and "Moody's Approach to Rating
Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June
2017.

The principal methodologies used in rating SPC Class A-2 Guaranteed
Rating were "Rating Transactions Based on the Credit Substitution
Approach: Letter of Credit-backed, Insured and Guaranteed Debts"
published in May 2017, and "Moody's Approach to Rating Repackaged
Securities" published in June 2015. The principal methodologies
used in rating SPC Class X-1 Guaranteed Rating were "Rating
Transactions Based on the Credit Substitution Approach: Letter of
Credit-backed, Insured and Guaranteed Debts" published in May 2017,
"Moody's Approach to Rating Repackaged Securities" published in
June 2015, and "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance
Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June 2017.

The principal methodology used in rating SPC Class A-2 Underlying
Rating was "Moody's Approach to Rating Repackaged Securities"
published in June 2015. The principal methodologies used in rating
SPC Class X-1 Underlying Rating were "Moody's Approach to Rating
Repackaged Securities" published in June 2015 and "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:

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range may
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or weaker
than Moody's had previously anticipated. Factors that may cause an
upgrade of the ratings include significant loan paydowns or
amortization, an increase in the pool's share of defeasance or
overall improved pool performance. Factors that may cause a
downgrade of the ratings include a decline in the overall
performance of the pool, loan concentration, increased expected
losses from specially serviced and troubled loans or interest
shortfalls.

With respect to certain SPC Classes, key to Moody's assumption in
reaching the certificates' Guaranteed Ratings are the Freddie Mac
guarantees. With the exception of the interest-only SPC Class X-1,
the Guaranteed Ratings of the SPC Classes may be sensitive to any
change in Freddie Mac's rating, since Moody's Guaranteed Ratings on
the SPC Classes are the higher of Freddie Mac's financial strength
rating as the guarantee provider and the SPC Classes' Underlying
Rating.


FREMF 2011-K704: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Cl. X2 Certs
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has corrected the ratings on two classes
of Structured Pass-Through Certificates ("the SPC Classes") issued
by Freddie Mac Structured Pass-Through Certificates (SPCs), Series
K-704 (the "SPC Trust"), and affirmed the ratings on four classes
of related CMBS securities (the "REMIC Classes"), issued by FREMF
2011-K704 Mortgage Trust, Multifamily Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2011-K704 (the "REMIC Trust").

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: FREMF 2011-K704 Mortgage Trust, Multifamily Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2011-K704

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July 27, 2017 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. X1*, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July 27, 2017 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. X2*, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on July 27, 2017 Affirmed B1
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on July 27, 2017 Upgraded to A1
(sf)

Issuer: Freddie Mac Structured Pass-Through Certificates (SPCs),
Series K-704

Cl. A-2, Assigned Guaranteed Rating Aaa (sf); Underlying Rating
Affirmed Aaa (sf); Underlying Rating previously on July 27, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Cl. X1*, Assigned Guaranteed Rating Aaa (sf); Underlying Rating
Affirmed Aaa (sf); Underlying Rating previously on July 27, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

* Reflects interest-only classes.

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating action results from the correction of an error in
Moody's prior analysis of the SPC Classes, in which Moody's did not
take into account guarantees provided by the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corp. ("Freddie Mac") for the benefit of the SPC Classes.

The SPC Classes issued by the SPC Trust are associated with the
REMIC Classes issued by the REMIC Trust. Each of the SPC Classes
represents a pass-through interest in an associated REMIC Class
issued by the REMIC Trust. Class A-2 SPC represents a pass-through
interest in REMIC Class A-2 and Class X1 SPC represents a
pass-through interest in REMIC Class X1. The two trusts are
interrelated given that the aggregate certificate amount of
$1,092,688,663 as of the November 2017 remittance statement,
comprised of $898,694,846 in offered SPCs and $193,973,817 in
offered REMIC Classes, equals the underlying mortgage loan pool
balance of $1,092,668,663.

The four rated REMIC Classes are collateralized by a pool of 67
fixed rate loans. Of these four classes, two REMIC Classes (Classes
B and X2) were offered to investors, while the remaining two
classes (Classes A-2 and X1, or the "Underlying Guaranteed
Classes") were acquired and guaranteed by Freddie Mac and
subsequently deposited into the SPC Trust to back the SPCs that
were offered to investors. As a result, any guarantee payments made
by Freddie Mac on the Underlying Guaranteed Classes will be passed
through to the holders of the corresponding SPC Classes. Freddie
Mac also guarantees the SPC Classes themselves. Moody's rates
Freddie Mac's senior unsecured debt Aaa.

In the prior rating action on the SPC Classes, Moody's did not take
into account the benefit, if any, of the guarantees that Freddie
Mac provides for these classes. Instead, Moody's assigned one
rating to each SPC Class, which reflected the certificate's credit
quality absent the Freddie Mac guarantees (the "Underlying
Rating"). The action corrects this by assigning a new Rating to
each of the SPC Classes, which incorporates the benefit, if any, of
the Freddie Mac guarantees (the "Guaranteed Rating"). Moody's will
now maintain two ratings on each SPC Class, a Guaranteed Rating and
an Underlying Rating. The SPC Classes involved in this transaction
previously carried ratings of Aaa (sf), which reflected the SPCs'
credit quality absent the Freddie Mac guarantees.

In connection with the prior rating actions on the REMIC Classes
and the SPC Classes, information about the ratings was displayed on
a single web page on Moody's website, moodys.com, associated with
the REMIC Trust. As part of action a separate web page has been
created on moodys.com for the SPC Trust. The Guaranteed Ratings and
the Underlying Ratings on the SPC Classes will now be displayed on
the SPC Trust web page, along with the rating history for the
Underlying Ratings. The rating history of the Underlying Rating on
each SPC Class will match the rating history of the related REMIC
Class as shown on moodys.com. Moody's will also update certain
identifier and disclosure items related to both the REMIC Classes
and the SPC Classes.

In rating the four REMIC Classes for action, Moody's applied its
CMBS ratings methodology, which combines both commercial real
estate and structured finance analysis. Based on commercial real
estate analysis, Moody's determines the credit quality of each
mortgage loan and calculates an expected loss on a loan specific
basis. In structured finance, the credit enhancement for each
certificate typically depends on the expected frequency, severity,
and timing of future losses. Moody's also considers a range of
qualitative issues as well as the transaction's structural and
legal aspects.

The credit risk of loans is determined primarily by two factors: 1)
Moody's assessment of the probability of default, which is largely
driven by each loan's DSCR, and 2) Moody's assessment of the
severity of loss upon a default, which is largely driven by each
loan's LTV ratio.

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

The interest-only (IO) REMIC Classes were affirmed based on the
credit quality of their referenced classes.

Under the transaction documents, Freddie Mac guarantees payments on
the Underlying Guaranteed Classes and the SPC Classes, including
(a) timely payment of interest, (b) payment of related principal on
the distribution date following the maturity date of each balloon
mortgage loan to the extent such principal would have been
distributed to A-2, (c) realized losses and other fees/expenses
allocated to Class A-2, and (d) ultimate payment of principal by
the final distribution date for Class A-2.

Moody's believes that the Freddie Mac guarantees that enhance SPC
Class A-2 support complete credit substitution given the strong
incentives for Freddie Mac to fulfill its guarantee obligations
under this transaction. The failure to fulfill its guarantee
obligations under this transaction would have negative credit
implications for Freddie Mac. As a result, the Guaranteed Rating on
the SPC Class A-2 is the higher of the support provider's financial
strength rating (Aaa, senior unsecured) and the Underlying Rating
of the SPC Classes absent Freddie Mac's guarantees.

Moody's notes that the Freddie Mac guarantees on the interest-only
SPC Class X1 do not provide additional enhancement. Freddie Mac's
guarantee does not cover any loss of yield on this interest-only
class following a reduction of notional amount due to a reduction
of the principal balance of the REMIC Underlying Guaranteed
Classes. Therefore, SPC Class X1's Guaranteed Rating and Underlying
Rating reflect only the class' underlying credit risk without
credit for the guarantees.

Given the repack nature of the structure, SPC note holders are
exposed to the credit risk of the underlying SPC assets, namely,
the rated REMIC Underlying Guaranteed Classes. The SPC Trust
contains separate pass-through pools, designated as Pass-Through
Pool A-2 and X1, and each holds a corresponding rated REMIC
Underlying Guaranteed Class, including REMIC Classes A-2 and X1,
respectively. All cash flow received by each of the Underlying
Guaranteed Classes is applied to make pass-through payments to the
corresponding SPC Class. Repayment of the rated SPC Classes depends
primarily on the performance of the rated REMIC Underlying
Guaranteed Certificates, as well as any payments made by Freddie
Mac pursuant to its guarantees.

In assigning the Guaranteed Ratings on the two SPC Classes, Moody's
considered the repack nature of the structure, the credit quality
of the underlying collateral, and, other than with respect to the
Underlying Ratings, the guarantees that Freddie Mac provides for
the benefit of the SPCs.

The Underlying Ratings on the SPC Classes were affirmed based on
the underlying credit risk of the related REMIC Underlying
Guaranteed Classes without credit for the guarantee provided by
Freddie Mac.

DEAL PERFORMANCE:

As of the November 2017 remittance statement, the REMIC Classes
certificate balance has decreased by 9.2% to $1.09 billion from
$1.20 billion at securitization.

Thirty-six loans, 50.3% of the pool, have been defeased.

There is one loan, 1.9% of the pool, on the master servicer's
watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet certain portfolio
review guidelines established as part of the CRE Finance Council
(CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of Moody's ongoing
monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the watchlist to
assess which loans have material issues that could affect
performance.

No loans have been liquidated from the pool at a loss and there are
no loans in special servicing.

Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 92%, compared to 93% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and cooperative loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 15% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 8.6%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.48X and 1.13X,
respectively, compared to 1.45X and 1.10X 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
8.75% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

Methodologies Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in rating REMIC Class A-2 and REMIC
Class B was "Approach to Rating US and Canadian Conduit/ Fusion
CMBS" published in July 2017. The principal methodologies used in
rating REMIC Class X1 and REMIC Class X2 were "Approach to Rating
US and Canadian Conduit/ Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017, and
"Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017.

The principal methodologies used in rating SPC Class A-2 Guaranteed
Rating were "Rating Transactions Based on the Credit Substitution
Approach: Letter of Credit-backed, Insured and Guaranteed Debts"
published in May 2017, and "Moody's Approach to Rating Repackaged
Securities" published in June 2015. The principal methodologies
used in rating SPC Class X1 Guaranteed Rating were "Rating
Transactions Based on the Credit Substitution Approach: Letter of
Credit-backed, Insured and Guaranteed Debts" published in May 2017,
"Moody's Approach to Rating Repackaged Securities" published in
June 2015, and "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance
Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June 2017.

The principal methodology used in rating SPC Class A-2 Underlying
Rating was "Moody's Approach to Rating Repackaged Securities"
published in June 2015. The principal methodologies used in rating
SPC Class X1 Underlying Rating were "Moody's Approach to Rating
Repackaged Securities" published in June 2015 and "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:

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range may
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or weaker
than Moody's had previously anticipated. Factors that may cause an
upgrade of the ratings include significant loan paydowns or
amortization, an increase in the pool's share of defeasance or
overall improved pool performance. Factors that may cause a
downgrade of the ratings include a decline in the overall
performance of the pool, loan concentration, increased expected
losses from specially serviced and troubled loans or interest
shortfalls.

With respect to certain SPC Classes, key to Moody's assumption in
reaching the certificates' Guaranteed Ratings are the Freddie Mac
guarantees. With the exception of the interest-only SPC Class X1,
the Guaranteed Ratings of the SPC Classes may be sensitive to any
change in Freddie Mac's rating, since Moody's Guaranteed Ratings on
the SPC Classes are the higher of Freddie Mac's financial strength
rating as the guarantee provider and the SPC Classes' Underlying
Rating.


FREMF 2012-K705: Moody's Affirms Ba2 Rating on Class X2 Certs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has corrected the ratings on three
classes of Structured Pass-Through Certificates ("the SPC Classes")
issued by Freddie Mac Structured Pass-Through Certificates (SPCs),
Series K-705 (the "SPC Trust"), and affirmed the ratings on six
classes of related CMBS securities (the "REMIC Classes"), issued by
FREMF 2012-K705 Mortgage Trust, Multifamily Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2012-K705 (the "REMIC Trust").

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: FREMF 2012-K705 Mortgage Trust, Multifamily Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2012-K705

Cl. A-1, Affirmed at Aaa (sf); previously on July 27, 2017 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July 27, 2017 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa1 (sf); previously on July 27, 2017 Upgraded to
Aa1 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on July 27, 2017 Upgraded to A1
(sf)

Cl. X1*, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on July 27, 2017 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. X2*, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on July 27, 2017 Affirmed
Ba2 (sf)

Issuer: Freddie Mac Structured Pass-Through Certificates (SPCs),
Series K-705

Cl. A-1, Assigned Guaranteed Rating Aaa (sf); Underlying Rating
Affirmed Aaa (sf); Underlying Rating previously on July 27, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Assigned Guaranteed Rating Aaa (sf); Underlying Rating
Affirmed Aaa (sf); Underlying Rating previously on July 27, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Cl. X1*, Assigned Guaranteed Rating Aaa (sf); Underlying Rating
Affirmed Aaa (sf); Underlying Rating previously on July 27, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

* Reflects interest-only classes.

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating action results from the correction of an error in
Moody's prior analysis of the SPC Classes, in which Moody's did not
take into account guarantees provided by the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corp. ("Freddie Mac") for the benefit of the SPC Classes.

The SPC Classes issued by the SPC Trust are associated with the
REMIC Classes issued by the REMIC Trust. Each of the SPC Classes
represents a pass-through interest in an associated REMIC Class
issued by the REMIC Trust. Class A-1 SPC represents a pass-through
interest in REMIC Class A-1, Class A-2 SPC represents a
pass-through interest in REMIC Class A-2, and Class X1 SPC
represents a pass-through interest in REMIC Class X1. The two
trusts are interrelated given that the aggregate certificate amount
of $1,141,443,566 as of the November 2017 remittance statement,
comprised of $950,458,575 in offered SPCs and $190,984,991 in
offered REMIC Classes, equals the underlying mortgage loan pool
balance of $1,141,443,566.

The six rated REMIC Classes are collateralized by a pool of 70
fixed rate loans. Of these six classes, three REMIC Classes
(Classes B, C, and X2) were offered to investors, while the
remaining three classes (Classes A-1, A-2 and X1, or the
"Underlying Guaranteed Classes") were acquired and guaranteed by
Freddie Mac and subsequently deposited into the SPC Trust to back
the SPCs that were offered to investors. As a result, any guarantee
payments made by Freddie Mac on the Underlying Guaranteed Classes
will be passed through to the holders of the corresponding SPC
Classes. Freddie Mac also guarantees the SPC Classes themselves.
Moody's rates Freddie Mac's senior unsecured debt Aaa.

In the prior rating action on the SPC Classes, Moody's did not take
into account the benefit, if any, of the guarantees that Freddie
Mac provides for these classes. Instead, Moody's assigned one
rating to each SPC Class, which reflected the certificate's credit
quality absent the Freddie Mac guarantees (the "Underlying
Rating"). The action corrects this by assigning a new Rating to
each of the SPC Classes, which incorporates the benefit, if any, of
the Freddie Mac guarantees (the "Guaranteed Rating"). Moody's will
now maintain two ratings on each SPC Class, a Guaranteed Rating and
an Underlying Rating. The SPC Classes involved in this transaction
previously carried ratings of Aaa (sf), which reflected the SPCs'
credit quality absent the Freddie Mac guarantees.

In connection with the prior rating actions on the REMIC Classes
and the SPC Classes, information about the ratings was displayed on
a single web page on Moody's website, moodys.com, associated with
the REMIC Trust. As part of action, a separate web page has been
created on moodys.com for the SPC Trust. The Guaranteed Ratings and
the Underlying Ratings on the SPC Classes will now be displayed on
the SPC Trust web page, along with the rating history for the
Underlying Ratings. The rating history of the Underlying Rating on
each SPC Class will match the rating history of the related REMIC
Class as shown on moodys.com. Moody's will also update certain
identifier and disclosure items related to both the REMIC Classes
and the SPC Classes.

In rating the six REMIC Classes for action, Moody's applied its
CMBS ratings methodology, which combines both commercial real
estate and structured finance analysis. Based on commercial real
estate analysis, Moody's determines the credit quality of each
mortgage loan and calculates an expected loss on a loan specific
basis. In structured finance, the credit enhancement for each
certificate typically depends on the expected frequency, severity,
and timing of future losses. Moody's also considers a range of
qualitative issues as well as the transaction's structural and
legal aspects.

The credit risk of loans is determined primarily by two factors: 1)
Moody's assessment of the probability of default, which is largely
driven by each loan's DSCR, and 2) Moody's assessment of the
severity of loss upon a default, which is largely driven by each
loan's LTV ratio.

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

The interest-only (IO) REMIC Classes were affirmed based on the
credit quality of their referenced classes.

Under the transaction documents, Freddie Mac guarantees payments on
the Underlying Guaranteed Classes and the SPC Classes, including
(a) timely payment of interest, (b) payment of related principal on
the distribution date following the maturity date of each balloon
mortgage loan to the extent such principal would have been
distributed to Classes A-1 and A-2, (c) realized losses and other
fees/expenses allocated to Classes A-1 and A-2, and (d) ultimate
payment of principal by the final distribution date for Classes A-1
and A-2.

Moody's believes that the Freddie Mac guarantees that enhance SPC
Classes A-1 and A-2 support complete credit substitution given the
strong incentives for Freddie Mac to fulfill its guarantee
obligations under this transaction. The failure to fulfill its
guarantee obligations under this transaction would have negative
credit implications for Freddie Mac. As a result, the Guaranteed
Ratings on the SPC Classes A-1 and A-2 are the higher of the
support provider's financial strength rating (Aaa, senior
unsecured) and the Underlying Rating of the SPC Classes absent
Freddie Mac's guarantees.

Moody's notes that the Freddie Mac guarantees on the interest-only
SPC Class X1 do not provide additional enhancement. Freddie Mac's
guarantee does not cover any loss of yield on this interest-only
class following a reduction of notional amount due to a reduction
of the principal balance of the REMIC Underlying Guaranteed
Classes. Therefore, SPC Class X1's Guaranteed Rating and Underlying
Rating reflect only the class' underlying credit risk without
credit for the guarantees.

Given the repack nature of the structure, SPC note holders are
exposed to the credit risk of the underlying SPC assets, namely,
the rated REMIC Underlying Guaranteed Classes. The SPC Trust
contains separate pass-through pools, designated as Pass-Through
Pool A-1, A-2 and X1, and each holds a corresponding rated REMIC
Underlying Guaranteed Class, including REMIC Classes A-1, A-2 and
X1, respectively. All cash flow received by each of the Underlying
Guaranteed Classes is applied to make pass-through payments to the
corresponding SPC Class. Repayment of the rated SPC Classes depends
primarily on the performance of the rated REMIC Underlying
Guaranteed Certificates, as well as any payments made by Freddie
Mac pursuant to its guarantees.

In assigning the Guaranteed Ratings on the three SPC Classes,
Moody's considered the repack nature of the structure, the credit
quality of the underlying collateral, and, other than with respect
to the Underlying Ratings, the guarantees that Freddie Mac provides
for the benefit of the SPCs.

The Underlying Ratings on the SPC Classes were affirmed based on
the underlying credit risk of the related REMIC Underlying
Guaranteed Classes without credit for the guarantee provided by
Freddie Mac.

DEAL PERFORMANCE:

As of the November 2017 remittance statement, the REMIC Classes
certificate balance has decreased by 6.6% to $1.14 billion from
$1.22 billion at securitization.

Forty loans, constituting 56.5% of the pool, have defeased and are
secured by US government securities.

Two loans, constituting 1.6% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

No loans have been liquidated from the pool and there are no loans
in special servicing.

Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 90.1%, compared to 88.8% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and cooperative loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 10.3% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 8.7%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.55X and 1.16X,
respectively, compared to 1.58X and 1.17X 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
8.75% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

Methodologies Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in rating REMIC Class A-1, REMIC
Class A-2, REMIC Class B, and REMIC Class C was "Approach to Rating
US and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017. The
principal methodologies used in rating REMIC Class X1 and REMIC
Class X2 were "Approach to Rating US and Canadian Conduit/Fusion
CMBS" published in July 2017, and "Moody's Approach to Rating
Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June
2017. Please see the Rating Methodologies page on www.moodys.com
for a copy of these methodologies.

The principal methodologies used in rating SPC Class A-1 Guaranteed
Rating and SPC Class A-2 Guaranteed Rating were "Rating
Transactions Based on the Credit Substitution Approach: Letter of
Credit-backed, Insured and Guaranteed Debts" published in May 2017,
and "Moody's Approach to Rating Repackaged Securities" published in
June 2015. The principal methodologies used in rating SPC Class X1
Guaranteed Rating were "Rating Transactions Based on the Credit
Substitution Approach: Letter of Credit-backed, Insured and
Guaranteed Debts" published in May 2017, "Moody's Approach to
Rating Repackaged Securities" published in June 2015, and "Moody's
Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017. Please see the Rating
Methodologies page on www.moodys.com for a copy of these
methodologies.

The principal methodology used in rating SPC Class A-1 Underlying
Rating and SPC Class A-2 Underlying Rating was "Moody's Approach to
Rating Repackaged Securities" published in June 2015. The principal
methodologies used in rating SPC Class X1 Underlying Rating were
"Moody's Approach to Rating Repackaged Securities" published in
June 2015 and "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance
Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June 2017. Please see
the Rating Methodologies page on www.moodys.com for a copy of these
methodologies.

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

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range may
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or weaker
than Moody's had previously anticipated. Factors that may cause an
upgrade of the ratings include significant loan paydowns or
amortization, an increase in the pool's share of defeasance or
overall improved pool performance. Factors that may cause a
downgrade of the ratings include a decline in the overall
performance of the pool, loan concentration, increased expected
losses from specially serviced and troubled loans or interest
shortfalls.

With respect to certain SPC Classes, key to Moody's assumption in
reaching the certificates' Guaranteed Ratings are the Freddie Mac
guarantees. With the exception of the interest-only SPC Class X1,
the Guaranteed Ratings of the SPC Classes may be sensitive to any
change in Freddie Mac's rating, since Moody's Guaranteed Ratings on
the SPC Classes are the higher of Freddie Mac's financial strength
rating as the guarantee provider and the SPC Classes' Underlying
Rating.


GALAXY CLO XXIV: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by Galaxy XXIV CLO, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

US$320,000,000 Class A Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2031 (the
"Class A Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$60,000,000 Class B Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2031 (the
"Class B Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$28,000,000 Class C Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes due
2031 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$29,500,000 Class D Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes due
2031 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$22,500,000 Class E Deferrable Junior Floating Rate Notes due
2031 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Galaxy XXIV is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated senior secured
corporate loans. At least 90% of the portfolio must consist of
first lien senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up to
10% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and unsecured
loans. The portfolio is approximately 70% ramped as of the closing
date.

PineBridge Galaxy 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 two classes 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: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2771

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.05%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9.1 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
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 2771to 3187)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2771 to 3602)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1


GLENN POOL II: Moody's Hikes Senior Secured Notes Rating to B2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the senior secured notes
issued by Glenn Pool Oil & Gas Trust II (Trust II). The senior
secured notes are backed by hydrocarbon deliveries under a 10-year
volumetric production payment (VPP) agreement between Trust II and
Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., (CELLC), a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Chesapeake Energy Corporation (Chesapeake). More than 3,000 oil
and gas wells in northern Oklahoma are the subject wells to the VPP
agreement.

The complete rating action is:

Issuer: Glenn Pool Oil & Gas Trust II

Senior Secured Notes, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on May 16,
2016 Downgraded to B3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating action is driven by the upgrade of Chesapeake's rating
(CFR B3 stable) due to improving cash flow generation and
manageable debt maturities. Further, the VPP production volume and
valuation of the proved reserves backing the VPP have recently
increased slightly while oil and gas prices have stabilized.

CELLC is the seller and main operator of the wells and has an
obligation to purchase all of the hydrocarbon deliveries under the
VPP. Chesapeake guarantees the performance and payments by CELLC
and it was upgraded to B3 CFR with a stable outlook on December 12,
2017. Chesapeake's B3 CFR incorporates its improving cash flow
generation at current hedged prices and Moody's commodity price
estimates, tempered by the company's high debt levels and weak
asset coverage of debt. Manageable debt maturities through 2020 and
reduced near-term default risk have allowed the company to increase
spending in 2017, stemming production declines in 2017 and
positioning it to deliver relatively flat to slightly growing
production in 2018. Further, the VPP oil and gas deliveries have
increased slightly in the last two reporting periods giving the
transaction more cushion against disruptions in deliveries.

The transaction does not prohibit CELLC from abandoning, shutting
in or restricting the flow from uneconomical wells as long as CELLC
operates in accordance with prudent industry standards. With the
lower oil and gas prices compared to a few years back, the number
of economically producible wells declined, but has stabilized
recently with the recent stabilization in oil and gas prices.
Further, Chesapeake's valuation of the proved reserve backing the
VPP has increased slightly as of July 2017, compared to Jan 2017.

Trust II will continue to benefit from commodity swap payments. Low
oil and gas prices result in higher swap payments to the trust, and
the swap payments to the trust are currently sufficient to service
monthly interest and part but not all of the principal payments to
noteholders.

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Approach
to Rating Operating Company Securitizations" published in December
2015.

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

The rating could be downgraded if the actual production falls below
the scheduled VPP delivery requirements or if Chesapeake fails to
perform on its obligations. The rating could be upgraded if
Chesapeake's credit ratings were upgraded and the production
coverage ratio is increased.


GOLDMAN SACHS 2013-GC10: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Cl. F Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 12 classes of Goldman Sachs Mortgage
Company's GS Mortgage Securities Trust (GSMS) commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates, series 2013-GC10.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Relatively Stable Performance: Overall pool performance remains
relatively stable and generally in line with issuance expectations.
As of year-end (YE) 2016, aggregate pool-level net operating income
had improved 3.9% from 2015 for the 48 non-defeased loans reporting
full-year 2015 and 2016 financials. As of the November 2017
distribution date, the pool's aggregate principal balance had paid
down by 10.1% to $772.4 million from $859.4 million at issuance.
Five loans (6.1% of current pool) have been defeased. There have
been no realized losses to date.

Fitch Loans of Concern: Fitch has designated seven loans (9.9% of
current pool) as Fitch Loans of Concern (FLOCs), including three of
the top 15 loans (7.9%) and one specially serviced loan (Eaton
Center; 0.5%). The FLOCs include a mixed use property where the
second largest tenant is currently dark (Galleria Building; 4.2% of
pool) and two underperforming office properties (One Technology
Plaza and 701 Technology Drive; combined 3.8%) with recent
occupancy declines. The other non-specially serviced FLOCs outside
of the top 15 were flagged for either occupancy declines and/or
continued underperformance.

Pool Concentrations: The two largest loans, Empire Hotel & Retail
and National Harbor, represent 14.2% and 13% of the pool,
respectively, and are both secured by mixed use properties. Retail
properties represent 31.1% of the current pool by balance and
include four of the top 15 loans (18.8%). Hotel properties make up
18.1% of the pool and include the largest loan, Empire Hotel &
Retail, which has a 426-room hotel component, and the eighth
largest loan, the Hyatt Place-Seattle (3.2%).

Hurricane Exposure: Seven properties (6.6% of pool) are located in
regions affected by Hurricane Irma (5.6%) and Hurricane Harvey
(1.1%). According to the master servicer's significant insurance
event (SIE) report, the Orlando University Office Park (2.8%)
property located in Orlando, FL sustained minor damage from
Hurricane Irma, and two other Florida properties (1.1%) sustained
no damage. The servicer is still awaiting borrower updates on the
Okee Square (West Palm Beach, FL; 1.3%) and 2151 West Hillsboro
Boulevard (Deerfield Beach, FL; 0.3%) properties for possible
damage from Hurricane Irma. Per the master servicer's SIE report,
the Westbury Triangle (0.5%) property located in Houston, TX
sustained minor damage from Hurricane Harvey, and the South Main
Plaza (Houston, TX; 0.6%) property sustained no damage.

Pool Amortization: One loan (3.6% of pool) is full-term
interest-only and three loans (19%) still have a partial
interest-only component during their remaining loan term, compared
to 31.4% of the original pool at issuance.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Negative Outlooks on classes E and F reflect the potential for
downgrades given concerns of further performance deterioration and
limited positive leasing momentum with the FLOCs, particularly the
One Technology Plaza, 701 Technology Drive or Galleria Building
properties. Fitch's analysis included additional sensitivity
scenarios, with losses of up to 75%, to address the potential for
outsized losses should re-leasing the vacancies at these properties
not occur. The Stable Outlooks for classes A-1 through D reflect
the overall stable pool performance and expected continued paydown.
Future rating upgrades may occur with stable to improved pool
performance and additional defeasance or paydown.

USE OF THIRD-PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G-10
No third-party due diligence was provided or reviewed in relation
to this rating action.

Fitch has affirmed and revised Rating Outlooks on the following
classes as indicated:
-- $15.5 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $110 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $300.5 million class A-5 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $81.4 million class A-AB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $54.8 million class A-S at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $562.2 million class X-A* at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $103.1 million class X-B* at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $63.4 million class B at 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $39.7 million class C at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $34.4 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $22.6 million class E at 'BB+sf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $16.1 million class F at 'Bsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable.

*Notional amount and interest-only.

Classes A-1 and A-2 (as of the December 2017 distribution date)
have repaid in full. Fitch does not rate the class G certificates.


GOLUB CAPITAL 22(B)-R: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3 Rating to 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 22(B)-R, Ltd.:

US$320,000,000 Class A-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class A-R Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$52,000,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2031
(the "Class B-R Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

US$33,500,000 Class C-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

US$32,000,000 Class D-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class D-R Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

US$22,500,000 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 20,
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 March 5, 2015 (the "Original
Closing Date"). On the Refinancing Date, the Issuer will use
proceeds from the issuance of the Refinancing Notes and
subordinated notes to redeem in full the Refinanced Original
Notes.

In addition to the issuance of the Refinancing Notes and
subordinated 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: $500,000,000

Defaulted par: $0

Diversity Score: 57

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2870

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.50%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9.08 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. Please see the Rating Methodologies page on
www.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology.

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 2870 to 3301)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-R Notes: -1

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 2870 to 3731)

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


GOLUB CAPITAL 22: 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 Golub Capital
Partners CLO 22(B)-R, Ltd.:

US$320,000,000 Class A-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class A-R Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$ 52,000,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class B-R Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$ 33,500,000 Class C-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

US$ 32,000,000 Class D-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class D-R Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$ 22,500,000 Class E-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class E-R Notes"), Definitive Rating 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.

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 ratings on the 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 December 20, 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 March 5, 2015 (the "Original
Closing Date"). On the Refinancing Date, the Issuer used proceeds
from the issuance of the Refinancing Notes and subordinated notes
to redeem in full the Refinanced Original Notes.

In addition to the issuance of the Refinancing Notes and
subordinated 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: $500,000,000

Defaulted par: $0

Diversity Score: 57

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2870

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.50%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9.08 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 2870 to 3301)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-R Notes: -1

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 2870 to 3731)

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


GS MORTGAGE 2005-GG4: Moody's Affirms C Ratings on 2 Tranches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on three classes
in GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-GG4:

Cl. E, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Jan 6, 2017 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 6, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

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

* Reflects an interest-only class

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on the P&I classes, Classes E and F, were affirmed
because the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss
including realized losses.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 69.1% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 42.4% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 7.2% of the
original pooled balance, the same as at 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. The methodology used in rating Cl.
X-C was "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance
Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June 2017 and "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017.

Moody's analysis incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since 100% of the pool is in
special servicing. In this approach, Moody's determines a
probability of default for each specially serviced and troubled
loan that it expects will generate a loss and estimates a loss
given default based on a review of broker's opinions of value (if
available), other information from the special servicer, available
market data and Moody's internal data. The loss given default for
each loan also takes into consideration repayment of servicer
advances to date, estimated future advances and closing costs.
Translating the probability of default and loss given default into
an expected loss estimate, Moody's then applies the aggregate loss
from specially serviced loans to the most junior class and the
recovery as a pay down of principal to the most senior class.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the December 12, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 99.5% to $20.3
million from $4 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by two mortgage loans ranging in size from 30% to
70% 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 two, compared to three at Moody's last review.

Fifty-six loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $273.1 million (for an average loss
severity of 28.8%). Two loans, constituting 100% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced loan
is the Homewood Suites - Lansdale (Gulph Creek) Loan ($14.3 million
-- 70.5% of the pool), which is secured by a 170-room, 6-story
hotel located in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. The hotel was built in
2002 and transferred to special servicing in March 2015 due to
imminent maturity default. The lender is proceeding with
foreclosure while dual-tracking negotiations with the borrower.

The second largest specially serviced loan is the Catalina Village
Loan ($6.0 million -- 29.5% of the pool), which is secured by a
90,000 SF retail center located in Tucson, Arizona. The loan
transferred to special servicing in July 2011 and has been real
estate owned ("REO") since January 2013.

Moody's estimates an aggregate $14 million loss for the specially
serviced loans (69% expected loss on average).

As of the December 12, 2017 remittance statement cumulative
interest shortfalls were $34 million. Moody's anticipates interest
shortfalls will continue because of the 100% exposure to specially
serviced 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.


GS MORTGAGE 2011-GC3: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Class X Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on seven classes
in GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2011-GC3 Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2011-GC3:

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 21, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa1 (sf); previously on Dec 21, 2016 Affirmed Aa1
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on Dec 21, 2016 Affirmed A1
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa2 (sf); previously on Dec 21, 2016 Affirmed Baa2
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Dec 21, 2016 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Dec 21, 2016 Affirmed B2
(sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 1.7% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 1.0% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 0.9% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 0.6% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The methodologies used in these ratings were "Approach to Rating US
and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017 and
"Moody's Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single
Borrower CMBS" published in July 2017. The methodologies used in
rating Cl. X were "Approach to Rating US and Canadian
Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017, "Moody's Approach to
Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower CMBS" published
in July 2017, and "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance
Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June 2017. Please see
the Rating Methodologies page on www.moodys.com for a copy of these
methodologies.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the Novemeber 10, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 47.1% to $740.6
million from $1.4 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 37 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 13.1% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 70.3% of the pool. One loan, constituting
8.5% of the pool, has an investment-grade structured credit
assessment. Eight loans, constituting 8.8% of the pool, have
defeased and are secured by US government securities.

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

Six loans, constituting 22.1% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

There are no loans that have been liquidated from the pool and no
loans in special servicing.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2017 operating results for 100% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 76%, compared to 74% at Moody's
last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 15.1% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.5%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.74X and 1.43X,
respectively, compared to 1.78X and 1.44X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The loan with a structured credit assessment is the Oxford Valley
Mall Loan ($62.7 million -- 8.5% of the pool), which consists of
three components - a super-regional mall, a retail shopping center
and a Class B mid-rise office building located in Middletown
Township, Pennsylvania. The office building is freely releasable
under the terms of the loan. Moody's has not attributed any value
to the office component of the collateral since securitization. The
year-end 2016 in-line sales of tenants


GS MORTGAGE 2014-GC18: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Cl. F Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 14 classes of GS Mortgage Securities
Trust 2014-GC18 pass-through certificates (GSMSC 2014-GC18).  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Relatively Stable Performance: The affirmations are based on the
relatively stable performance of the majority of the pool since
issuance. As of the November 2017 distribution date, the pool's
aggregate principal balance has paid down by 6.5% to $1.042 billion
from $1.114 billion at issuance. There have been no realized losses
to date. Two loans (0.7% of pool) have been defeased.

Fitch Loans of Concern: Fitch has designated nine loans (22.5% of
pool) as Fitch Loans of Concern (FLOCs), which includes four loans
in the top 15 (19.5%) and one specially serviced loan (0.3%). The
third largest loan, The Crossroads (9.0%), has experienced
declining sales since issuance. The fifth largest loan, Wyoming
Valley Mall (7.2%), has experienced declining occupancy since
issuance. The 10 largest loan, Crowne Plaza Anchorage (1.7%) and
the 14th largest loan, Hilton Garden Inn Pittsburgh - Cranberry
(1.6%), have both experienced declining occupancy, RevPAR and
overall property-level NOI since issuance. The FLOCs outside of the
top 15 were flagged for declining and/or low occupancy.

Specially Serviced Loan: The specially serviced loan, Sullivan
Apartments (0.3% of pool), is secured by a 36-unit multifamily
property in Williston, ND. The loan was transferred in March 2016
due to imminent default and subsequently defaulted on the June 2016
payment. Property performance was negatively impacted by the
economic stress within the Baaken Shale region. As of July 2017,
the servicer-reported occupancy was 47% and NOI was negative. The
special servicer is pursing foreclosure.

High Retail Concentration and Regional Malls: Loans secured by
retail properties represent 41.4% of the pool, including three
loans (26.7% of pool) in the top five secured by regional mall
properties: The Shops at Canal Place (10.5%) located in New
Orleans, LA; The Crossroads (9.0%) located in Portage, MI and
Wyoming Valley Mall (7.2%) located in Wilkes-Barre, PA. The
Crossroads and Wyoming Valley Mall are both regional malls located
in secondary markets with exposure to J.C. Penney, Macy's and
Sears.

Hurricane/Wildfire Exposure: Two properties (1.5% of pool) are
located in areas impacted by Hurricane Irma. According to the
master servicer's most recent significant insurance event (SIE)
reporting, the Regency Crossing property (0.5% of pool) in Port
Richey, FL did not sustain any damages. The servicer still awaits a
response from the borrower on potential damage to the Maitland
Concourse property (1%) in Maitland, FL. Five properties, including
two of the properties securing the Dollar General Portfolio loan
(1.5%) and one of the properties securing the Wal-Mart Shadow
Anchored Texas Portfolio loan (1%), are located in areas impacted
by Hurricane Harvey. Only the one property in the Wal-Mart Shadow
Anchored Texas Portfolio loan sustained minor damages, according to
the latest SIE reporting. Exposure to the recent wildfires in
California is limited to one property (1%) located in Los Alamitos,
CA, which did not sustain any damages.

Loan Maturities: The loan maturity schedule consists of 7.7% of the
pool in 2018, 2.5% in 2019, 48.6% in 2023 and 41.3% in 2024.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Negative Rating Outlook on classes D through F reflects
potential downgrade concerns given the high concentration of FLOCs,
including two regional mall properties, The Crossroads and Wyoming
Valley Mall, both located in secondary markets, and two
underperforming hotels, Crowne Plaza Anchorage and Hilton Garden
Inn Pittsburgh-Cranberry. Additionally, the transaction's retail
concentration is high at 41%. Downgrades are possible if
performance of these loans continue to further decline. Fitch ran
an additional sensitivity scenario on the two regional mall loans
to reflect the potential for higher losses. The Stable Rating
Outlooks on classes A-2 to C reflect increased credit enhancement
and expected continued amortization. Due to the FLOCs and pool
concentrations, future upgrades are unlikely, but possible with
additional paydown and/or defeasance and stable to improved
performance.

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, Wells Fargo &
Company ('A+'/'F1'), which is currently the advancing agent, as a
direct counterparty.

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

-- $101.1 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $216.7 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $302.0 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $87.8 million class A-AB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $68.2 million class A-S at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $76.6 million class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $44.5 million class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $189.3 million class PEZ at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $55.7 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $22.3 million class E at 'BBsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $12.5 million class F at 'Bsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- Interest-Only class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Interest-Only class X-B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Interest-Only class X-C at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

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


JP MORGAN 2005-LDP1: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Class G Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on two classes
in J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.,
Commercial Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-LDP1:

Cl. G, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Dec 15, 2016 Upgraded to
Ba1 (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Dec 15, 2016 Downgraded to
Ca (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating on the P&I 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 rating on the P&I class H was affirmed because the rating is
consistent with Moody's expected loss.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 3.4% of the
current balance, compared to 2.6% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 4.0% of the original
pooled balance, the same as at the last review. Moody's provides a
current list of base expected losses for conduit and fusion CMBS
transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

FACTORS THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE 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 99% to $42.9 million
from $2.9 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 12 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 31% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 97% of
the pool. One loan, constituting 2% of the pool, has defeased and
is secured by US government securities.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 5, compared to 6 at Moody's last review.

There are no loans currently on the master servicer's watchlist.
The watchlist includes loans that meet certain portfolio review
guidelines established as part of the CRE Finance Council (CREFC)
monthly reporting package. As part of Moody's ongoing monitoring of
a transaction, the agency reviews the watchlist to assess which
loans have material issues that could affect performance.

Thirty three loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $114 million (for an average loss
severity of 49%). One loan, constituting 14% of the pool, is
currently in special servicing. The specially serviced loan is the
South Park Business Center loan ($5.9 million -- 13.9% of the
pool), which is secured by three office buildings totaling
approximately 162,500 SF located in Greenwood, IN, roughly 12 miles
southeast of the Indianapolis central business district. The loan
transferred to special servicing in January 2015 due to maturity
default. The loan became REO in July 2016. As of the September 2017
rent roll, the three buildings were collectively 73% leased. The
special servicer is actively working to lease up additional space.

Moody's estimates an aggregate $1.2 million loss for specially
serviced loans (21% expected loss on average).

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and partial year 2017 operating results for 50% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 79%, compared to 80% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 28% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 8.9%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.29X and 1.46X,
respectively, compared to 1.34X and 1.46X 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 63% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Golf Glen Mart Plaza Loan ($13.3 million --
31.0% of the pool), which is secured by a 235,000 square foot (SF)
retail center located in Niles, Illinois which is about 26 miles
northwest of downtown Chicago. The grocery anchor (45% of the NRA)
vacated at June 2016 due to low sales, ahead of their lease
expiration in December 2024. As per the September 2017 rent roll,
the property was 90% leased, compared to 89% leased at the prior
review. The loan has amortized 15.4% since securitization. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 109% and 0.89X, respectively, compared to
112% and 0.87X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Chimney Hill Center Loan ($8.3
million -- 19.3% of the pool), which is secured by a 197,500 square
foot (SF) retail center anchored by Farm Fresh with a lease
expiration of January 2020. The property is located in Virginia
Beach, Virginia. As per the September 2017 rent roll the property
was 98% leased, compared to 97% at the prior review. The third
largest tenant, Big Lots, lease expired in November 2017 and has
vacated their space. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 78% and
1.26X, respectively, compared to 75% and 1.29X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Crenshaw Plaza Loan ($5.5 million --
12.9% of the pool), which is secured by a retail center anchored by
Ralph's grocery store with a lease expiration in June 2024. The
property is located in Los Angeles, California. The loan's
collateral portion of the property was 87% leased as of September
2017, compared to 86% leased at the prior review. The loan is fully
amortizing and has amortized 33% since securitization. Moody's LTV
and stressed DSCR are 43% and 2.29X, respectively, compared to 42%
and 2.31X at the last review.


JP MORGAN 2005-LDP2: Moody's Hikes Class F Debt Rating to Ba2(sf)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on two classes
and affirmed the ratings on three classes in J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., Series 2005-LDP2.

Cl. E, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Dec 9, 2016 Upgraded to
B1 (sf)

Cl. F, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec 9, 2016 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 9, 2016 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Dec 9, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-1, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017 Downgraded to C
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on two P&I classes were upgraded based primarily on an
increase in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and
amortization. The deal has paid down 52% since Moody's last
review.

The ratings on two P&I classes were affirmed because the ratings
are consistent with Moody's expected loss plus realized losses.
Class H has already experienced a 74% realized loss as result of
previously liquidated loans.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 10.9% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 21.6% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 7.0% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 7.4% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The methodologies used in these ratings were "Approach to Rating US
and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017 and
"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-1 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 has decreased by 98% to $72.5 million
from $2.98 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 20 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 18% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 85% of the pool. One loan, constituting
1.1% of the pool, has defeased and is secured by US government
securities.

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

One loan, constituting 3.1% of the pool, is on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Fifty-seven loans have been liquidated from the pool at a loss,
contributing to an aggregate realized loss of $200.6 million (for
an average loss severity of 37%). Two loans, constituting 17.9% of
the pool, are currently in special servicing. The largest specially
serviced loan is the 33 Technology Drive Loan ($9.6 million --
13.3% of the pool), which is secured by a 102,000 square foot (SF)
single-tenant office building located in Warren, New Jersey. The
property is now 100% vacant after the tenant vacated in 2016 at
lease expiration. The loan transferred to special servicing in June
2015 due to maturity default. In July 2016, the loan was modified
and extended to November 30, 2017.

The second specially serviced loan is the Landmark Retail Portfolio
($3.4 million -- 4.7% of the pool), which is secured by two retail
centers totaling 44,000 SF in Ohio. The loan transferred to special
servicing in June 2014 due to imminent non-monetary default. Both
properties, Alex Plaza and Prestige Plaza, are being evaluated by
the asset manager for any outstanding deferred maintenance.

Moody's estimates an aggregate $7.7 million loss for the specially
serviced loans (59% expected loss on average).

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2017 operating results for 71% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 70%, compared to 76% at Moody's
last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 17% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.5%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.28X and 1.86X,
respectively, compared to 1.27X and 1.62X 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 44% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Mounts Corner Shopping Center Loan ($13.1
million -- 18% of the pool), which is secured by an anchored retail
shopping center located in Freehold, New Jersey. The anchor space,
which is ground leased to ACME, is now subleased to Club Metro USA.
As of September 2017, the property was 97% leased, down slightly
from 100% at year-end 2016. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 78%
and 1.32X, respectively, compared to 82% and 1.25X at the last
review.

The second largest loan is the Mesquite Crossing Loan ($9.7 million
-- 13.4% of the pool), which is secured by a 63,000 SF shadow
anchored, multi-tenant retail center in Mesquite, Texas. Since
2014, the property has been 100% leased to 19 tenants.
Approximately 17% of the leases roll within the next year with an
additional 19% rolling in the next two years. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 80% and 1.29X, respectively, compared to 82% and
1.25X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Texas Avenue Crossing Shopping Center
Loan ($9.4 million -- 13% of the pool), which is secured by a
87,000 SF retail center built in 2004 and located in College
Station, Texas. The property has remained 100% leased to 15 tenants
since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 70% and
1.47X, respectively, compared to 75% and 1.36X at the last review.


JP MORGAN 2011-C5: Moody's Lowers Class X-B Certs Rating to B1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on 10 classes
and downgraded the ratings on one class in J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2011-C5, Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2011-C5:

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-S, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-SB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa1 (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016 Upgraded to
Aa1 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016 Upgraded to A1
(sf)

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

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016 Affirmed B1
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. X-B, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Dec 16, 2016 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on nine P&I classes, (Cl. A-3 through G), were affirmed
because the transaction's key metrics, including Moody's
loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage
ratio (DSCR) and the transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are
within acceptable ranges.

The rating on one IO class, (Cl. X-A), was affirmed based on the
credit quality of the referenced classes.

The rating on one IO class, (Cl. X-B), was downgraded due to a
decline in the credit quality of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 2.8% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 2.1% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 1.9% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 1.5% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The methodologies used in these ratings were "Approach to Rating US
and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017 and
"Moody's Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single
Borrower CMBS" published in July 2017. The methodologies used in
rating Cl. X-A and Cl. X-B were "Approach to Rating US and Canadian
Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017, "Moody's Approach to
Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower CMBS" published
in July 2017 and "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance
Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the November 17, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 33% to $695 million
from $1.03 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 30 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 20% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 71% 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 12, the same as at Moody's last review.

Two loans, constituting 2% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

One loan has been liquidated from the pool, resulting in or
contributing to an aggregate realized loss of $1,784 (for an
average loss severity of 0.0%). Two loans, constituting 3% of the
pool, are currently in special servicing. The largest specially
serviced loan is the Fairview Heights Plaza Loan ($10.6 million --
1.5% of the pool), which is secured by an approximately 199,000
square foot (SF) community retail center located in Fairview
Heights, Illinois, about 10 miles east of St. Louis, Missouri. The
property is anchored by a 60,000 SF Gordmans. However, the former
Sports Authority space (40,500 SF) went dark. As of December 2016,
the property was 81% leased. The loan transferred to Special
Servicing in May 2016 due to imminent default and became REO in
July 2017.

The second largest specially serviced loan is the Shaw's
Londonderry Loan ($9.6 million -- 1.4% of the pool), which is
secured by an approximately 192,000 SF anchored retail center
located in Londonderry, New Hampshire, about 10 miles northeast of
Nashua, New Hampshire. TJ Maxx, the largest tenant, vacated its
space upon lease expiration in May 2016. The loan transferred to
special servicing due to imminent default in September 2016 and
became REO in July 2017.

Moody's estimates an aggregate $11.8 million loss for the specially
serviced loans (58% expected loss on average).

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2017 operating results for 65% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 78%, compared to 80% at Moody's
last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 14.1% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.5%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.90X and 1.36X,
respectively, compared to 1.88X and 1.33X 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 41% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the InterContinental Hotel Chicago Loan ($136.6
million -- 19.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 792-key
full-service hotel located on North Michigan Avenue in Chicago,
Illinois. The property includes over 25,000 SF of meeting space, a
Michael Jordan's steakhouse restaurant, full service spa and an
indoor junior Olympic size pool. The property rebounded in 2016
from a decline in performance in 2015. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 101% and 1.10X, respectively, compared to 106% and 1.05X
at the last review.

The second largest loan is the SunTrust Bank Portfolio I Loan
($82.1 million -- 11.8% of the pool), which is secured by 119 bank
branches and two single-tenant office buildings. The properties are
100% leased to SunTrust Bank (Moody's senior unsecured rating Baa1,
stable outlook) as part of a master lease agreement. The properties
are located in nine Eastern states, from Maryland to Florida.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 57% and 1.72X, respectively,
compared to 56% and 1.74X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Asheville Mall Loan ($68.2 million --
9.8% of the pool), which is secured by a 324,000 SF component of a
974,000 SF regional mall located in Asheville, North Carolina. The
mall anchors include Dillard's, Sears, JC Penney, Belk and Barnes
and Noble. The total mall was 98% leased as of June 2017 compared
to 99% as of December 2015, and in-line space was 94% leased
compared to 98% leased as of December 2015. The mall has reported
occupancy above 94% since at least 2008. The loan sponsor is CBL &
Associates Properties, Inc., a retail REIT based in Chattanooga,
Tennessee. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 81% and 1.27X,
respectively, compared to 72% and 1.38X at the last review.


JP MORGAN 2016-JP4: Fitch Affirms 'BB-sf' Rating on Cl. E Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 13 classes of J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2016-JP4 commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Stable Performance: The overall pool performance remains stable
since issuance. There is only one delinquent loan that is 60 days
past due, representing 1% of the pool. No loans have ever been
specially serviced. As of the November 2017 distribution date, the
pool's aggregate balance has been reduced by .47% to $993 million,
from $998 million at issuance. Three loans (5.5%) are on the
servicer's watchlist, and there are no loans considered as Fitch
Loans of Concern.

Highly Concentrated by Loan Size and Property Type: The largest 10
loans account for 56.4% of the pool, which is above the 2016 and
2015 averages of 54.8% and 49.3%, respectively. Combined retail,
office and hotel properties consist of 89% of the transaction.

Pari Passu Loans: Eleven loans comprising of 53% of the pool,
including seven of the top 10, are pari passu loans. This is higher
than the 2016 average of 42.2% for other Fitch-rated multiborrower
deals.

Hurricane Impact: Three loans (4.7% of pool) are located in areas
of Texas impacted by Hurricane Harvey. Exposure to Hurricane Irma
consists of six properties (5.2% of pool). 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.

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

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

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $30,967,889 class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $129,067,000 class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $215,000,000 class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $266,136,000 class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $52,478,000 class A-SB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $753,506,889* class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $61,106,000* class X-B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $59,858,000 class A-S at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $61,106,000 class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $49,882,000 class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $105,999,000* class X-C at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $56,117,000 class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $22,447,000 class E at 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable.

*Notional amount and interest only.

Fitch does not rate class F and NR.


JP MORGAN 2017-6: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating to Cl. B-5 Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to 19
classes of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) issued by
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2017-6 (JPMMT 2017-6). The ratings range
from (P)Aaa (sf) to (P)B3 (sf).

The certificates are backed by 1,443 30-year, fully-amortizing
fixed rate mortgage loans with a total balance of $883,819,918 as
of December 1, 2017 cut-off date. Similar to prior JPMMT
transactions, JPMMT 2017-6 includes conforming fixed-rate mortgage
loans originated by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. (Chase) and
LoanDepot, and underwritten to the government sponsored enterprises
(GSE) guidelines in addition to prime jumbo non-conforming
mortgages purchased by JPMMAC from various originators and
aggregators. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and LoanDepot, will be the
servicers on the conforming loans originated by JPMorgan Chase and
LoanDepot, respectively, while Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing,
LoanDepot, USAA, Guaranteed Rate, PHH Mortgage, First Republic
Bank, TIAA, FSB and Johnson Bank will be the servicers on the prime
jumbo loans. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. will be the master servicer and
securities administrator. U.S. Bank National Association will be
the trustee. Pentalpha Surveillance LLC will be the representations
and warranties breach reviewer. Distributions of principal and
interest and loss allocations are based on a typical
shifting-interest structure that benefits from and a senior and
subordination floor.

The complete rating actions are:

Issuer: J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2017-6

Cl. A-1, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-5, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

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

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

Cl. A-8, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-9, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-10, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-11, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-12, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-13, Assigned (P)Aa1 (sf)

Cl. A-14, Assigned (P)Aa1 (sf)

Cl. B-1, Assigned (P)Aa3 (sf)

Cl. B-2, Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

Cl. B-3, Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

Cl. B-4, Assigned (P)Ba2 (sf)

Cl. B-5, Assigned (P)B3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

Summary Credit Analysis and Rating Rationale

Moody's expected cumulative net loss on the aggregate pool is 0.45%
in a base scenario and reaches 5.35% at a stress level consistent
with the Aaa ratings.

Moody's calculated losses on the pool using Moody's US Moody's
Individual Loan Analysis (MILAN) model based on the loan-level
collateral information as of the cut-off date. Loan-level
adjustments to the model results included adjustments to
probability of default for higher and lower borrower debt-to-income
ratios (DTIs), for borrowers with multiple mortgaged properties,
self-employed borrowers, and for the default risk of Homeownership
association (HOA) properties in super lien states. Moody's final
loss estimates also incorporate adjustments for originator
assessments and the financial strength of Representation & Warranty
(R&W) providers.

Moody's base its provisional ratings on the certificates on the
credit quality of the mortgage loans, the structural features of
the transaction, Moody's assessments of the aggregators,
originators and servicers, the strength of the third party due
diligence and the representations and warranties (R&W) framework of
the transaction.

Collateral Description

JPMMT 2017-6 is a securitization of a pool of 1,443 30-year,
fully-amortizing mortgage loans with a total balance of
$883,819,918 as of the cut-off date, with a weighted average (WA)
remaining term to maturity of 357 months, and a WA seasoning of 3
months. The borrowers in this transaction have high FICO scores and
sizeable equity in their properties. The WA current FICO score is
771 and the WA original combined loan-to-value ratio (CLTV) is
71.8%. The characteristics of the loans underlying the pool are
generally comparable to other JPMMT transactions backed by 30-year
mortgage loans that Moody's have rated.

In this transaction, 55.2% of the pool by loan balance was
underwritten by Chase and LoanDepot to Fannie Mae's and Freddie
Mac's guidelines (conforming loans). Moreover, the conforming loans
in this transaction have a high average current loan balance at
$536,992. The higher conforming loan balance of loans in JPMMT
2017-6 is attributable to the greater amount of properties located
in high-cost areas, such as the metro areas of New York City, Los
Angeles and San Francisco. LoanDepot contributes approximately
12.5% of the mortgage loans in the pool. The remaining originators
each account for less than 10% of the principal balance of the
loans in the pool and provide R&W to the transaction.

Third-party Review and Reps & Warranties

Four third party review (TPR) firms verified the accuracy of the
loan-level information that the sponsor gave us. These firms
conducted detailed credit, collateral, and regulatory reviews on
100% of the mortgage pool. The TPR results indicated compliance
with the originators' underwriting guidelines for the vast majority
of loans, no material compliance issues, and no appraisal defects.
The loans that had exceptions to the originators' underwriting
guidelines had strong documented compensating factors such as low
DTIs, low LTVs, high reserves, high FICOs, or clean payment
histories. The TPR firms also identified minor compliance
exceptions for reasons such as inadequate RESPA disclosures (which
do not have assignee liability) and TILA/RESPA Integrated
Disclosure (TRID) violations related to fees that were out of
variance but then cured and disclosed. Moody's did not make any
adjustments to Moody's expected or Aaa loss levels due to the TPR
results.

JPMMT 2017-6's R&W framework is in line with other JPMMT
transactions where an independent reviewer is named at closing, and
costs and manner of review are clearly outlined at issuance.
Moody's review of the R&W framework takes into account the
financial strength of the R&W providers, scope of R&Ws (including
qualifiers and sunsets) and enforcement mechanisms.

The R&W providers vary in financial strength. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
National Association (rated Aa2), who is the R&W provider for
approximately 48.6% (by loan balance) of the loans, is the
strongest R&W provider. Moody's have made no adjustments on the
Chase loans in the pool, as well as loans originated by TIAA, FSB
and First Republic Bank. In contrast, the rest of the R&W providers
are unrated and/or financially weaker entities. Moreover, JPMMAC
will not backstop any R&W providers who may become financially
incapable of repurchasing mortgage loans. Moody's made an
adjustment for these loans in Moody's analysis to account for this
risk.

For loans that JPMMAC acquired via the MAXEX platform, MAXEX under
the assignment, assumption and recognition agreement with JPMMAC,
will make the R&Ws. The R&Ws provided by MAXEX to JPMMAC and
assigned to the trust are in line with the R&Ws found in the JPMMT
transactions. Five Oaks Acquisition Corp. backstops all validated
R&W violations through a combination of enforcement and insolvency
guarantees.

Trustee and Master Servicer

The transaction trustee is U.S. Bank National Association. The
custodian's functions will be performed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
and JP Morgan Chase Bank. The paying agent and cash management
functions will be performed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., rather than
the trustee. In addition, Wells Fargo, as Master Servicer, is
responsible for servicer oversight, and termination of servicers
and for the appointment of successor servicers. In addition, Wells
Fargo is committed to act as successor if no other successor
servicer can be found. Moody's assess Wells Fargo as an SQ1
(strong) master servicer of residential loans.

Tail Risk & Subordination Floor

This deal has a standard shifting-interest structure, with a
subordination floor to protect against losses that occur late in
the life of the pool when relatively few loans remain (tail risk).
When the total senior subordination is less than 0.75% of the
original pool balance, the subordinate bonds do not receive any
principal and all principal is then paid to the senior bonds. In
addition, if the subordinate percentage drops below 6.00% of
current pool balance, the senior distribution amount will include
all principal collections and the subordinate principal
distribution amount will be zero. The subordinate bonds themselves
benefit from a floor. When the total current balance of a given
subordinate tranche plus the aggregate balance of the subordinate
tranches that are junior to it amount to less than 0.55% of the
original pool balance, those tranches do not receive principal
distributions. Principal those tranches would have received are
directed to pay more senior subordinate bonds pro-rata.

Transaction Structure

The transaction uses the shifting interest structure in which the
senior bonds benefit from a number of protections. Funds collected,
including principal, are first used to make interest payments to
the senior bonds. Next, principal payments are made to the senior
bonds. Next, available distribution amounts are used to reimburse
realized losses and certificate writedown amounts for the senior
bonds (after subordinate bond have been reduced to zero I.e. the
credit support depletion date). Finally, interest and then
principal payments are paid to the subordinate bonds in sequential
order.

Realized losses are allocated in a reverse sequential order, first
to the lowest subordinate bond. After the balance of the
subordinate bonds is written off, losses from the pool begin to
write off the principal balance of the senior support bond, and
finally losses are allocated to the super senior bonds.

In addition, the pass-through rate on the bonds is based on the net
WAC as reduced by the sum of (i) the reviewer annual fee rate and
(ii) the capped trust expense rate. In the event that there is a
small number of loans remaining, the last outstanding bonds' rate
can be reduced to zero.

Other Considerations

Similar to recent JPMMT transactions, extraordinary trust expenses
in the JPMMT 2017-6 transaction are deducted from Net WAC as
opposed to available distribution amount. Moody's believe there is
a very low likelihood that the rated certificates in JPMMT 2017-6
will incur any losses from extraordinary expenses or
indemnification payments from potential future lawsuits against key
deal parties. First, all of the loans are prime quality Qualified
Mortgages originated under a regulatory environment that requires
tighter originations controls than pre-crisis, thus reducing the
likelihood that the loans have defects that could form the basis of
a lawsuit. Second, the transaction has reasonably well defined
processes in place to identify loans with defects on an ongoing
basis. In this transaction, an independent breach reviewer
(Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC), named at closing must review loans
for breaches of representations and warranties when certain clearly
defined triggers have been breached which reduces the likelihood
that parties will be sued for inaction. Third, the issuer has
disclosed the results of a credit, compliance and valuation review
of 100% of the mortgage loans by independent third parties (AMC,
Inglet Blair, Opus and Clayton Services LLC).

Finally, the performance of past JPMMT transactions have been well
within expectation.

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 of the subordinate bonds 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.

Methodology

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating US Prime RMBS," published in February 2015.


KVK CLO 2013-1: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Class E-R Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-R, B-R, C-R,
D-R, and E-R replacement notes and the new class X notes from KVK
CLO 2013-1 Ltd., a collateralized loan obligation (CLO) originally
issued in 2013 that is managed by Kramer Van Kirk Credit Strategies
L.P. S&P withdrew its ratings on the original class A, B, C, D, and
E notes following payment in full on the Dec. 13, 2017, refinancing
date.

On this refinancing date, the proceeds from the class A-R, B-R,
C-R, D-R, and E-R replacement note issuances were used to redeem
the original class A, B, C, D, and E 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 it is assigning ratings to the replacement notes and the new
class X notes.

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

-- Issue the class A-R, B-R, C-R, and D-R notes at lower spreads
than the original notes;

-- Issue the class E-R notes at a higher spread than the original
notes (to 5.94% from 5.50%);

-- Issue new class X notes;

-- Partially recapitalize the transaction and decrease the total
issuance amount to $495.61 million from $570.00 million.

  REPLACEMENT AND ORIGINAL NOTE ISSUANCES

  Replacement Notes
  Class                Amount      Interest
                     (mil. $)      rate (%)
  A-R                  295.00      LIBOR + 0.90
  B-R                   50.70      LIBOR + 1.45
  C-R                   29.70      LIBOR + 2.00
  D-R                   26.80      LIBOR + 2.95
  E-R                   17.50      LIBOR + 5.94
  Subordinated notes    72.91      N/A

  New Notes
  Class                Amount      Interest
                      (mil. $)      rate (%)
  X(i)                   3.00      LIBOR + 0.65

  Original Notes
  Class                    Amount   Interest
                         (mil. $)   rate (%)
  A                    251.76(ii)   LIBOR + 1.40
  B                         61.05   LIBOR + 2.35
  C                         42.35   LIBOR + 3.00
  D                         29.43   LIBOR + 4.35
  E                         27.23   LIBOR + 5.50
  Subordinated notes        64.45   N/A

(i)The class X notes are a new issuance.
(ii)Balance reported as of November 2017. N/A--Not applicable.

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

  KVK CLO 2013-1 Ltd.
  Replacement class          Rating       Amount (mil. $)
  A-R                        AAA (sf)              295.00
  B-R                        AA (sf)                50.70
  C-R                        A (sf)                 29.70
  D-R                        BBB- (sf)              26.80
  E-R                        BB- (sf)               17.50
  Subordinated notes         NR                     72.91

  KVK CLO 2013-1 Ltd.
  New class                  Rating       Amount (mil. $)
  X(i)                       AAA (sf)                3.00

  RATINGS WITHDRAWN

  KVK CLO 2013-1 Ltd.
                             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)

  (i)The class X notes are a new issuance.
  NR--Not rated.


LEHMAN BROTHERS-UBS 2001-C3: Fitch Cuts Cl. F Certs Rating to Csf
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded one class and assigned a rating outlook
and downgraded two classes of Lehman Brothers-UBS (LB-UBS)
Commercial Mortgage Trust commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates, series 2001-C3.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Better than Expected Recoveries on Two REO Assets: The upgrade of
class E is primarily the result of better than expected recoveries
on two real estate owned (REO) assets as of the November 2017
distribution date. The Vista Ridge Mall was disposed of for a 53%
loss severity; the Park Central office property was disposed for
38% loss severity. The remaining loans consist of an REO asset
(42.9% of the pool), a defeased loan (26.2%) and a performing
single tenant balloon loan (31%). Given the credit enhancement to
class E it is well protected from the expected losses on the REO
asset and fully covered from the performing loans.

As of the November 2017 distribution date, the transaction has paid
down 99% since issuance, to $6.9 million from $1.4 billion.
Cumulative interest shortfalls of $2.9 million remain outstanding
on classes J through Q.

Concentrated Pool: The pool is highly concentrated with only two
performing loans remaining and one REO asset. Due to the
concentrated nature of the pool, Fitch performed a sensitivity
analysis which grouped the remaining loans based on loan structural
features, collateral quality and performance which ranked them by
their perceived likelihood of repayment. This includes the defeased
loan, the performing balloon loan, and the specially serviced REO.
The ratings reflect this sensitivity analysis.

Two Performing Loans: One balloon loan is defeased with a March
2020 maturity date (26.2%). The second performing balloon loan
(31%) is collateralized by a single tenant retail center (31,209
square feet, $69 per square foot), formerly occupied by Long's
Drugs, currently subleased to Ross Dress for Less. The lease
expires a month before the loan's maturity in March 2020.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Outlook on class E reflects sufficient credit
enhancement and increased likelihood of full payoff from
amortization and loan payoffs or dispositions. Additional rating
changes to the class are not expected given the pool
concentrations.

Fitch has upgraded the following class and assigned outlook as
follows:

-- $2.1 million class E to 'BBBsf' from 'CCCsf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch has downgraded the following classes due to realized losses:

-- $4.8 million class F to 'Dsf' from 'Csf'; RE 10%;
-- $0 class G to 'Dsf' from 'Csf'; RE 0%.

The class A-1, A-2, B, C and D certificates have paid in full.
Fitch does not rate the class H, J, K, L, M, N, P and Q
certificates all of which have been reduced to zero due to realized
losses. Fitch previously withdrew the rating on the interest-only
class X certificates.


MARBLE POINT XI: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by Marble Point CLO XI Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

US$325,000,000 Class A Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2030 (the
"Class A Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$51,250,000 Class B Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2030 (the
"Class B Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$30,000,000 Class C Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

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

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

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Marble Point XI is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will
be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90.0% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up to
10.0% of the portfolio may consist of loans that are not senior
secured. The portfolio is approximately 90% ramped as of the
closing date.

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

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer 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: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2960

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.40%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.00%

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 2960 to 3404)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2960 to 3848)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -4

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1


MERRILL LYNCH 1997-C2: Fitch Affirms Dsf Rating on Cl. H Certs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed four classes of Merrill Lynch Mortgage
Trust's commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series
1997-C2 (MLMT 1997-C2).  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Although credit enhancement has improved since Fitch's last rating
action from three loan payoffs and continued amortization, the
affirmation reflects the concentration and adverse selection of the
remaining pool. As of the December 2017 distribution date, the
pool's aggregate principal balance has been reduced by 97.1% to
$20.2 million from $686.3 million at issuance. Realized losses
incurred to date total 3.4% of the original pool balance. Interest
shortfalls are currently affecting classes H through K.

Pool Concentration & Adverse Selection: The pool is highly
concentrated with only three of the original 147 loans remaining,
all of which are secured by properties located in secondary and
tertiary markets. Due to the concentrated nature of the pool, Fitch
performed a sensitivity analysis that grouped the remaining loans
based on loan structural features, collateral quality and
performance, which ranked them by their perceived likelihood of
repayment. The ratings and Outlooks reflect this sensitivity
analysis.

Fitch Loan of Concern: Fitch has designated the largest loan,
Northlake Tower Festival (51.3% of pool), as a Fitch Loan of
Concern. The loan, which is secured by a 330,375 square foot
community shopping center located in Tucker, GA, was flagged for
declining performance attributed to low occupancy and limited
leasing activity on several of the property's largest vacant
spaces, as well as a low debt service coverage ratio (DSCR).
Property occupancy has trended downward since the former largest
tenant, Toys R Us, vacated in January 2015. Occupancy as of
December 2017 was 62.9%, compared to 62% at year-end (YE) 2016,
71.7% at YE 2015 and 83.5% at YE 2014.

Near-term rollover consists of 14% of the net rentable area (NRA)
prior to the end of 2018, including the largest tenant, Movie
Tavern Partners (8.1% of NRA), which has a lease expiring in April
2018;the borrower is reportedly negotiating a renewal with the
tenant. The property's second largest tenant, Petsmart (7.8% of
NRA), recently renewed their lease for an additional year through
the end of February 2019. Concessions of three to eight months of
free rent are currently being offered to prospective tenants. The
servicer-reported net operating income DSCR as of the third quarter
2017 was 0.70x. Fitch will continue to monitor leasing activity and
property performance. The loan has been hyper-amortizing following
the passing of the anticipated repayment date on Dec. 1, 2009. The
loan's final maturity is in December 2027.

Low Leveraged, Fully Amortizing Loans: The second and third largest
loans, comprising 48.7% of the pool, are both fully amortizing and
mature in December and October 2022, respectively. The Links at
Joneboro loan (30.8% of pool) is secured by a 423-unit multifamily
property located in Jonesboro, AR. The Dogwood Lakes Apartments
loan (17.8%) is secured by a 276-unit multifamily property located
in Benton, AR. Both loans are low leverage at approximately $14,500
and $13,100 per unit, respectively.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Outlook on class F reflects expected continued paydown
and the class being covered by low leveraged, fully amortizing
loans. No further rating change on this class is expected due to
significant pool concentration. The Rating Outlook on class G was
revised to Negative from Stable to reflect performance concerns
with the largest loan in the pool. A downgrade of the class is
possible if the largest loan experiences further performance
deterioration.

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

-- $4.1 million class F at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $6.9 million class G at 'Bsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $9.3 million class H at 'Dsf'; RE 15%;
-- $0 class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

The class A-1, A-2, B, C and D certificates have paid in full.
Fitch does not rate the class E and K certificates. Fitch
previously withdrew the rating on the interest-only class IO
certificates.


MERRILL LYNCH 2004-KEY2: Fitch Affirms CC Rating on Class E Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 11 classes of Merrill Lynch Mortgage
Trust, commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series
2004-KEY2 (MLMT 2004-KEY2).

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Although credit enhancement has improved since Fitch's last rating
action from amortization and the liquidation of the real estate
owned (REO) West River Shopping Centre asset at better than
expected recoveries, the affirmations reflect the concentration and
adverse selection of the remaining pool. As of the November 2017
distribution date, the pool's aggregate principal balance has been
reduced by 97.3% to $30.1 million from $1.1 billion at issuance.
Since Fitch's last rating action, the pool has paid down by an
additional $17.4 million (36.3% of the outstanding pool balance at
the last rating action). Realized losses since issuance total $78
million (7% of original pool balance). Cumulative interest
shortfalls totaling $5.3 million are currently impacting classes E,
F and H through Q.

Pool Concentration and Adverse Selection: The pool is highly
concentrated with only 11 of the original 118 loans/assets
remaining. Fitch designated four loans/assets (50.4% of pool) as
Fitch Loans of Concern (FLOCs), including the largest asset (37%)
which is REO. The three other non-specially serviced FLOCs (13.5%)
are collateralized by properties located in secondary and tertiary
markets and include a vacant retail property previously occupied by
Sports Authority and two industrial properties with tenant rollover
and occupancy concerns. 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 and Outlooks reflect this sensitivity
analysis.

REO Asset: The Grove Shopping Center asset (37% of pool) is an
anchored retail center located in Downers Grove, IL. The loan was
transferred to special servicing in April 2014 due to imminent
default. The asset became REO in December 2015. Occupancy as of
August 2017 was 55.3%, remaining flat from 56.4% one year earlier,
but down significantly from the 89.1% at issuance. The largest
tenant, Michael's (15.7% of net rentable area [NRA]), vacated at
its February 2017 lease expiration; however, this occupancy decline
was offset by a newly executed lease with a health club tenant for
14.7% of the NRA, which commenced in May 2017 and expires in
November 2027. Upcoming lease rollover includes 1.1% of the NRA on
month-to-month leases, less than 1% rolling in 2017, 7.5% in 2018
and 9% in 2019. The special servicer launched a marketing effort in
June 2017 and continues to market the asset for sale.

Loan Maturities: The remaining non-specially serviced loans are
scheduled to mature in 2019 (five loans, 33.1% of pool), 2020 (one
loan, 1.1%) and 2024 (four loans, 28.8%).

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Negative Rating Outlook on class D reflects potential downgrade
concerns given the high concentration of FLOCs (50.4% of pool),
including the largest asset in the pool, which is REO, and a vacant
retail property. A downgrade is possible should loss expectations
on the REO asset increase and/or with a prolonged disposition
timeframe or if additional loans default and/or transfer to special
servicing. Upgrades are not likely given the concentrated nature of
the pool and the high percentage of FLOCs and REO assets. Class E
is subject to further downgrades as additional losses are realized
or if losses exceed Fitch's expectations.

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

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

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:

-- $9.2 million class D at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $12.5 million class E at 'CCsf'; RE 95%;
-- $8.4 million class F at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class G at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class H at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

Classes A-1, A-1A, A-2, A-3, A-4, B, and C have paid in full. Fitch
previously withdrew the ratings on the interest-only class XC and
XP certificates. Fitch does not rate the class Q and DA
certificates.


MIDOCEAN CREDIT II: S&P Assigns B-(sf) Rating on Class F Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-R, D-R, E-R,
and F notes from MidOcean Credit CLO II, a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) originally issued in January 2014 that is managed
by MidOcean Credit Fund Management L.P. &P said, "We withdrew our
ratings on the original class A, D, and E notes following payment
in full on the Dec. 20, 2017, refinancing date. At the same time,
we affirmed our ratings on the original class B and C notes, which
were not part of this refinancing."

On the Dec. 20, 2017, refinancing date, the proceeds from A-R, D-R,
E-R, and F replacement note issuances were used to redeem the
original class A, D, and E 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 it is
assigning 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 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

  MidOcean Credit CLO II/MidOcean Credit CLO II LLC
  Replacement class     Rating        Amount (mil $)
  A-R                   AAA (sf)             240.000
  D-R                   BBB- (sf)             23.000
  E-R                   BB- (sf)              15.000
  F                     B- (sf)                5.000
  Income notes          NR                    42.750

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  MidOcean Credit CLO II/MidOcean Credit CLO II LLC
  Original Class        Rating        Amount (mil $)
  B                     AA (sf)               60.000
  C                     A (sf)                29.000

  RATINGS WITHDRAWN

  MidOcean Credit CLO II/MidOcean Credit CLO II LLC
                             Rating
  Original class       To              From
  A                 NR                 AAA (sf)
  D                 NR                 BBB (sf)
  E                 NR                 BB (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


MMCF CLO 2017-1: S&P Assigns BB(sf) Rating on $352MM Class D Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to MMCF CLO 2017-1 LLC's
$352 million fixed- and floating-rate notes.

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

The ratings reflect:

-- The diversified collateral pool, which consists primarily of
middle-market speculative-grade senior secured term loans.

-- The credit enhancement provided through the subordination of
cash flows, excess spread, and overcollateralization.

-- The servicer's experienced team, which can affect the
performance of the rated notes through collateral selection.

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

-- The transaction's exposure to counterparty risk via closing
date participation interests, which is expected to be mitigated by
certain rating considerations.

  RATINGS ASSIGNED
  MMCF CLO 2017-1 LLC

  Class                  Rating          Amount
                                       (mil. $)
  A-1                    AAA (sf)        231.70
  A-2                    AA (sf)          48.30
  B-1 (deferrable)       A (sf)           15.00
  B-2 (deferrable)       A (sf)            9.00
  C (deferrable)         BBB (sf)         22.90
  D (deferrable)         BB (sf)          25.10
  Preferred interests    NR               47.90

  NR--Not rated.


MORGAN STANLEY 2017-ASHF: S&P Assigns B-(sf) Rating on Cl. F Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to Morgan Stanley Capital I
Trust 2017-ASHF's $427.0 million commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2017-ASHF.

The note issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed securities
transaction backed by one two-year, floating-rate commercial
mortgage loan with five one-year extension options totaling $427.0
million, secured by cross-collateralized and cross-defaulted
mortgages on the borrowers' fee interests in 17 full-service,
limited-service, and extended-stay hotels.

S&P said, "The ratings reflect our view of the collateral's
historic and projected performance, the sponsor's and managers'
experience, the trustee-provided liquidity, the loan's terms, and
the transaction's structure. We determined that the loan has a
beginning and ending loan-to-value ratio of 110.8%, based on S&P
Global Ratings' value."

RATINGS ASSIGNED
  Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2017-ASHF

  Class        Rating            Amount ($)
  A            AAA (sf)         129,100,000
  X-CP         A- (sf)           32,400,000(i)
  X-EXT        A- (sf)           32,400,000(i)
  B            AA- (sf)          43,500,000
  C            A- (sf)           32,400,000
  D            BBB- (sf)         42,800,000
  E            BB- (sf)          67,400,000
  F            B- (sf)           59,800,000
  G            NR                30,600,000
  HHR          NR                21,400,000

(i)Notional balance. The notional amount of the class X-CP and
class X-EXT certificates will be reduced by the aggregate amount of
principal distributions and realized losses allocated to the class
C certificates.


MORGAN STANLEY 2017-CLS: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Cl. F Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned definitive ratings to six
classes of CMBS securities, issued by Morgan Stanley Capital I
Trust 2017-CLS, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2017-CLS:

Cl. A, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa3 (sf)

Cl. C, Definitive Rating Assigned A3 (sf)

Cl. D, Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

Cl. E, Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

Cl. F, Definitive Rating Assigned B3 (sf)

Note: Moody's previously assigned a provisional rating to Class
X-CP of (P) Aaa (sf), described in the prior press release, dated
November 15, 2017. Subsequent to the release of the provisional
ratings for this transaction, Class X-CP was eliminated and will
not be offered.

RATINGS RATIONALE

The Certificates are collateralized by an interest-only,
floating-rate, first-lien loan with an outstanding Cut-off Date
principal balance of $700,000,000. The Loan will be secured by the
Borrower's fee simple interest in a 704,159 SF life science office
and laboratory property located at 3 Blackfan Circle, Boston, MA,
known as the Center for Life Science.

The Borrower, BMR-Blackfan Circle LLC, is a Delaware limited
liability company that is indirectly owned and controlled by
affiliates of the real estate fund commonly known as Blackstone
Real Estate Partners VIII L.P. The Borrower is a single purpose
entity whose primary business is the performance of the obligations
under the Loan Documents and the ownership and/or operation of the
Property. Blackstone Real Estate Partners VIII L.P. acts as the
Loan Sponsor.

The Center for Life Science is a 21-story 704,159 SF, office and
laboratory building constructed between 2004 and 2008. The Property
is located at 3 Blackfan Circle approximately one block from
Longwood Avenue within the Longwood Medical Area in Boston, MA.
Access is provided by the Longwood subway stop less than one-half a
mile away.

The Property received LEED Gold certification and has extensive
infrastructure capabilities to accommodate the laboratory uses
which account for approximately 65% of each floor plate. A
dedicated heating and cooling plant provides exclusive use of clean
and reliable steam and chilled water utilities. There are 14 air
handlers, six boilers, four chillers, three stand-by generators,
one life-safety generator and 250 utility sub-meters. Other
amenities at the Property include a 300 space garage, café and
floor to ceiling windows.

As of October 31st, 2017 the Property is 100.0% occupied. The
tenant base primarily consists of medical research institutions,
including Beth Israel (51.5% of NRA; the parent entity CareGroup,
Inc. A3, long term senior revenue underlying), Children's Hospital
Corp., MA (22.4% of NRA; Aa2, long term senior revenue underlying),
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, MA (7.2% of NRA; A1, long term senior
revenue underlying), the Immune Disease Institute, Inc., a
subsidiary of Children's Hospital Corp., MA (7.1% of NRA; Aa2, long
term senior revenue underlying) and Harvard University, MA (5.7% of
NRA; Aaa, long term senior revenue underlying).

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

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

The first mortgage balance of $700,000,000 represents a Moody's LTV
of 113.9%. The Moody's First Mortgage Actual DSCR is 2.78X and
Moody's First Mortgage Stressed DSCR is 0.78X.

Moody's also grades properties on a scale of 0 to 5 (best to worst)
and considers those grades when assessing the likelihood of debt
payment. The factors considered include property age, quality of
construction, location, market, and tenancy. The Property's
property quality grade is 0.75, reflecting the superior quality of
this asset.

Notable strengths of the transaction include: high quality asset,
strategic location, the submarket strength, credit tenant roster,
historical occupancy and an experienced Sponsor.

Notable credit challenges of the transaction include: lack of
diversity for this single asset transaction, tenant rollover risk,
sponsor cash out and the lack of loan amortization.

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.

Moody's approach for single borrower and large loan multi-borrower
transactions evaluates credit enhancement levels based on an
aggregation of adjusted loan level proceeds derived from Moody's
Moody's loan level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to determining
proceeds include leverage, loan structure, and property type. These
aggregated proceeds are then further adjusted for any pooling
benefits associated with loan level diversity, other concentrations
and correlations.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: If Moody's value of the collateral
used in determining the initial rating were decreased by 5%, 15.1%,
and 24.2%, the model-indicated rating for i) the currently rated
Aaa (sf) classes would be Aa1 (sf), A1 (sf), and A3 (sf),
respectively, ii) the currently rated Aa3 (sf) classes would be A2
(sf), Baa2 (sf), and Ba1 (sf), respectively, iii) the currently
rated A3 (sf) classes would be Baa2 (sf), Ba2 (sf), and B1 (sf),
respectively, iv) the currently rated Baa3 (sf) classes would be
Ba2 (sf), B2 (sf), and B3 (sf), respectively, v) the currently
rated Ba3 (sf) classes would be B2 (sf), B3 (sf), and Caa2 (sf),
respectively, and vi) the currently rated B3 (sf) classes would be
Caa1 (sf), Caa2 (sf), and Caa3 (sf), respectively. Parameter
Sensitivities are not intended to measure how the rating of the
security might migrate over time; rather they are designed to
provide a quantitative calculation of how the initial rating might
change if key input parameters used in the initial rating process
differed. The analysis assumes that the deal has not aged.
Parameter Sensitivities only reflect the ratings impact of each
scenario from a quantitative/model-indicated standpoint.
Qualitative factors are also taken into consideration in the
ratings process, so the actual ratings that would be assigned in
each case could vary from the information presented in the
Parameter Sensitivity analysis.

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

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

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range may
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or weaker
than Moody's had previously anticipated. Factors that may cause an
upgrade of the ratings include significant loan pay downs or
amortization, an increase in the pool's share of defeasance or
overall improved pool performance. Factors that may cause a
downgrade of the ratings include a decline in overall performance
and Property income, increased expected losses from a specially
serviced and troubled loan or interest shortfalls.

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

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


MORGAN STANLEY 2017-HR2: Fitch to Rate Class H-RR Certs 'B-sf'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has issued a presale report on Morgan Stanley Capital
I Trust 2017-HR2 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2017-HR2.

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

-- $15,000,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $114,600,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $26,300,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $235,000,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $269,015,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $659,915,000b class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $155,552,000b class X-B 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $58,922,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $48,315,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $48,315,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $32,053,000ab class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $32,053,000a class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $22,154,000ac class E-RR 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $15,320,000ac class F-RR 'BB+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $11,784,000ac class G-RR 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $10,606,000ac class H-RR 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

The following class is not expected to be rated:

-- $35,353,074ac class J-RR.

(a) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144A.
(b) Notional amount and interest-only.
(c) Horizontal credit risk retention interest representing no less
than 5% of the estimated fair value of all classes of regular
certificates issued by the issuing entity as of the closing date.

The expected ratings are based on information provided by the
issuer as of Dec. 6, 2017.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 42 loans secured by 82
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
$942,737,075 as of the cut-off date. The loans were contributed to
the trust by: Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, Citi
Real Estate Funding Inc, Starwood Mortgage Funding III LLC and
Argentic Real Estate Finance LLC.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 71.3% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis of 85.3% and asset summary reviews
on 100% of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS
Higher Fitch Leverage Than Recent Transactions: The pool's leverage
is higher than recent comparable Fitch-rated multiborrower
transactions. The pool's Fitch DSCR and LTV are 1.22x and 108.0%,
respectively, compared to the YTD 2017 averages of 1.26x and
101.3%, respectively. Excluding the credit opinion loan, the pool
has a Fitch DSCR and LTV of 1.18x and 112.9%, respectively,
compared to the YTD 2017 normalized averages of 1.21x and 107.0%.

Above-Average Retail Concentration; Diverse Property Types: The
pool's largest property type is retail at 30.1%, which is greater
than the YTD 2017 average of 24.1%. Although the retail
concentration is above-average, the pool has a diverse range of
property types. The second and third largest pool concentrations
are office at 16.8% and multifamily at 13.6%. Hotel properties
comprise only 11.4% of the pool, which is below the YTD 2017
average of 16.0%. Overall, there are 12 retail properties,
consisting of a mix of stand-alone, anchored shopping centers, and
a lifestyle center. None of the properties are regional malls.

Very Low Amortization: Based on the scheduled balance at maturity,
the pool will pay down 4.5%. This is well below the YTD 2017 and
2016 averages of 8.0% and 10.4%, respectively. Nineteen loans
(67.2% of pool) are full term interest-only, which is significantly
higher than the YTD 2017 and 2016 averages of 45.8% and 33.3%,
respectively.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 8.8% below
the most recent year's net operating income (NOI) for properties
for which a full-year NOI was provided, excluding properties that
were stabilizing during this period. Unanticipated further declines
in property-level NCF could result in higher defaults and loss
severities on defaulted loans and in potential rating actions on
the certificates.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to the MSC
2017-HR2 certificates and found that the transaction displays
average sensitivities to further declines in NCF. In a scenario in
which NCF declined a further 20% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade of
the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'Asf' could result. In a more
severe scenario, in which NCF declined a further 30% from Fitch's
NCF, a downgrade of the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBB+sf'
could result.


MSC 2017-JWDR: Fitch Assigns B-sf Rating to Class F Certs
---------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following ratings and Rating
Outlooks to Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC's MSC 2017-JWDR Mortgage Trust
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates:

-- $115,200,000a class A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $49,500,000a class B 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $27,300,000a class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $31,000,000a class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $48,000,000a class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $55,000,000a class F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

The following classes are not rated by Fitch:

-- $19,800,000a class G;
-- $19,200,000b class HRR.

(a) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144A.
(b) Horizontal credit risk retention interest representing 5.3% of
the pool balance (as of the closing date).

Since Fitch published its expected ratings on Nov. 28, 2017,
classes X-CP and X-EXT have been withdrawn and the certificate
balances for classes G and HRR have been updated. The classes above
reflect the final ratings and deal structure.

The certificates represent the beneficial interests in the $365
million, two-year, floating-rate, interest-only mortgage loan
securing the fee interest in The JW Marriott Desert Ridge in
Phoenix, AZ. Proceeds of the loan, along with $50 million of
mezzanine financing, were used to refinance the existing debt
encumbering the properties. The certificates will follow a
sequential-pay structure.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Asset Quality: The subject is a high-quality resort hotel situated
on approximately 393 acres in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona.
Property amenities include approximately 233,000 sf of indoor and
outdoor meeting and event facilities, two 18-hole golf courses
designed by Nick Faldo and Arnold Palmer, a 28,000-sf, full-service
spa, two fitness centers, seven food and beverage (F&B) venues,
four pools, including a lazy river, as well as tennis courts,
hiking/biking trails and pickle ball courts. Fitch assigned a
property quality grade of 'A'.

Capital Improvements: The property has benefited from $27.4 million
($28,832 per key) in capital improvements since 2015. Recent
upgrades include facade renovation/waterproofing/paint, spa/fitness
center renovation, guestroom shower reconstruction, and expansion
of the Meritage restaurant. Over the next three years the sponsor
plans to invest $53.1 million in the property. Of that, $42.4
million ($44,632 per key) is allocated for guestroom upgrades in
2018.

Stable Historical Performance and Improvement: Property occupancy,
RevPAR growth, revenues and expenses have shown a high degree of
consistency since at least 2011. Since Blackstone's 2015
acquisition, operating performance has improved on both the revenue
and expense side. Total revenue grew 12.7% from 2014 to August
2017, and the property's operating expense ratio declined from
45.4% in 2014 to 40.5% in August 2017.

Good Location Near Demand-Generators: The property's Valley of the
Sun location is characterized by numerous golf courses and known
for its warm climate. Downtown Phoenix and Scottsdale, the Phoenix
Convention Center, Camelback Mountain, and the Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport are all located within 20 miles. The Mayo
Clinic Hospital lies two miles south of the subject.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch performed a break-even analysis to determine the amount of
value deterioration the pool could withstand prior to $1 of loss on
the total debt and 'AAAsf' rated class. The break-even value
declines were performed using both the appraisal values at issuance
and the Fitch-stressed value.

Based on the as-is appraisal value of $562 million, break-even
values represent declines of 35.1% and 79.5% for the total debt and
'AAAsf' class, respectively.

Similarly, Fitch estimated total debt and 'AAAsf' break-even value
declines using the Fitch-adjusted property value of $325 million,
which is a function of the Fitch net cash flow (NCF) and a stressed
capitalization rate, in relation to the appropriate class balances.
The break-even value declines relative to the total debt and
'AAAsf' balances are -12.3% and 64.6%, respectively, which
correspond to equivalent declines to Fitch NCF, as the Fitch
capitalization rate is held constant.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings for class A and
found that a 25% decline in Fitch's implied NCF would result in a
one-category downgrade, while a 48% decline would result in a
downgrade to below investment grade.


OCP CLO 2017-14: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Class D Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to OCP CLO 2017-14 Ltd./OCP
CLO 2017-14 LLC's $507.6 million floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is collateralized loan obligation securitization
backed primarily by broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior
secured term loans that are governed by collateral quality tests.

The ratings reflect S&P's view of:

-- The diversified collateral pool, which consists primarily of
broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior secured term loans that
are governed by collateral quality tests.

-- The credit enhancement provided through the subordination of
cash flows, excess spread, and overcollateralization.

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

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

  RATINGS ASSIGNED
  OCP CLO 2017-14 Ltd./OCP CLO 2017-14 LLC

  Class                Rating          Amount
                                     (mil. $)
  A-1a                 AAA (sf)        345.60
  A-1b                 NR               44.40
  A-2                  AA (sf)          64.80
  B (deferrable)       A (sf)           33.60
  C (deferrable)       BBB- (sf)        39.60
  D (deferrable)       BB- (sf)         24.00
  Subordinated notes   NR               59.45

  NR--Not rated.


OCTAGON INVESTMENT 34: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Ratings on 2 Tranches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to nine classes of
notes issued by Octagon Investment Partners 34, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

US$274,500,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$18,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class A-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$36,000,000 Class B-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class B-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$9,000,000 Class B-2 Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class B-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$10,000,000 Class C-1 Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class C-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
A1 (sf)

US$23,750,000 Class C-2 Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class C-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
A3 (sf)

US$22,500,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Baa3 (sf)

US$9,375,000 Class E-1 Secured Deferrable Junior Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class E-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Ba3 (sf)

US$10,880,000 Class E-2 Secured Deferrable Junior Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class E-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Ba3 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Octagon 34 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated senior secured
corporate loans. At least 90.0% of the portfolio must consist of
first lien senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up to
10.0% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and
unsecured loans. The portfolio is at least 85% ramped as of the
closing date.

Octagon Credit Investors, LLC (the "Manager") will direct the
selection, acquisition and disposition of the assets on behalf of
the Issuer and may engage in trading activity, including
discretionary trading, during the transaction's 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 two classes of
subordinated notes and two series of combination notes that were
not rated by Moody's.

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: 55

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2929

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.50%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.5%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9.1 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
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 2929 to 3368)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2 Notes: -1

Class B-1 Notes: -2

Class B-2 Notes: -2

Class C-1 Notes: -2

Class C-2 Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E-1 Notes: 0

Class E-2 Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2929 to 3808)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2 Notes: -3

Class B-1 Notes: -3

Class B-2 Notes: -3

Class C-1 Notes: -3

Class C-2 Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E-1 Notes: -1

Class E-2 Notes: -1


OCTAGON INVESTMENT XXII: S&P Gives Prelim B- Rating on F-RR Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to the class
A-RR, B-RR, C-RR, D-RR, E-RR, and F-RR replacement notes, as well
as to the new class X-RR notes, from Octagon Investment Partners
XXII Ltd., a collateralized loan obligation (CLO) originally issued
in November 2014 that is managed by Octagon Credit Investors LLC.
The replacement notes will be issued via a proposed second
supplemental indenture.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Dec. 18,
2017. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

On the Jan. 22, 2018 refinancing date, which will be the issuer's
second optional redemption and replacement note issuance, the
proceeds from the issuance of the replacement notes, combined with
the proceeds of the issuance of the class X-RR notes and additional
subordinated notes, are expected to redeem the currently
outstanding notes. S&P said, "At that time, we anticipate
withdrawing the rating on the class A-R notes and assigning ratings
to the replacement class A-RR, B-RR, C-RR, D-RR, E-RR, and F-RR
notes, as well as to the new class X-RR notes. However, if the
refinancing doesn't occur, we may affirm the rating on the class
A-R notes and withdraw our preliminary ratings on the replacement
class A-RR, B-RR, C-RR, D-RR, E-RR, and F-RR notes (as well as to
the new class X-RR notes)."

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

-- Change the rated par amount and aggregate ramp-up par amount to
$661.30 million and $694.57 million, respectively, from $424.50
million and $700.00 million, respectively.

-- Extend the reinvestment period to Jan. 22, 2023, from Jan.
22,2019.

-- Extend the non-call period to Jan. 22, 2020, from Nov. 25,
2016.

-- Extend the weighted average life test to nine years calculated
from the Jan. 22, 2018, second refinancing date, from Nov. 25,
2022.

-- Extend the legal final maturity date on the rated and
subordinated notes to Jan. 22, 2030, from Nov. 25, 2025.

-- Issue additional class X-RR senior secured floating rate notes,
which are expected to be paid down using interest proceeds in equal
quarterly installments beginning with the payment date in July 2018
and ending on the payment date in April 2022. The transaction will
also issue additional subordinated notes, increasing the
subordinated notes balance to approximately $63.17 million from
$60.00 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 S&P's August 2016 CLO criteria update.

  REPLACEMENT AND ORIGINAL NOTE ISSUANCES
  
  Second Refinancing Replacement Notes
  Class                Amount    Interest                          

                      (mil. $)    rate (%)        
  X-RR                   8.50    LIBOR + 0.65
  A-RR                 424.40    LIBOR + 1.07
  B-RR                  82.50    LIBOR + 1.40
  C-RR                  62.60    LIBOR + 1.80
  D-RR                  37.50    LIBOR + 2.50
  E-RR                  31.90    LIBOR + 5.65
  F-RR                  13.90    LIBOR + 7.50
  Subordinated notes    63.17    N/A

  First Refinancing Replacement Notes (i)
  Class                Amount    Interest                          

                      (mil. $)    rate (%)        
  A-R                  424.50    LIBOR + 1.12
  B-1-R                 74.25    LIBOR + 1.60
  B-2-R                 18.00    LIBOR + 1.60
  C-1-R                 40.25    LIBOR + 2.10
  C-2-R                  4.00    LIBOR + 2.10
  C-3-R                 13.00    LIBOR + 2.10
  D-1-R                 32.25    LIBOR + 3.30
  D-2-R                  4.00    LIBOR + 3.30
  E-1                   30.00    LIBOR + 5.25
  E-2-R                  3.75    LIBOR + 6.00
  F                     14.00    LIBOR + 6.30
  Subordinated notes    60.00    N/A

(i)The original class E-1, F, and subordinated notes were not
refinanced on the first refinancing date. In addition, the original
class X notes were paid in full on the April 2015 payment date,
prior to the first refinancing date.

  Original Notes
  Class                Amount    Interest                          

                      (mil. $)    rate (%)  
  X                      4.00    LIBOR + 1.00
  A                    424.50    LIBOR + 1.48
  B-1                   74.25    LIBOR + 2.55
  B-2                   18.00    LIBOR + 2.30
  C-1                   40.25    LIBOR + 3.25
  C-2                    4.00    LIBOR + 3.50
  C-3                   13.00    5.65
  D-1                   32.25    LIBOR + 3.90
  D-2                    4.00    LIBOR + 4.58
  E-1                   30.00    LIBOR + 5.25
  E-2                    3.75    LIBOR + 6.75
  F                     14.00    LIBOR + 6.30
  Subordinated notes    60.00    N/A

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.

"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."

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Octagon Investment Partners XXII Ltd.
  Replacement class         Rating      Amount (mil. $)
  X-RR                      AAA (sf)               8.5o
  A-RR                      AAA (sf)             424.40
  B-RR                      AA (sf)               82.50
  C-RR                      A (sf)                62.60
  D-RR                      BBB- (sf)             37.50
  E-RR                      BB- (sf)              31.90
  F-RR                      B- (sf)               13.90
  Subordinated Notes        NR                    63.17

  NR--Not Rated.


ONEMAIN DIRECT 2017-2: Moody's Assigns Ba2 Rating to Cl. E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned definitive ratings to the
notes issued by OneMain Direct Auto Receivables Trust 2017-2 (ODART
2017-2). This is the second ODART auto loan transaction of the
year. The notes are backed by a pool of retail automobile loan
contracts originated by affiliates of OneMain Financial Holdings,
LLC (OMF; B1 positive). OMF is also the servicer for the
transaction.

The complete rating actions are:

Issuer: OneMain Direct Auto Receivables Trust 2017-2

$374,390,000, 2.31%, Class A Notes, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa
(sf)

$87,360,000, 2.55%, Class B Notes, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2
(sf)

$62,400,000, 2.82%, Class C Notes, Definitive Rating Assigned
A2(sf)

$43,680,000, 3.42%, Class D Notes, Definitive Rating Assigned Baa2
(sf)

$37,440,000, 4.74%, Class E Notes, Definitive Rating Assigned
Ba2(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Moody's median cumulative net loss expectation for the 2017-2 pool
is 5.0% and the Aaa level is 47.0%. The Aaa level is the level of
credit enhancement consistent with a Aaa (sf) rating. Moody's based
its cumulative net loss expectation and Aaa level on an analysis of
the credit quality of the underlying collateral; the historical
performance of similar collateral, including securitization
performance and managed portfolio performance; the ability of OMF
to perform the servicing functions; and current expectations for
the macroeconomic environment during the life of the transaction.

At closing, the Class A notes, Class B notes, Class C notes, Class
D, and Class E notes are expected to benefit from 41.00%, 27.00%,
17.00%, 10.00%, and 4.00% of hard credit enhancement, respectively.
Hard credit enhancement for the notes consists of a combination of
overcollateralization, a non-declining reserve account, and
subordination, except for the Class E notes, which do not benefit
from subordination. The notes will also benefit from excess
spread.

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

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

Up

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

Down

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


PALMER SQUARE 2014-1: S&P Gives Prelim BB-(sf) Rating on D-R2 Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to the class
A-1-R2, A-2-R2, B-R2, C-R2, and D-R2 replacement notes from Palmer
Square CLO 2014-1 Ltd., a collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
originally issued in June 2014 and first refinanced in January
2017. The transaction is managed by Palmer Square Capital
Management LLC. The replacement notes will be issued via a proposed
supplemental indenture.

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

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

On the Jan. 17, 2018, second refinancing date, the proceeds from
the issuance of the class A-1-R2, A-2-R2, B-R2, C-R2, and D-R2
replacement notes are expected to redeem the class A-1-R, A-2-R,
B-R, C-R, and D-R notes. At that time, we anticipate withdrawing
the ratings on the outstanding notes and assigning ratings to the
replacement notes. However, if the refinancing doesn't occur, we
may affirm the ratings on the outstanding notes and withdraw our
preliminary ratings on the replacement notes.

This is the second refinancing date of the transaction. The
original class A-1, A-2, B, C, and D notes were redeemed in full on
the Jan. 17, 2017, refinancing date.

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

-- Change the rated par amount and target initial par amount to
$370.40 million and $402.50 million, respectively, from $368.15
million and $400.00 million, respectively.

-- Extend the reinvestment period to Jan. 17, 2023, from Jan. 17,
2019.

-- Extend the non-call period to Jan. 17, 2020, from Jan. 17,
2018.

-- Extend the weighted average life test to Jan. 17, 2027, from
Jan. 17, 2023.

-- Extend the legal final maturity date on the rated,
contribution, and subordinated notes to Jan. 17, 2031, from Jan.
17, 2027.

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

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

REPLACEMENT AND ORIGINAL NOTE ISSUANCES

  Second Refinancing Replacement Notes
  Class                Amount    Interest                          
            
                     (mil. $)    rate (%)        
  A-1-R2              244.00     LIBOR + 1.13
  A-2-R2               62.45     LIBOR + 1.45
  B-R2                 25.15     LIBOR + 1.85
  C-R2                 20.80     LIBOR + 2.65
  D-R2                 18.00     LIBOR + 5.70
  Contribution notes    5.00     LIBOR + 8.00
  Subordinated notes   44.75     N/A

  First Refinancing Replacement Notes
  Class                Amount    Interest                          

                      (mil. $)    rate (%)        
  A-1-R               260.00     LIBOR + 1.37
  A-2-R                44.00     LIBOR + 1.90
  B-R                  28.15     LIBOR + 2.70
  C-R                  19.80     LIBOR + 4.00
  D-R                  16.20     LIBOR + 6.90
  Contribution notes    5.00     LIBOR + 8.00
  Subordinated notes   44.75     N/A

  Original Notes
  Class                Amount    Interest                          
  
                      (mil. $)    rate (%)        
  A-1                  288.00    LIBOR + 1.27
  A-2                   49.50    LIBOR + 1.84
  B                     36.00    LIBOR + 2.55
  C                     22.50    LIBOR + 3.85
  D                     16.25    LIBOR + 5.75
  Subordinated notes    44.75    N/A

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.

"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."

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Palmer Square CLO 2014-1 Ltd.
  Replacement class         Rating      Amount (mil. $)
  A-1-R2                    AAA (sf)            244.00
  A-2-R2                    AA (sf)              62.45
  B-R2                      A (sf)               25.15
  C-R2                      BBB- (sf)            20.80
  D-R2                      BB- (sf)             18.00
  Subordinated notes        NR                   44.75

  NR--Not rated.


PPLUS TRUST RRD-1: S&P Lowers $60MM Class A & B Debt Ratings to 'B'
-------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its ratings on PPlus Trust Series
RRD-1's $60 million class A and B certificates to 'B' from 'B+'.

S&P said, "Our ratings on the certificates are dependent on our
rating on the underlying security, R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.'s
6.625% debentures due April 15, 2029, which we lowered to 'B' from
'B+' on Nov. 14, 2017.

"We may take subsequent rating actions on these certificates due to
changes in our rating assigned to the underlying security."

RATINGS LOWERED

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


PRIMA CAPITAL 2016-VI: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Class C Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on the following
notes issued by Prima Capital CRE Securitization 2016-VI Ltd.:

Cl. A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2016 Assigned Aaa
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2016 Assigned Aa3
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2016 Assigned Ba2
(sf)

The Class A, Class B and Class C 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 the existing ratings. The
rating action is the result of Moody's on-going surveillance of
commercial real estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO CLO)
transactions.

Prima 2016-VI is a static cash flow transaction (CRE CDO backed by
a portfolio of : i) single asset/single borrower commercial real
estate bonds (CMBS) (74.7% of the current pool balance); ii)
mezzanine interests in commercial real estate, secured by office
and retail properties (21.9%); and iii) real estate investment
trust (REIT) bonds, primarily backed by retail properties (3.4%).
As of the November 20, 2017 trustee report, the aggregate balance
of notes has decreased to $290.2 million from $301.3 million at
issuance.

No assets had defaulted as of the trustee's November 20, 2017
report.

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CLO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 1426,
compared to 1506 at securitization. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated collateral and the assessments of the non-Moody's
rated collateral follow: A1-A3 (6.9% compared to 0.0% at
securitization); Baa1-Baa3 (41.9% compared to 47.0% at
securitization); Ba1-Ba3 (27.1% compared to 26.1% at
securitization); B1-B3 (19.8% compared to 22.7% at securitization);
and Caa1-Ca/C (4.3% compared to 4.1% at securitization).

Moody's modeled a WAL of 5.9 years, compared to 6.9 years at
securitization. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on
the underlying loan and look-though CMBS loan collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 31.9%, compared to 32.9% at
securitization.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 32.0%, same as that at securitization.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for some of the Rated
Notes, although a change in one key parameter assumption could be
offset by a change in one or more of the other key parameter
assumptions. The Rated Notes are particularly sensitive to changes
in the ratings of the underlying collateral and credit assessments.
Holding all other parameters constant, notching down approximately
30% of the collateral pool by one notch would result in an average
modeled rating movement on the Rated Notes of zero to one notch
downward (e.g., one notch down implies a ratings movement of Baa3
to Ba1). Notching down approximately 30% of the collateral pool by
two notches would result in an average modeled rating movement on
the Rated Notes of zero to one notch downward (e.g., two notches
down implies a ratings movement of Baa3 to Ba2).

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.

REGULATORY DISCLOSURES

For further specification of Moody's key rating assumptions and
sensitivity analysis, see the sections Methodology Assumptions and
Sensitivity to Assumptions of the disclosure form.

The analysis relies on a Monte Carlo simulation that generates a
large number of collateral loss or cash flow scenarios, which on
average meet key metrics Moody's determines based on its assessment
of the collateral characteristics. Moody's then evaluates each
simulated scenario using model that replicates the relevant
structural features and payment allocation rules of the
transaction, to derive losses or payments for each rated
instrument. The average loss a rated instrument incurs in all of
the simulated collateral loss or cash flow scenarios, which Moody's
weights based on its assumptions about the likelihood of events in
such scenarios actually occurring, results in the expected loss of
the rated instrument.

Moody's quantitative analysis entails an evaluation of scenarios
that stress factors contributing to sensitivity of ratings and take
into account the likelihood of severe collateral losses or impaired
cash flows. Moody's weights the impact on the rated instruments
based on its assumptions of the likelihood of the events in such
scenarios occurring.

For ratings issued on a program, series or category/class of debt,
this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in
relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of
the same series or category/class of debt or pursuant to a program
for which the ratings are derived exclusively from existing ratings
in accordance with Moody's rating practices. For ratings issued on
a support provider, this announcement provides certain regulatory
disclosures in relation to the credit rating action on the support
provider and in relation to each particular credit rating action
for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support
provider's credit rating. For provisional ratings, this
announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to
the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive
rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the
debt, in each case where the transaction structure and terms have
not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a
manner that would have affected the rating.

For any affected securities or rated entities receiving direct
credit support from the primary entity(ies) of this credit rating
action, and whose ratings may change as a result of this credit
rating action, the associated regulatory disclosures will be those
of the guarantor entity. Exceptions to this approach exist for the
following disclosures, if applicable to jurisdiction: Ancillary
Services, Disclosure to rated entity, Disclosure from rated entity.


REVERSE MORTGAGE REV 2007-2: S&P Raises Cl. A Debt Rating to BB(sf)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its rating on the class A notes from
Reverse Mortgage Loan Trust's series REV 2007-2, a home equity
conversion mortgage (HECM) reverse mortgage transaction issued in
2007, to 'BB (sf)' from 'B- (sf)'.

The collateral backing this transaction consists primarily of HECM
reverse mortgage loans that are secured by first mortgages, deeds
of trust, or other similar security instruments creating first
liens on one- to four-family residential properties.

S&P said, "The raised rating reflects our view that improved
collateral performance has increased the available credit
enhancement to this class, including overcollateralization, which
rose to 5.92% in November 2017 from 2.16% at our last review in
December 2016. The collateral balance versus the note balance also
increased to 3.77% from -1.62% over the same period.

Constant Prepayment Rate (CPR) Assumptions

S&P said, "Our analysis contemplated both fast and slow CPR
assumptions and further segmented those assumptions by the
borrower's gender and age. According to our reverse mortgage
criteria, if the observed CPRs are considerably different from
those in the criteria, we may use updated CPR vectors.

"We analyze data annually, or more frequently if warranted,
published by market participants to determine if our observed CPRs
are considerably different than our published assumptions. A
considerable difference would be when there is at least a one
rating category difference between what is published and what is
being observed. We would then need to recalibrate our base-case
assumptions based on the observations, and then derive new CPR
assumptions at higher rating stresses. Where observed data are not
stratified by age and gender, we typically associate the observed
CPRs with the weighted average borrower age of the remaining loans
within the related pool. We would do this for each gender to
determine the base-case assumption to use. For couples, we use the
youngest borrower's age and gender.

"For our "slow" CPR assumptions, we may also update our 'AAA'
assumptions based on the most recent mortality tables provided by
the Society of Actuaries, if they have been updated since the
criteria's original publication. We would then update the CPRs for
the 'BB' through 'AA' rating categories through linear
interpolation. For our "fast" CPR assumptions, updated CPRs at
higher rating levels typically reflect the same upward scaling
(i.e. the relationship between base-case and stressed CPRs in the
table is used to create revised stressed CPRs based on the revised
base-case CPRs) as the assumptions in the appendix tables.

"During this review, we updated our slow CPR assumptions due to
observed CPR data for the pool's weighted average borrower age,
which is 83. We updated our base-case assumption to a level that
equates to the 'BB' published slow CPR assumptions for male and to
a level that equates to the 'B' published slow CPR assumptions for
female. We also updated our 'AAA' slow CPR assumptions to reflect
the most recent published mortality tables. We then linearly
interpolated the CPRs for the 'BB' through 'AA' rating categories.
However, we believe that our fast CPR assumptions remain accurate
and used those in our reverse mortgage surveillance criteria."

  Table 1
  CPR Assumptions (%)
  Male
                 AAA     AA      A       BBB    BB       B
  Borrower age                                            
  62             0.89    3.40    5.92    8.44   10.96    13.48
  63             0.95    3.46    5.97    8.48   10.99    13.50
  64             1.02    3.52    6.02    8.53   11.03    13.53
  65             1.10    3.76    6.42    9.09   11.75    14.41
  66             1.19    3.83    6.47    9.12   11.76    14.40
  67             1.29    3.90    6.50    9.10   11.71    14.31
  68             1.41    3.99    6.58    9.16   11.75    14.33
  69             1.53    4.11    6.69    9.27   11.84    14.42
  70             1.68    4.25    6.83    9.41   11.98    14.56
  71             1.84    4.42    7.01    9.60   12.18    14.77
  72             2.01    4.57    7.12    9.67   12.22    14.77
  73             2.21    4.72    7.24    9.75   12.26    14.77
  74             2.43    4.91    7.39    9.87   12.34    14.82
  75             2.68    5.10    7.51    9.92   12.34    14.75
  76             2.96    5.30    7.64    9.99   12.33    14.67
  77             3.27    5.58    7.88    10.18  12.49    14.79
  78             3.63    5.85    8.08    10.30  12.53    14.75
  79             4.02    6.20    8.38    10.56  12.73    14.91
  80             4.47    6.69    8.91    11.13  13.35    15.57
  81             4.98    7.23    9.47    11.72  13.96    16.21
  82             5.55    7.88    10.21   12.54  14.86    17.19
  83             6.20    8.57    10.94   13.30  15.67    18.04
  84             6.93    9.45    11.97   14.50  17.02    19.54
  85             7.75    10.40   13.05   15.71  18.36    21.01
  86             8.67    11.46   14.25   17.03  19.82    22.61
  87             9.70    12.62   15.54   18.46  21.38    24.30
  88             10.86   13.95   17.05   20.14  23.24    26.33
  89             12.15   15.36   18.57   21.79  25.00    28.21
  90             13.59   16.96   20.33   23.69  27.06    30.43
  91             15.13   18.67   22.21   25.75  29.29    32.83
  92             16.74   20.47   24.19   27.91  31.64    35.36
  93             18.40   22.34   26.28   30.22  34.16    38.10
  94             20.11   24.38   28.65   32.92  37.20    41.47
  95             21.86   26.56   31.26   35.96  40.67    45.37
  96             23.65   28.92   34.18   39.44  44.71    49.97
  97             25.51   31.44   37.37   43.30  49.24    55.17
  98             27.42   34.16   40.89   47.63  54.37    61.11
  99             29.38   37.04   44.69   52.35  60.00    67.66
  100            31.40   39.91   48.42   56.94  65.45    73.96
  101            33.44   46.75   60.06   73.37  86.69    100.00
  102            35.46   48.37   61.28   74.18  87.09    100.00
  103            37.45   49.96   62.47   74.98  87.49    100.00
  104            39.40   51.52   63.64   75.76  87.88    100.00
  105            100.00  100.00  100.00  100.00 100.00   100.00

  Female
                 AAA     AA      A       BBB    BB       B
  Borrower age                                            
  62             0.62    2.87    5.13    7.38   9.64     11.89
  63             0.67    2.92    5.16    7.40   9.65     11.89
  64             0.74    2.97    5.20    7.43   9.66     11.89
  65             0.80    3.14    5.47    7.80   10.14    12.47
  66             0.88    3.22    5.56    7.90   10.24    12.58
  67             0.97    3.22    5.47    7.72   9.97     12.22
  68             1.06    3.27    5.47    7.68   9.88     12.09
  69             1.17    3.37    5.57    7.77   9.97     12.17
  70             1.29    3.49    5.70    7.91   10.11    12.32
  71             1.42    3.64    5.87    8.10   10.32    12.55
  72             1.56    3.81    6.06    8.30   10.55    12.80
  73             1.72    4.01    6.29    8.58   10.86    13.15
  74             1.90    4.21    6.53    8.84   11.16    13.47
  75             2.09    4.42    6.75    9.08   11.41    13.74
  76             2.31    4.68    7.04    9.40   11.77    14.13
  77             2.56    4.90    7.25    9.60   11.94    14.29
  78             2.83    5.17    7.51    9.84   12.18    14.52
  79             3.14    5.47    7.79    10.12  12.45    14.78
  80             3.48    5.78    8.07    10.36  12.65    14.94
  81             3.88    6.13    8.39    10.64  12.90    15.15
  82             4.32    6.56    8.79    11.03  13.26    15.50
  83             4.83    7.03    9.23    11.44  13.64    15.84
  84             5.40    7.59    9.77    11.95  14.14    16.32
  85             6.05    8.20    10.36   12.51  14.67    16.82
  86             6.78    8.97    11.16   13.36  15.55    17.74
  87             7.60    9.85    12.11   14.36  16.62    18.87
  88             8.52    10.83   13.14   15.45  17.76    20.07
  89             9.56    11.92   14.28   16.64  19.01    21.37
  90             10.71   13.11   15.52   17.92  20.32    22.72
  91             11.97   14.44   16.90   19.36  21.83    24.29
  92             13.33   15.83   18.34   20.84  23.35    25.85
  93             14.77   17.36   19.94   22.52  25.11    27.69
  94             16.30   18.94   21.59   24.24  26.88    29.53
  95             17.90   20.64   23.37   26.11  28.84    31.58
  96             19.59   22.42   25.25   28.08  30.91    33.74
  97             21.36   24.31   27.26   30.21  33.16    36.11
  98             23.20   26.29   29.37   32.46  35.54    38.63
  99             25.11   28.45   31.79   35.13  38.47    41.81
  100            27.09   30.88   34.68   38.48  42.28    46.08
  101            29.10   33.51   37.92   42.33  46.74    51.15
  102            31.14   36.36   41.57   46.78  52.00    57.21
  103            33.19   39.33   45.47   51.62  57.76    63.90
  104            35.22   41.95   48.68   55.41  62.13    68.86
  105            100.00  100.00  100.00  100.00 100.00   100.00

Interest Rate Assumptions

S&P said, "While our reverse mortgage surveillance criteria do not
specify specific interest rate paths when surveilling reverse
mortgage transactions, the stresses we apply are consistent with
"Methodology And Assumptions: U.S. RMBS Surveillance Credit And
Cash Flow Analysis For Pre-2009 Originations," published March 2,
2016. These criteria specify three different interest rate paths: a
"middle" path (the forward rate curve), a "low" path (where rates
fall and then rise), and a "high" path (where rates rise and then
fall). The low and high path projections are specific to each
rating category. These interest rate paths are intended to stress
the differences between the interest rates on the loan collateral
and the interest rates on the rated securities, which could
potentially reduce the credit enhancement provided by excess
interest. Consistent with these criteria, we apply the three-path
approach described above when surveilling reverse mortgage
transactions."


RFC CDO 2006-1: Moody's Affirms C(sf) Ratings on 6 Tranches
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on the following
notes issued by RFC CDO 2006-1, Ltd.:

Cl. B, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 26, 2017 Affirmed Caa1
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Jan 26, 2017 Downgraded to
Ca (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 26, 2017 Downgraded to C
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 26, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 26, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 26, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 26, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 26, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

The Class B, Class C, Class D, Class E, Class F, Class G, Class J,
and Class K 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 rating
action is the result of Moody's on-going surveillance of commercial
real estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO and Re-Remic)
transactions.

RFC CDO 2006-1, Ltd. is a currently static cash transaction
(reinvestment period ended in April 2011) backed by a portfolio of:
i) b-notes (35.7% of collateral pool balance); ii) mezzanine
interests (31.3%); iii) commercial mortgage backed securities
(CMBS) (17.4%); and iv) senior participations (15.6%). As of the
October 25, 2017 payment date, the aggregate note balance of the
transaction, including preferred shares, has decreased to $171.6
million from $600.0 million at securitization, with the pay-down
directed to the senior most class of notes outstanding, as a result
of the combination of principal repayment of collateral, resolution
and sales of impaired collateral, and the failing of certain par
value tests. Currently, the transaction has implied
undercollateralization of $107.7 million, compared to $106.8
million at last review primarily due to implied losses on the
collateral.

The collateral pool contains four assets totaling $55.8 million
(87.3% of the collateral pool balance) listed as impaired
securities as of the October 25, 2017 payment date. These are one
hope note (35.7%), one mezzanine interest (31.3%), one A-note
(15.6%), and one CMBS security (4.7%). There have been over 18% of
implied losses on the underlying collateral to date since
securitization and Moody's does expect high severity of losses 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 8729,
compared to 8414 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 12.7%
compared to 15.6% at last review; and Caa1-Ca/C and 87.3% compared
to 84.4% at last review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 1.4 years, compared to 1.7 year at last
review. The WAL is based on extension assumptions about the
remaining underlying collateral and assumptions about extensions of
the remaining underlying CBMS look-through loan collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 7.0%, compared to 6.7% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 100.0%, compared to 2.1% at last review.
The increase in MAC is due to a small number of very high credit
risk assets.

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.
Reducing the recovery rates of the 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 downward (e.g., one notch down
implies a ratings movement of Baa3 to Ba1). Increasing the recovery
rate of 100% of the collateral pool by +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.


ROCKFORD TOWER 2017-3: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by Rockford Tower CLO 2017-3, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

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

US$55,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class B Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$25,000,000 Class C Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$32,500,000 Class D Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$27,500,000 Class E Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2030 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Rockford Tower 2017-3 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes
will be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90.0% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans, cash, and eligible investments,
and up to 10.0% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans
and unsecured loans. The portfolio is approximately 95% ramped as
of the closing date.

Rockford Tower Capital Management, L.L.C. (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. This is the Manager's
third CLO.

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: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 55

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2773

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.10%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9.0 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
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 2773 to 3189)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2773 to 3605)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -4

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1


SCF EQUIPMENT 2017-1: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Cl. D Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded one security and affirmed
three securities from SCF Equipment Leasing 2017-1 LLC. The
transaction is a securitization of equipment loans and leases
sponsored by Stonebriar Commercial Finance LLC. Stonebriar also
acts as the servicer for the transaction. The equipment loans and
leases are backed by a diverse pool and includes railcars,
commercial equipment, and corporate aircraft.

Issuer: SCF Equipment Leasing 2017-1 LLC

Equipment Contract Backed Notes, Class A, Affirmed A1 (sf);
previously on Feb 23, 2017 Definitive Rating Assigned A1 (sf)

Equipment Contract Backed Notes, Class B, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf);
previously on Feb 23, 2017 Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

Equipment Contract Backed Notes, Class C, Affirmed Ba1 (sf);
previously on Feb 23, 2017 Definitive Rating Assigned Ba1 (sf)

Equipment Contract Backed Notes, Class D, Affirmed B3 (sf);
previously on Feb 23, 2017 Definitive Rating Assigned B3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The upgrade was prompted by an increase in credit enhancement due
to the sequential pay structure, overcollateralization and
non-declining reserve account. The transaction features an
overcollateralization target of 10.25% of the original pool
balance.

The collateral pool consists of a concentrated number of obligors,
some of which are not rated by Moody's. To date, the transaction
has exhibited strong performance with no cumulative net loss (CNL)
to date.

Below are key performance metrics (as of November 2017 distribution
date) for the affected transaction. Performance metrics include
pool factor which is the ratio of the current collateral balance
and the original collateral balance at closing; and total hard
credit enhancement (expressed as a percentage of the outstanding
collateral pool balance) which typically consists of subordination,
overcollateralization, reserve fund as applicable.

Issuer - SCF Equipment Leasing 2017-1 LLC

Pool factor -- 87.08%

Total Hard credit enhancement -- Class A -- 32.61%; Class B --
27.27%; Class C -- 21.99%; Class D -- 13.49%

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

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of 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 equipment that secure the obligor's promise of
payment. As the primary drivers of performance, positive changes in
the US macro economy and the performance of various sectors where
the lessees operate could also affect the ratings. Other reasons
for better performance than Moody's expected include changes in
servicing practices to maximize collections on the loans and leases
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 or a deterioration in the
value of the equipment that secure the obligor's promise of
payment. As the primary drivers of performance, negative changes in
the US macro economy could also affect Moody's ratings. Other
reasons for worse performance than Moody's expectation include poor
servicing, error on the part of transaction parties, lack of
transactional governance and fraud.


SCRT 2017-4: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Rating to Class M Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Fitch rates Freddie Mac's risk-transfer transaction, Seasoned
Credit Risk Transfer Trust Series 2017-4 (SCRT 2017-4) as follows:

-- $46,310,000 class M notes 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

The following classes will not be rated by Fitch:

-- $689,021,000 class HT notes;
-- $516,767,000 class HA exchangeable notes;
-- $172,254,000 class HB exchangeable notes;
-- $86,127,000 class HV exchangeable notes;
-- $86,127,000 class HZ exchangeable notes;
-- $530,652,000 class MT notes;
-- $397,990,000 class MA exchangeable notes;
-- $132,662,000 class MB exchangeable notes;
-- $66,331,000 class MV exchangeable notes;
-- $66,331,000 class MZ exchangeable notes;
-- $366,693,000 class M45T notes;
-- $188,047,692 class M45D exchangeable notes;
-- $178,645,308 class M45F exchangeable notes;
-- $178,645,308 class M45S exchangeable notes;
-- $366,693,000 class M45C exchangeable notes;
-- $366,693,000 class M45I exchangeable notional notes;
-- $127,139,000 class M60T notes;
-- $127,139,000 class M60F exchangeable notes;
-- $127,139,000 class M60S exchangeable notes;
-- $127,139,000 class M60C exchangeable notes;
-- $127,139,000 class M60I exchangeable notional notes;
-- $1,713,505,000 class A-IO notional notes;
-- $92,621,659 class B notes;
-- $138,931,659 class B-IO notional notes.

The 'B-sf' rating for the M notes reflects the 5.00% subordination
provided by the class B notes.

SCRT 2017-4 represents Freddie Mac's fifth seasoned credit risk
transfer transaction issued as part of the Federal Housing Finance
Agency's Conservatorship Strategic Plan for 2013-2017 for each of
the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to demonstrate the
viability of multiple types of risk-transfer transactions involving
single-family mortgages. SCRT 2017-4 consists of four collateral
groups backed by 9,977 seasoned performing and re-performing
mortgages with a total balance of approximately $1.852 billion,
which includes $76.0 million, or 4.1%, of the aggregate pool
balance in non-interest-bearing deferred principal amounts, as of
the cutoff date. The four collateral groups are distinguished
between loans that have additional interest rate increases
outstanding due to the terms of the modification and those that are
expected to remain fixed for the remainder of the term. Among the
loans that are fixed, the groups are further distinguished both by
loans that include a portion of principal forbearance as well as
the interest rate on the loans. Distributions of principal and
interest (P&I) and loss allocations to the rated note is based on a
senior subordinate, sequential structure.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Distressed Performance History (Negative): The collateral pool
consists primarily of peak-vintage re-performing loans (RPLs), all
of which have been modified. Roughly 87% of the pool has been
paying on time for the past 24 months per the Mortgage Bankers
Association methodology (MBA) and none of the loans have
experienced a delinquency within the past 12 months. The pool has a
weighted average sustainable loan-to-value ratio (WA sLTV) of 83.4%
and the WA model FICO is 675.

Interest Payment Risk (Negative): In Fitch's timing scenarios the M
class incurs temporary shortfalls in 'B-sf' rating category but is
ultimately repaid prior to maturity of the transaction. The
difference between Fitch's expected loss and the credit enhancement
on the rated class is due to the repayment of interest deferrals.
Interest to the rated classes is subordinated to the senior notes
as well as repayments made to Freddie Mac for prior payments on the
senior classes. Timely payments of interest are also a potential
risk as principal collections on the underlying can only be used to
repay interest shortfalls on the rated classes after the balance
has been paid off.

Third-Party Due Diligence (Neutral): A third-party due diligence
review was conducted on a sample basis of approximately 10% of the
pool as it relates to regulatory compliance and pay history and a
tax and title lien search was conducted on 100%. The third-party
review (TPR) firms' due diligence review resulted in 22% of the
sample loans remaining in the final pool graded 'C' or 'D' (2%
graded 'C'), meaning the loans had material violations or lacked
documentation to confirm regulatory compliance. This is above the
average of approximately 11% seen in other recently rated RPL
transactions. The higher percentage is primarily due to missing
documentation for regulations that are now past, their applicable
statute of limitations.

New Issuer (Neutral): This is Freddie Mac's fifth-rated RPL
securitization and the second that Fitch has been asked to rate.
Fitch has conducted multiple reviews of Freddie Mac and is
confident that it has the necessary policies, procedures and
third-party oversight in place to properly aggregate and securitize
RPLs.

Representation Framework (Negative): Fitch considers the
representation, warranty and enforcement (RW&E) mechanism construct
for this transaction as weaker than other Fitch-rated RPL deals.
The weakness is due to the exclusion of a number of reps that Fitch
views as consistent with a full framework as well as the limited
diligence that may have otherwise acted as a mitigant.
Additionally, Freddie Mac as rep provider will only be obligated to
repurchase a loan due to breaches prior to Dec. 11, 2020. However,
Fitch believes that the defect risk is lower relative to other RPL
transactions because the loans were subject to Freddie Mac's loan
level review process in place at the time the loan became
delinquent. Therefore, Fitch treated the construct as Tier 3 and
increased its 'B-sf' PD expectations by 62 bps to account for the
weaknesses in the reps.

Sequential-Pay Structure (Positive): The transaction's cash flow is
similar Freddie Mac's STACR transactions. Once the initial credit
enhancement (CE) of the senior notes has reached the target and if
all performance triggers are passing principal is allocated pro
rata among the seniors and subordinate classes with the most senior
subordinate bond receiving the full subordinate share. This
structure is a positive to the rated notes as it results in a
faster paydown and allows them to receive principal earlier than
under a traditional sequential structure. However, to the extent
any of the performance triggers are failing, principal is
distributed sequentially to the senior notes until triggers pass.

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

RATING SENSITIVITIES

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

This defined stress sensitivity analysis demonstrates how the
ratings would react to steeper MVDs at the national level. The
analysis assumes MVDs of 10.0%, 20.0% and 30.0%, in addition to the
model projected 11.5% at the 'B-sf' level. The analysis indicates
that there is some potential rating migration with higher MVDs,
compared with the model projection.

Fitch also conducted defined rating sensitivities which determine
the stresses to MVDs that would reduce a rating by one full
category, to non-investment grade, and to 'CCCsf'. For example,
additional MVDs of 4% would potentially move the 'B-sf' rated class
down to 'CCCsf' respectively.


SORIN REAL ESTATE I: S&P Raises Class B Debt Rating to B-(sf)
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its rating on the class B notes and
affirmed its rating on the class C notes from Sorin Real Estate CDO
I Ltd., a cash flow collateralized debt obligation (CDO)
transaction backed primarily by structured finance collateral.

S&P's rating action follows its review of the transaction's
performance using data from the Oct. 31, 2017, trustee report.

Since S&P's July 2015 rating action, the class A-1 and A-2 notes
have paid down in full, and S&P discontinued the ratings on those
two classes. On the September 2017 payment date, the class B notes
received a $9.97 million principal paydown that reduced the class'
balance to about 50.14% of its original balance."

The upgrade of the class B notes reflects the improved credit
support due to paydowns as well as the credit quality of the assets
backing the notes. S&P said, "Although our model results indicated
a higher potential rating for the class B notes, we decided to
limit our upgrade after considering the increased concentration
risk and deterioration in overall credit quality of the underlying
collateral portfolio."

The class C notes have continued to defer interest, showing a
cumulative unpaid interest shortfall of $1.61 million on the
September 2017 payment date report. S&P said, "In addition, the
class C notes fail our top obligor test at the 'CCC' level. The
affirmation of the class C notes reflects our belief that the
credit support available is commensurate with the current rating
level."

S&P said, "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 will take rating actions
as we deem necessary."

The transaction currently has fewer than 20 performing assets as
underlying collateral. For this analysis, S&P relied on the
supplemental test calculations and did not perform cash flow
analyses due to the small amount of obligors remaining in the
underlying asset pool.

  RATING RAISED
  Sorin Real Estate CDO I Ltd.

  Class                        Rating
                    To                      From
  B                 B- (sf)                 CCC- (sf)

  RATING AFFIRMED
  Sorin Real Estate CDO I Ltd.

  Class          Rating
  C              CC (sf)


STACR 2017-HRP1: Fitch Assigns Bsf Rating on 14 Note Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings to Freddie Mac's risk-transfer
transaction, Structured Agency Credit Risk Debt Notes Series
2017-HRP1 (STACR 2017-HRP1) as follows:

-- $40,000,000 class M-2A notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $40,000,000 class M-2AR exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $40,000,000 class M-2AS exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $40,000,000 class M-2AT exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $40,000,000 class M-2AU exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $10,000,000 class M-2AD notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $40,000,000 class M-2AI notional exchangeable notes 'BBsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $40,000,000 class M-2B notes 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $40,000,000 class M-2BR exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $40,000,000 class M-2BS exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $40,000,000 class M-2BT exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $40,000,000 class M-2BU exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $10,000,000 class M-2BD notes 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $40,000,000 class M-2BI notional exchangeable notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $80,000,000 class M-2 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $80,000,000 class M-2R exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $80,000,000 class M-2S exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $80,000,000 class M-2T exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $80,000,000 class M-2U exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $20,000,000 class M-2D exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $80,000,000 class M-2I notional exchangeable notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable.

The following classes will not be rated by Fitch:

-- $14,367,271,225 class A-H reference tranche;
-- $112,831,973 class M-1H reference tranche;
-- $119,247,960 class M-2AH reference tranche;
-- $119,247,959 class M-2BH reference tranche;
-- $75,000,000 class B-1 exchangeable notes;
-- $75,000,000 class B-1D notes;
-- $75,000,000 class B-1I notional notes;
-- $37,831,973 class B-1H reference tranche;
-- $25,000,000 class B-2D notes;
-- $87,831,973 class B-2H reference tranche.

The 'BBsf' rating for the M-2A (M-2A & M-2AD) notes reflects the
2.62% subordination provided by the 1.12% class M-2B (M-2B & M-2BD)
notes, the 0.75% class B-1D notes, the 0.75% class B-2D notes and
their corresponding reference tranches. The 'Bsf' rating for the
M-2B notes reflects the 1.50% subordination provided by the 0.75%
class B-1D notes, the 0.75% class B-2D notes and their
corresponding reference tranches. The notes are general unsecured
obligations of Freddie Mac (AAA/Stable) subject to the credit and
principal payment risk of a pool of certain residential mortgage
loans held in various Freddie Mac-guaranteed MBS.

This is the first transaction issued by Freddie Mac through its
STACR shelf backed by loans originated through Freddie Mac's Relief
Refinance Program (RRP).

The objective of the transaction is to transfer credit risk from
Freddie Mac to private investors with respect to a $15.04 billion
pool of mortgage loans currently held guaranteed by Freddie Mac
where principal repayment of the notes is subject to the
performance of a reference pool of mortgage loans. As loans
liquidate or other credit events occur, the outstanding principal
balance of the debt notes will be reduced by the actual loan's loss
severity percentage related to those credit events, which includes
borrower's delinquent interest.

While the transaction structure simulates the behavior and credit
risk of traditional RMBS senior-subordinate securities, Freddie Mac
will be responsible for making monthly payments of interest and
principal to investors. Because of the counterparty dependence on
Freddie Mac, Fitch's expected rating on the M-2A and M-2B notes
will be based on the lower of: the quality of the mortgage loan
reference pool and credit enhancement (CE) available through
subordination, and Freddie Mac's Issuer Default Rating. The M-2A,
M-2B, B-1D, B-1I and B-2D notes will be issued as LIBOR-based
floaters. In the event that the one-month LIBOR rate falls below
zero and becomes negative, the coupons of the interest-only
modifications and combinations (MAC) notes may be subject to a
downward adjustment, so that the aggregate interest payable within
the related MAC combination does not exceed the interest payable to
the notes for which such classes were exchanged. The notes will
carry a 25-year legal final maturity.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Seasoned Performing Loans (Positive): The reference pool consists
of 82,552 fixed-rate, fully amortizing loans with terms of 241-360
months, totaling $15.04 billion, acquired by Freddie Mac between
April 1, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2011. The pool is seasoned over seven
years with a weighted average (WA), non-zero, updated credit score
of 741. Roughly 95% of the pool has been current for the prior 36
months with only 3.2% experiencing a delinquency from 7-24 months
prior, and 2.1% from over 24 months ago.

Positive Borrower Selection (Positive): The borrowers in the
reference pool have weathered a severe economic stress with minimal
delinquencies, showing a strong willingness and ability to pay.
Loans were originated under Freddie Mac's RRP (including the Home
Affordable Refinance Program [HARP], which is FHFA's name for
Freddie Mac's RRP for mortgages with a loan-to-value [LTV] greater
than 80%). Through the refinance programs, the borrowers have
continued to perform on their mortgages as rising home prices have
rebuilt equity in their homes. The current mark-to-market (MtM)
combined loan-to-value (CLTV) ratio has improved to 82% from 98% at
the time of the relief refinance loan.

Servicing Defect Removals (Positive): Similar to the STACR DNA and
HQA transactions, this transaction will include provisions where
the loan will be removed from the reference pool if the servicer
does not materially comply with Freddie Mac's servicer guide.
Relative to an unseasoned pool, Fitch places less emphasis on the
risk of manufacturing defects with this pool, and greater emphasis
on the servicer's ability to maintain its right to foreclose on the
property.

Mortgage Insurance Guaranteed by Freddie Mac (Positive): 14.4% of
the loans are covered either by borrower-paid mortgage insurance
(BPMI) or lender-paid MI (LPMI). Freddie Mac will guarantee the MI
coverage amount. While the Freddie Mac guarantee allows for credit
to be given to MI, Fitch applied a haircut to the amount of BPMI
available due to the automatic termination provision as required by
the Homeowners Protection Act, when the loan balance is first
scheduled to reach 78%. LPMI does not automatically terminate and
remains for the life of the loan.

Recent Natural Disaster Loans Excluded (Positive): Freddie Mac has
decided not to produce property values through its Home Value
Explorer (HVE) tool for properties located in FEMA major disaster
areas, with the exception of Orange County, CA, until more
information is obtained relating to the status of these properties
following the disasters. As a result, loans located in these
FEMA-designated disaster areas were not included in the reference
pool due to their not meeting the ELTV eligibility. Loans for
properties located in Orange County were included because Freddie
Mac requires borrowers in Orange County to have hazard insurance
that covers fire.

Advantageous Payment Priority (Positive): The M-2 classes benefit
from the sequential-pay structure and stable CE provided by the
more junior B-1D and B-2D classes, which are locked out from
receiving any principal until classes with a more senior payment
priority are paid in full.

Solid Alignment of Interests (Positive): While the transaction is
designed to transfer credit risk to private investors, Fitch
believes the transaction benefits from solid alignment of
interests. Freddie Mac will retain credit risk in the transaction
by holding the A-H and the M-1H reference tranche. Freddie Mac will
also retain a minimum of 5% of the M-2A, M-2B and B-1D tranches,
and a minimum of 50% of the B-2D tranche.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

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

This defined stress sensitivity analysis demonstrates how the
ratings would react to steeper MVDs at the national level. The
analysis assumes MVDs of 10.0%, 20.0% and 30.0%, in addition to the
model projected 17.1% at the 'BBsf' level, and 12.3% at the 'Bsf'
level. The analysis indicates that there is some potential rating
migration with higher MVDs, compared with the model projection.

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


STEELE CREEK 2017-1: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Cl. E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned definitive ratings to five
classes of notes issued by Steele Creek CLO 2017-1, Ltd. (the
"Issuer" or "Steele Creek 2017-1").

Moody's rating action is:

US$288,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class A Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$51,750,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class B Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$28,125,000 Class C Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2
(sf)

US$28,125,000 Class D Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Baa3 (sf)

US$18,000,000 Class E Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Ba3 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Steele Creek 2017-1 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes
will be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated 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 80% ramped as of
the closing date.

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

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer 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: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2837

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.55%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.0%

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 2837 to 3263)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2837 to 3688)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1


THL CREDIT 2017-4: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Cl. E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to six classes of
notes issued by THL Credit Wind River 2017-4 CLO Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

US$3,600,000 Class X Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class X Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$381,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class A Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$69,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class B Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$37,800,000 Class C Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2
(sf)

US$37,200,000 Class D Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2030 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Baa3 (sf)

US$27,000,000 Class E Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2030 (the "Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3
(sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

THL 2017-4 CLO is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90.0% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans, cash, and eligible investments,
and up to 10.0% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans
and unsecured loans. The portfolio is approximately 75% ramped as
of the closing date.

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

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

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

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in August 2017.

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

Par amount: $600,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2975

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.60%

Weighted Average Spread (WAC): 6.50%

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 2975 to 3421)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2975 to 3868)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1


TIAA CLO III: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by TIAA CLO III Ltd..

Moody's rating action is:

US$292,500,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2031
(the "Class A Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$45,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2031
(the "Class B Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$31,500,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2031 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$27,000,000 Class D Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2031 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$18,000,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2031 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

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

Teachers Advisors, LLC (the "Manager") will direct the selection,
acquisition and disposition of the assets on behalf of the Issuer
and may engage in trading activity, including discretionary
trading, during the transaction's 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: $450,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2860

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.35%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.50%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9.1 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
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 2860 to 3289)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2860 to 3718)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1


UBS COMMERCIAL 2017-C5: Fitch Corrects Nov. 16 Release
------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings issued a correction on a release on UBS Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2017-C5 dated Nov. 16, 2017. It clarifies that the
interest only class X-B is rated 'AA-sf' instead of the previously
stated 'A-sf'. The rating reflects the final deal structure and
Fitch's rating methodology for interest only classes.

The revised release is as follows:

Fitch Ratings has assigned the following ratings and Rating
Outlooks to UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2017-C5 commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates:

-- $20,482,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $100,407,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $33,878,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $40,000,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $153,039,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $172,576,000 class A-5 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $520,382,000b class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $133,478,000b class X-B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $81,774,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $29,737,000,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $21,967,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $11,151,000 class D 'BBB+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $15,203,000ac class D-RR 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $14,868,000ac class E-RR 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $15,797,000ac class F-RR 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $7,434,000ac class G-RR 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

The following class is not rated by Fitch:

-- $25,090,651ac class NR-RR.

Since Fitch published its expected ratings on Oct. 25, 2017, the
issuer decreased the class X-B to $133,478,000, decreased the class
C to $21,967,000, decreased the class D to $11,151,000 and
increased the class D-RR to $15,203,000.

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

The ratings are based on information provided by the issuer as of
Nov. 15, 2017.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 49 loans secured by 131
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
$743,403,651 as of the cut-off date. The loans were contributed to
the trust by UBS AG, Cantor Commercial Real Estate Lending, L.P.,
Ladder Capital Finance LLC, Natixis Real Estate Capital LLC Societe
Generale and Rialto Mortgage Finance, LLC.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 63.7% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis of 82.7%, and asset summary reviews
on 82.7% of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Lower Fitch Leverage Than Recent Transactions: The pool's leverage
is below recent comparable Fitch-rated multiborrower transactions.
The pool's Fitch DSCR and LTV are 1.27x and 97.8%, respectively,
better than the YTD 2017 averages of 1.26x and 101.0%,
respectively. Excluding credit opinion loans, the pool's normalized
Fitch DSCR and LTV are 1.22x and 106.8%, compared to the YTD
averages of 1.21x and 106.6%, respectively.

Investment-Grade Credit Opinion Loans: Four loans, representing
19.6% of the pool, have investment-grade credit opinions. Burbank
Office Portfolio (5.4% of the pool), Centre 425 Bellevue (5.4% of
the pool) and 237 Park Avenue (3.4% of the pool) have
investment-grade credit opinions of 'BBB+sf*'. Yorkshire &
Lexington Towers (5.4% of the pool) has an investment-grade credit
opinion of 'BBBsf*'.

Diverse Pool: The largest 10 loans account for 45.1% of the pool.
This is better than average when compared with the 2016 and YTD
2017 averages of 54.8% and 53.0%, respectively for fixed-rate
transactions. As a result, the pool's loan concentration index
(LCI) of 316 is below the 2016 and YTD 2017 averages of 422 and
395, respectively.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 13.4% below
the most recent year's net operating income (NOI) for properties
for which a full-year NOI was provided, excluding properties that
were stabilizing during this period). Unanticipated further
declines in property-level NCF could result in higher defaults and
loss severities on defaulted loans and in potential rating actions
on the certificates.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to UBS
2017-C5 certificates and found that the transaction displays
average sensitivities to further declines in NCF. In a scenario in
which NCF declined a further 20% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade of
the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'A-sf' could result. In a more
severe scenario, in which NCF declined a further 30% from Fitch's
NCF, a downgrade of the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBB-sf'
could result.


UBS COMMERCIAL 2017-C6: Fitch Assigns B- Rating to Class F Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following ratings and Ratings
Outlooks to UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2017-C6 Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates:

-- $21,136,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $63,519,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $32,627,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $40,000,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $148,878,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $165,633,000 class A-5 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $7,500,000 class A-BP 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $471,793,000a class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $7,500,000a class X-BP 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $133,518,000a class X-B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $76,174,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $30,811,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $26,533,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $29,956,000ab class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $13,694,000ab class X-E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $6,847,000ab class X-F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $29,956,000b class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $13,694,000b class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $6,847,000b class F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

The following classes are not rated by Fitch:

-- $21,397,267b class NR.
-- $21,397,267ab class X-NR.

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

VRR Interest - The amount of the VRR Interest represents 5.00%
($34,239,267) of the pool balance necessary to satisfy U.S. risk
retention requirements.

Since Fitch published its expected ratings on Nov. 27, 2017, the
expected 'A-sf' rating on the interest-only X-B class has been
revised to 'AA-sf' based on the final deal structure.

The final ratings are based on information provided by the issuer
as of Dec. 13, 2017.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 39 loans secured by 124
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
$684,705,268 as of the cut-off date. The loans were contributed to
the trust by UBS AG, Rialto Mortgage Finance, LLC, Ladder Capital
Finance, LLC, Cantor Commercial Real Estate Lending, L.P, KeyBank,
National Association, and Natixis Real Estate Capital LLC.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 71.4% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis of 86.6%, and asset summary reviews
on 100% of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Higher Fitch Leverage Than Recent Transactions: The pool's leverage
is slightly higher than recent comparable Fitch-rated multiborrower
transactions. The pool's Fitch DSCR and LTV are 1.20x and 101.2%,
as compared to the YTD 2017 averages of 1.26x and 101.1%,
respectively. Excluding credit opinion loans, the pool's normalized
Fitch DSCR and LTV are 1.15x and 108.9%, compared to the YTD 2017
averages of 1.21x and 106.7%, respectively.

Investment-Grade Credit Opinion Loans: Three loans, representing
16.1% of the pool, have investment-grade credit opinions. Burbank
Media Portfolio (5.8% of pool) and 111 West Jackson (4.4% of pool)
have investment-grade credit opinions of 'BBB+sf*'. Yorkshire &
Lexington Towers (5.8% of the pool) has an investment-grade credit
opinion of 'BBBsf*'.

Lower Hotel Exposure: Loans secured by hotel properties represent
only 8.4% of the pool by balance, which is significantly lower than
the YTD 2017 and 2016 average of 16.0% for Fitch-rated
transactions. Hotels have the highest probability of default in
Fitch's multiborrower model, all else equal. Loans secured by
office properties and mixed-use properties that are predominantly
office make up 36.6% of the pool. Loans secured by retail
properties and mixed-use properties that are predominately retail
make up 34.1% of the pool. Office and retail properties have an
average probability of default in Fitch's multiborrower model, all
else equal.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 9.8% below
the most recent year's net operating income (NOI) for properties
for which a full-year NOI was provided, excluding properties that
were stabilizing during this period). Unanticipated further
declines in property-level NCF could result in higher defaults and
loss severities on defaulted loans and in potential rating actions
on the certificates.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to UBS
2017-C6 certificates and found that the transaction displays
average sensitivities to further declines in NCF. In a scenario in
which NCF declined a further 20% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade of
the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'A-sf' could result. In a more
severe scenario, in which NCF declined a further 30% from Fitch's
NCF, a downgrade of the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBB-sf'
could result.


UBS COMMERCIAL 2017-C7: Fitch to Rate Class G-RR Certs 'B-sf'
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has issued a presale report on UBS Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2017-C7 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2017-C7.

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

-- $33,907,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $49,837,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $47,439,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $231,470,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $261,020,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $623,673,000b class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $98,005,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $36,753,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $35,638,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $170,396,000b class X-B 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $21,160,000ac class D-RR 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $17,820,000ac class E-RR 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $17,819,000ac class F-RR 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $8,909,000ac class G-RR 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

The following class is not expected to be rated:

-- $31,184,565ac class NR-RR.

(a) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144A.
(b) Notional amount and interest-only.
(c) Horizontal credit risk retention interest representing no less
than 5% of the estimated fair value of all classes of regular
certificates issued by the issuing entity as of the closing date.

The expected ratings are based on information provided by the
issuer as of Dec. 12, 2017.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 48 loans secured by 109
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
$890,961,565 as of the cut-off date. The loans were contributed to
the trust by: UBS AG, Ladder Capital Finance LLC, KeyBank National
Association, Societe Generale, Cantor Commercial Real Estate
Lending, L.P. and Natixis Real Estate Capital LLC.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 66.5% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis of 78.4% and asset summary reviews
on 100% of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Higher Fitch Leverage than Recent Transactions: The pool's leverage
is slightly higher than recent comparable Fitch-rated multiborrower
transactions. The pool's Fitch DSCR is 1.22x, which is lower than
the YTD 2017 average of 1.26x. The pool's Fitch LTV is 100.9%,
which is slightly better than the YTD 2017 average of 101.3%.
Similarly, excluding credit opinion loans, the pool's normalized
Fitch DSCR and LTV are 1.17x and 106.6%, compared to the YTD 2017
averages of 1.21x and 107%, respectively.

Investment-Grade Credit Opinion Loans: Two loans, representing
11.2% of the pool, have investment-grade credit opinions. One State
Street (7.0%), the largest loan in the pool, has an
investment-grade credit opinion of 'BBB+sf*' on a stand-alone
basis. General Motors Building (4.2%) has an investment-grade
credit opinion of 'AAAsf*' on a stand-alone basis.

Lower Hotel Exposure: Loans secured by hotel properties represent
only 12.3% of the pool by balance, which is lower than the YTD 2017
and 2016 average of 16% for Fitch-rated transactions. Hotels have
the highest probability of default in Fitch's multiborrower model,
all else equal. Loans secured by office properties and mixed-use
properties that are predominantly office make up 30.8% of the pool.
Loans secured by retail properties and mixed-use properties that
are predominantly retail make up 29.8%. Office and retail
properties have an average probability of default in Fitch's
multiborrower model, all else equal.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 14.7% below
the most recent year's NOI for properties for which a full-year NOI
was provided, excluding properties that were stabilizing during
this period. Unanticipated further declines in property-level NCF
could result in higher defaults and loss severities on defaulted
loans and in potential rating actions on the certificates.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to the UBS
2017-C7 certificates and found that the transaction displays
average sensitivities to further declines in NCF. In a scenario in
which NCF declined a further 20% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade of
the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBB+sf' could result. In a more
severe scenario, in which NCF declined a further 30% from Fitch's
NCF, a downgrade of the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBB-sf'
could result.


UBS-BARCLAYS COMMERCIAL 2013-C5: Fitch Affirms Bsf on Cl. F Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 12 classes of UBS-Barclays Commercial
Mortgage Trust (UBS-BB) commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2013-C5.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Stable Performance: The affirmations are based on the overall
stable performance of the majority of the underlying collateral
with no material changes to pool metrics since issuance. The pool's
aggregate principal balance has been reduced by 5.8% to $1.4
billion from $1.5 billion at issuance
Loans of Concern: Two loans (0.8%) are in special servicing. An
additional three loans representing 7.1% (including 4th and 10th
largest loans) are on the servicer's watchlist due to declining
performance or upcoming rollover; two of which(5.2%) were flagged
as Fitch Loans of Concern including Harborplace(4.9%). Generally,
overall pool performance is relatively stable from issuance with
limited paydown.

Geographic Concentration: 37.6% of the pool is secured by
properties located in California. The top two loans (29.3%) are
secured by malls in California with a Fitch LTV of 80%
Loan Concentration: The top 10 loans account for 59.8% of the
pool.
Amortization: The pool amortizes by approximately 13.3% from
aggregate cutoff balance to aggregate maturity balance. The pool
includes four interest-only loans (31.7%) and five partial IO loans
(15%).

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Rating Outlooks for all classes remain Stable due to overall stable
performance of the pool and continued amortization. Upgrades may
occur with improved pool performance and additional paydown or
defeasance. Downgrades to the classes are possible should overall
pool performance decline.

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $195.9 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $629.5 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $110.5 million class A-AB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $120.7 million class A-S* at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $96.5 million class B* at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $0 class EC at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $57.5 million class C* at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $70.5 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $27.8 million class E at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $27.8 million class F at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $1,057 million** class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $96.5 million** class X-B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable.

*Class A-S, class B and class C certificates may be exchanged for
class EC certificates, and class EC certificates may be exchanged
for class A-S, class B and class C certificates.
**Notional amount and interest-only.

Class A-1 and A-2 have been repaid in full. Fitch does not rate the
class G certificates.


WACHOVIA BANK 2006-C28: Fitch Affirms BBsf Rating on Cl. A-J Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings affirms 15 classes of Wachovia Bank Commercial
Mortgage Trust (WBCMT 2006-C28) commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2006-C28.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmation of class A-J reflects credit enhancement sufficient
to cover expected losses on the pool. As of the November 2017
remittance report, the pool has been reduced by 91.5% to $307.1
million from $3.6 billion at issuance. There have been $264.1
million in realized losses to date, accounting for 7.4% of the
original pool balance. Cumulative interest shortfalls in the amount
of $21 million are currently impacting classes D through F and N
through Q.

Concentrated Pool with Adverse Selection: The pool is highly
concentrated with only 15 of the original 210 loans remaining. Six
loans/assets (36.4% of the pool) are currently in special servicing
including five (33.4%) real estate owned (REO). An additional five
loans (60.1% of the pool) are considered Fitch Loans of Concern
(FLOCs), including the largest loan in the pool (31.7% of the
pool). One loan (0.85% of the pool) is defeased. 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 and ranked them by
their perceived likelihood of repayment. The ratings reflect this
sensitivity analysis.

Specially Serviced Loans: Six loans/assets are currently in special
servicing. The largest specially serviced asset is the REO, Westin
- Falls Church, VA (18.9% of the pool), which is a 407 room full
service hotel located in Fairfax County. The loan initially
transferred to special servicing in June 2014 due to imminent
default caused by performance issues related to sequestration and
declining government business in the market. A $7.9 million PIP was
recently completed in October 2016. The hotel is expected to be
sold in first quarter 2018.

Fitch Loans of Concern: Five loans (60.1% of the pool) are
considered FLOCs, including the largest loan in the pool, 500-512
Seventh Avenue (31.7% of the pool). The loan is secured by three
adjacent office buildings located in the Garment District of
Midtown Manhattan. The property has faced occupancy issues over the
last several years. As of the June 2017 rent roll, the property was
underperforming the market with a reported occupancy of 68.5%. The
loan was previously modified in December 2016 after a maturity
default. Terms of the modification included an 18-month maturity
extension with a six-month extension option in exchange for a
substantial contribution to leasing and capital reserves. Two other
FLOCs (14.4% of the pool) were also previously modified, including
one loan that was split into a hope note structure.

Portfolio Concentration: The largest property type concentration in
the pool is office at 53.2%, followed by retail at 27.9% and hotel
at 18.9%. There are three loans (2.1%) secured by properties leased
to single tenants.

Refinance and Timing Uncertainty: The ultimate resolution of loan
workouts and timing of disposition remains uncertain. This directly
affects the repayment of the senior class which relies heavily upon
proceeds from the disposition of assets in special servicing and
the timely repayment of the previously modified largest loan. The
remaining non-specially serviced loans carry refinance risk
including secondary markets, high submarket vacancies, and tenant
rollover concerns.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Outlook on class AJ reflects sufficient credit
enhancement to the class related to expected losses. Future
upgrades, though not likely, are possible with timely loan
dispositions and workout resolutions. Downgrades are possible if
pool performance deteriorates or loans default at maturity.

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:

-- $130.8 million class A-J at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $22.5 million class B at 'CCCsf'; RE 100%;
-- $58.4 million class C at 'Csf'; RE 90%;
-- $31.5 million class D at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $49.4 million class E at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $14.5 million class F at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class G at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class H at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class O at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

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


WELLS FARGO 2015-C26: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class F Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings affirms 15 classes of Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage
Trust 2015-C26 (WFCM 2015-C26), commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Relatively Stable Performance: The majority of the remaining pool
has exhibited relatively stable performance since issuance. As of
the November 2017 distribution date, the pool's aggregate principal
balance has paid down by 4.4% to $920 million from $962.1 million
at issuance. Only one loan (0.4% of pool) has been defeased.

Fitch Loans of Concern: Fitch has designated seven loans (14.6% of
pool) as Fitch Loans of Concern (FLOCs), including three of the top
five loans in the pool. The largest loan, Chateau on the Lake,
transferred to special servicing in July 2016 due to the borrower
and parent company filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The filing was
made in connection with litigation related to a complex deal made
in 2005 to reprivatize the sponsor's company, Hammons Hotels. The
loan remains current. The servicer reported year-end 2016 debt
service coverage ratio (DSCR) was 1.73x. Per the August 2017 STR
report, the trailing 12 months (TTM) occupancy, ADR and RevPAR were
53.9%, $166 and $89, respectively. While there has been a slight
decline in occupancy since issuance (58.3%, as of TTM October
2014), ADR has increased over the period from $155.

The fourth largest loan in the pool, the Broadcom Building (3.9%),
will be losing its sole tenant in May 2018 after the single tenant
exercised an early termination option. The servicer has reported
that negotiations with a replacement tenant are ongoing; however,
no further details have been reported.

The fifth largest loan, Aloft Houston by the Galleria (3.5%), has
suffered a 32% decline in RevPAR since issuance. The hotel
continues to outperform its competitive set with RevPAR penetration
of 104.9%, as of TTM August 2017.

No other Fitch Loan of Concern comprises more than 1.9% of the pool
collateral. Fitch will continue to monitor all Fitch Loans of
Concern going forward.

Diverse Pool: The 10 largest loans represent 35% of the total pool
balance, which is a lower concentration than other Fitch rated CMBS
fixed-rate multiborrower transactions of similar vintage.

Above Average Amortization: Based on the issuance scheduled balance
at maturity, the pool will pay down by 15.9%. Only 1% of the pool
is full-term interest-only. However, 56.9% is partial-term
interest-only. The remainder of the pool consists of amortizing
balloon loans.

Property Type Concentration: The portfolio has above average
multifamily concentration at 33.2% (including loans backed by coops
and mobile home parks). The next highest concentrations are retail
at 24.7% and hotels at 21.7%.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Negative Outlooks assigned to classes E and F reflect the Fitch
Loans of Concern. Downgrades to these classes may occur if a
replacement lease is not executed for the Broadcom Building, or if
performance continues to decline at other properties. Rating
Outlooks for the senior classes remain Stable due to the stable
performance of the majority of the remaining pool and continued
expected amortization. Upgrades may occur with improved pool
performance and additional paydown or defeasance.

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

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

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

-- $27.5 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $37.8 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $198 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $279.8 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $88.2 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $77 million class A-S at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $708.3 million class X-A* at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $42.1 million class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $49.3 million class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $168.4 million class PEX at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $19.2 million class X-C* at 'BBsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $9.6 million class X-D* at 'Bsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $46.9 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $19.2 million class E at 'BBsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $9.6 million class F at 'Bsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable.

*Notional amount and interest-only.

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

Fitch does not rate the class X-B, X-E, and G certificates.


WELLS FARGO 2017-SMP: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3 Rating to Cl. E Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to six
classes of CMBS securities, issued by Wells Fargo Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2017-SMP, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2017-SMP:

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

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

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

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

Cl. E, Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

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

* Reflects interest-only classes

RATINGS RATIONALE

The Certificates are collateralized by a single loan backed by a
first lien commercial mortgage related to one property, Santa
Monica Place. The ratings are based on the collateral and the
structure of the transaction.

Santa Monica Place is an open-air, regional mall located in Santa
Monica, CA. Collateral for the loan includes (i) the fee simple
interest in the 523,139 SF, three-level shopping center (including
the Anchor SF) and (ii) the leasehold interest in two, multi-level
parking garages contiguous to the shopping center and the retail
space in the parking facilities (collectively, the "Property"). The
Property contains three anchor tenants, which include Nordstrom
(121,665 SF, 23.3% of NRA), Bloomingdale's (101,756 SF, 19.5% of
NRA), and ArcLight Cinemas (48,000 SF, 9.2% of NRA). Other
noteworthy national retailers at the Property include Tiffany &
Co., Louis Vuitton, All Saints, Coach, Hugo Boss, Kate Spade,
Michael Kors, Barney's, Ted Baker, White House Black Market, Nike,
Uniqlo and Disney. The Property also contains an entertainment
component including a 12-screen movie theater, six restaurants, and
a food court. The subject's full-service restaurants, which are
primarily located on the third floor, include The Cheesecake
Factory, Lure Fish House & Oyster Bar, Sonoma Wine Garden, True
Food Kitchen, Dude's Brewing Company, and the Curious Palate.

The Property is well located in downtown Santa Monica, CA, one
block from the famous Santa Monica Pier and at the southern base of
the Third Street Promenade retail district. The Property is
situated just off Interstate 10 and adjacent to the newly added
Metro Expo Line, which connects Santa Monica to downtown Los
Angeles.

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

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

The first mortgage balance of $300,000,000 represents a Moody's LTV
of 94.7%. The Moody's First Mortgage Actual DSCR is 2.91X and
Moody's First Mortgage Actual Stressed DSCR is 0.86X.

Moody's also grades properties on a scale of 0 to 5 (best to worst)
and considers those grades when assessing the likelihood of debt
payment. The factors considered include property age, quality of
construction, location, market, and tenancy. The Property's quality
grade is 0.75, reflecting the strong quality of the asset.

Notable strengths of the transaction include: asset quality,
property location, operating performance trends, and an experienced
and committed Sponsor.

Notable credit challenges of the transaction include: lack of
diversity for this single asset transaction, tenant rollover risk,
sponsor cash out, and the lack of loan amortization.

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.

Moody's approach for single borrower and large loan multi-borrower
transactions evaluates credit enhancement levels based on an
aggregation of adjusted loan level proceeds derived from Moody's
Moody's loan level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to determining
proceeds include leverage, loan structure, and property type. These
aggregated proceeds are then further adjusted for any pooling
benefits associated with loan level diversity, other concentrations
and correlations.

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

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: If Moody's value of the collateral
used in determining the initial rating were decreased by 5.0%,
15.6%, and 25.0%, the model-indicated rating for the currently
rated (P) Aaa (sf) classes would be (P) Aa1 (sf), (P) Aa3 (sf), and
(P) A2 (sf), respectively. Parameter Sensitivities are not intended
to measure how the rating of the security might migrate over time;
rather they are designed to provide a quantitative calculation of
how the initial rating might change if key input parameters used in
the initial rating process differed. The analysis assumes that the
deal has not aged. Parameter Sensitivities only reflect the ratings
impact of each scenario from a quantitative/model-indicated
standpoint. Qualitative factors are also taken into consideration
in the ratings process, so the actual ratings that would be
assigned in each case could vary from the information presented in
the Parameter Sensitivity analysis.

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

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

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range may
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or weaker
than Moody's had previously anticipated. Factors that may cause an
upgrade of the ratings include significant loan pay downs or
amortization, an increase in the pool's share of defeasance or
overall improved pool performance. Factors that may cause a
downgrade of the ratings include a decline in the overall
performance of the pool, loan concentration, increased expected
losses from specially serviced and troubled loans or interest
shortfalls.

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

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


WFCG COMMERCIAL 2015-BXRP: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Cl. G Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on four classes of commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates from WFCG Commercial Mortgage
Securities Trust 2015-BXRP, a U.S. commercial mortgage-backed
securities (CMBS) transaction. S&P also affirmed its ratings on
three other classes from the same transaction.

For the affirmations and upgrades, S&P's expectation of credit
enhancement was in line with the affirmed or raised rating levels.
The upgrades also reflect the lower trust balance due to property
releases and the stable-to-increasing performance of the remaining
properties.

This is a stand-alone (single borrower) transaction backed by a
floating-rate interest-only (IO) mortgage loan secured by 26 retail
properties located across 13 states. S&P said, "Our property-level
analysis included a re-evaluation of the retail properties that
currently secure the mortgage loan in the trust and considered the
stable-to-increasing servicer-reported net operating income, tenant
sales, and occupancy for the past three years (2015 through 2017).
We then derived our sustainable in-place net cash flow (NCF), which
we divided by a 7.31% S&P Global Ratings capitalization rate to
determine our expected-case value. This yielded an overall S&P
Global Ratings loan-to-value ratio and debt service coverage (DSC)
of 81.7% and 1.12x (based on a loan spread of 1.947% plus the LIBOR
cap rate of 5.0%), respectively, for the trust balance."

According to the Nov. 15, 2017, trustee remittance report, the IO
mortgage loan has a trust and whole loan balance of $564.2 million
and pays an annual floating interest rate of LIBOR plus 1.947%. The
mortgage currently matures Nov. 9, 2018, with a fully extended
maturity of Nov. 9, 2019. To date, the trust has not incurred any
principal losses.

The master servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., reported a DSC of
3.30x on the trust balance for the six months ended June 30, 2017,
and consolidated occupancy was 92.4% according to the June 30,
2017, rent roll. Based on the June 2017 rent roll, the five largest
tenants make up 9.5% of the collateral's total net rentable area
(NRA). In addition, 4.2% of the NRA have leases that are on a
month-to-month basis, 12.3% have leases that expire in 2017 and
2018, and 10.2% have leases that expire in 2019.

RATINGS LIST

  WFCG Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-BXRP
  Commercial motgage pass-through certficates series 2015-BXRP
                                         Rating  
  Class        Identifier            To              From
  A            92890XAA5             AAA (sf)        AAA (sf)   
  B            92890XAE7             AA+ (sf)        AA- (sf)  
  C            92890XAG2             AA- (sf)        A- (sf)
  D            92890XAJ6             A- (sf)         BBB- (sf)
  E            92890XAL1             BBB+ (sf)       BBB- (sf)
  F            92890XAN7             BB- (sf)        BB- (sf)   
  G            92890XAQ0             B+ (sf)         B+ (sf)


WFRBS COMMERCIAL 2012-C6: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Cl. F Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on nine classes
in WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C6:

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 15, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 15, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-S, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 15, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa1 (sf); previously on Dec 15, 2016 Upgraded to
Aa1 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on Dec 15, 2016 Upgraded to A1
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Dec 15, 2016 Affirmed Baa3
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Dec 15, 2016 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Dec 15, 2016 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 15, 2016 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 3.5% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 2.2% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.7% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 1.8% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Approach to
Rating US and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017.
The methodologies used in rating Cl. X-A were "Approach to Rating
US and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017, and
"Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the November 17th, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 23% to $708.5
million from $925 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 79 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 10% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 35% of the pool. Seven loans, constituting
10% of the pool, have defeased and are secured by US government
securities.

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

No loans have been liquidated from the pool. Two loans,
constituting 1.3% of the pool, are currently in special servicing.
The loans are secured by a hotel property and self storage
property. Moody's estimates an aggregate $4.5 million loss for the
specially serviced loans (50% expected loss on average).

Moody's has also assumed a high default probability for three
poorly performing loans, constituting 4% of the pool, and has
estimated an aggregate loss of $6.9 million (a 25% expected loss
based on a 50% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 98% of the
pool, and partial year 2017 operating results for 88% of the pool
(excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's weighted
average conduit LTV is 87%, the same as 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 16% to the most recently available net operating
income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 10.0%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.54X and 1.30X,
respectively, compared to 1.56X and 1.29X 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 17% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the National Cancer Institute Center Loan ($70.3
million -- 9.9% of the pool), which is secured by a 341,000 square
foot (SF) Class A office / lab facility located in Frederick,
Maryland. The property was constructed in 2011 as a build-to-suit
to support the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the oldest
Institute within the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The
property entirely leased to Leidos Biomedical Research (formerly
Science Applications International) through September 2021. Due to
the single tenant exposure Moody's utilized a lit/dark analysis on
this loan. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 108% and 1.06X,
respectively, compared to 112% and 1.02X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Norwalk Town Square Loan ($24.9
million -- 3.5% of the pool), which is secured by secured by a
232,987 SF anchored retail center in Norwalk, California, located
17 miles southeast of Los Angles CBD. The property was constructed
between 1953 and 1976, renovated in 1990, and contains 863 parking
spaces. Anchor tenants include LA Fitness, Regency Theaters, and
DD's Discounts. As of July 2017, the property was 95% occupied,
compared to 96% at last review and compared to 94% at
securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 80% and 1.32X,
respectively, compared to 82% and 1.28X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Boca Industrial Park Loan ($21.9
million -- 3.1% of the pool), which is secured by a 386,846 SF
multi-tenant industrial park located in Boca Raton, Florida. The
property consists of six free-standing buildings constructed in
1984, and is configured with 36 tenant units. As of September 2017,
the property was 97% occupied, compared to 100% at Moody's last
review and compared to 92% at securitization. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 94% and 1.06X, respectively, compared to 95% and
1.05X at the last review.


YORK CLO-2: Moody's Assigns B3(sf) Rating to Class F Notes
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned the following ratings to the
following notes (the "Refinancing Notes") issued by York CLO-2
Ltd.:

US$448,000,000 Class A-R Floating Rate Notes Due 2031 (the "Class
A-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$80,500,000 Class B-R Floating Rate Notes Due 2031 (the "Class
B-R Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

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

US$49,500,000 Class D-R Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2031
(the "Class D-R Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$28,000,000 Class E-R Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2031
(the "Class E-R Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

US$10,100,000 Class F Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due 2031 (the
"Class F 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.

York CLO Managed Holdings, 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 ratings on the 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 December 12, 2017
(the " Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of all
of the secured notes (the "Refinanced Original Notes") previously
issued on September 29, 2015 (the "Original Closing Date"). On the
Refinancing Date, the Issuer used proceeds from the issuance of the
Refinancing Notes and additional subordinated notes to redeem in
full the Refinanced Original Notes. On the Original Closing Date,
the Issuer also issued one class of subordinated notes that will
remain outstanding.

In addition to the issuance of the Refinancing Notes and additional
subordinated 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: $699,582,535

Defaulted par: $834,929

Diversity Score: 70

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2839

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.20%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 5.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.50%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9.6 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
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 2839 to 3265)

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

Class F Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF - increase of 30% (from 2839 to 3691)

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

Class F Notes: -2


[*] Fitch Lowers 43 Distressed Bonds in 32 RMBS Deals to 'Dsf'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded 43 distressed bonds in 32 U.S. RMBS
transactions to 'Dsf'. The downgrades indicate that the bonds have
incurred a principal write-down. Of the bonds downgraded to 'Dsf',
39 classes were previously rated 'Csf', and four classes were rated
'CCsf'. All ratings below 'CCCsf' indicate a default is likely.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

All of the affected classes had incurred a principal write-down and
are expected to endure additional losses in the future.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

While the bonds that have defaulted are not expected to recover any
material amount of lost principal in the future, there is a limited
possibility that this may happen. In this unlikely scenario, Fitch
would further review the affected class.

A spreadsheet detailing Fitch's rating actions can be found at
'www.fitchratings.com' by performing a title search for 'Fitch
Downgrades 61 Distressed Bonds to 'Dsf' in 46 U.S. RMBS
Transactions'. These actions were reviewed by a committee of Fitch
analysts. The spreadsheet provides the contact information for the
performance analyst.

The spreadsheet also details Fitch's assignment of REs to the
transactions. The Recovery Estimate scale is based upon the
expected relative recovery characteristics of an obligation. For
structured finance, REs are designed to estimate recoveries on a
forward-looking basis.

A list of the Affected Ratings is available at:

                       http://bit.ly/2zjLw6Y


[*] Moody's Takes Action on $105MM of RMBS Issued 2004 & 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of four tranches
and downgraded the ratings of three tranches from three
transactions, issued by various issuers.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Fremont Home Loan Trust 2004-B

Cl. M-1, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2012
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Issuer: Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities 2006-3 Trust

Cl. A-PO, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Apr 12, 2010
Downgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. A-11, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Apr 12, 2010
Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Issuer: American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-2

Cl. II-A, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Dec 23, 2016 Upgraded
to A3 (sf)

Cl. III-A, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Dec 23, 2016 Upgraded
to A3 (sf)

Cl. IV-A-6, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 23, 2016
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Cl. V-A, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Dec 23, 2016 Upgraded
to A1 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The actions are a result of the recent performance of the
underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on
the pools. The ratings upgraded are a result of improving
performance of the related pools and an increase in credit
enhancement available to the bonds. Ratings of Wells Fargo Mortgage
Backed Securities 2006-3 Trust Class A-PO and A-11 have been
downgraded due to the weaker performance of the underlying
collateral and the erosion of enhancement available to the bonds.
The downgrade actions from Fremont Home Loan Trust 2004-B are
primarily the result of recent interest shortfalls that are
unlikely to be recouped because of a weak interest shortfall
reimbursement mechanism.

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 $46.8MM of RMBS Issued 2015-2016
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 11 tranches
from three transactions backed by Prime Jumbo RMBS loans, issued in
2015 and 2016. The borrowers in these transactions have high FICO
scores and significant equity in their properties.

Both Sequoia Mortgage 2015-3 (SEMT 2015-3) and Sequoia Mortgage
2016-2 (SEMT 2016-2) are each backed by one pool of prime quality,
first-lien, fixed rate mortgage loans originated by various
originators. The loans in the pools were aggregated by Redwood
Residential Acquisition Corporation (Redwood). For both
transactions, CitiMortgage Inc. is master servicer and Wilmington
Trust, National Association serves as the trustee.

For J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2015-4 (JPMMT 2015-4), the
certificates are backed by two pools of prime quality, fixed rate,
first-lien mortgage loans, originated by various originators. The
loans in the pool were aggregated by J.P. Morgan Mortgage
Acquisition Corp.. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is the master servicer
and U.S. Bank Trust National Association will serve as the
trustee.

The complete rating actions are:

Issuer: J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2015-4

Cl. B-1, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2016 Upgraded
to Aa2 (sf)

Cl. B-2, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2016 Upgraded
to A1 (sf)

Cl. B-3, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa1 (sf)

Cl. B-4, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2016 Upgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Issuer: Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2015-3

Cl. B-1, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2016 Upgraded
to Aa3 (sf)

Cl. B-2, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2016 Upgraded
to A2 (sf)

Cl. B-3, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. B-4, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2016 Upgraded
to Ba3 (sf)

Issuer: Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2016-2

Cl. B-2, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jul 28, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned Baa1 (sf)

Cl. B-3, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Jul 28, 2016
Definitive Rating Assigned Ba1 (sf)

Cl. B-4, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul 28, 2016
Definitive Rating Assigned B1 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating upgrades are primarily due to an increase in credit
enhancement available to the bonds and a decrease in Moody's
projected pool losses (see link below). The actions reflect the
recent strong performance of the underlying pools with no serious
delinquencies till date. Moreover, high voluntary prepayment rates
since issuance have contributed to increases in percentage credit
enhancement levels for the upgraded bonds. The transaction
structures benefit from credit enhancement floors that protect
against tail risk.

Our loss estimates are based on a loan-by-loan assessment of the
securitized collateral pool using Moody's Individual Loan Level
Analysis (MILAN) model. Loan-level adjustments to the model
included: adjustments to borrower probability of default for higher
and lower borrower DTIs, borrowers with multiple mortgaged
properties, self-employed borrowers, origination channels and for
the default risk of HOA properties in super lien states. The
adjustment to Moody's Aaa stress loss above or below the model
output also includes adjustments related to the aggregators,
originators, and/or servicers. The model combines loan-level
characteristics with economic drivers to determine the probability
of default for each loan, and hence for the portfolio as a whole.
Severity is also calculated on a loan-level basis. The pool loss
level is then adjusted for borrower, zip code, and MSA level
concentrations.

For these three transactions, the cash flows follow a shifting
interest structure that allows subordinated bonds to receive
principal payments under certain defined scenarios. Because a
shifting interest structure allows subordinated bonds to pay down
over time as the loan pool shrinks, senior bonds are exposed to
increased performance volatility, known as tail risk.

JPMMT 2015-4 provides a senior subordination floor of 1.70% of the
closing pool balance, which mitigates tail risk by protecting the
senior bonds from eroding credit enhancement over time. SEMT 2015-3
and SEMT 2016-2 have a senior subordination floor of 1.70% and 1.5%
of the closing pool balance respectively.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating US Prime RMBS" published in February 2015.
Please see the Rating Methodologies page on www.moodys.com for a
copy of this methodology.

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.

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


[*] Moody's Takes Actions on 11 U.S. RMBS Bonds From 8 Deals
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has confirmed the ratings of two bonds,
upgraded the rating of one bond and downgraded the ratings of eight
bonds from eight US residential mortgage backed transactions
(RMBS), issued by multiple issuers prior to 2009. Eight of the
bonds in this action are Interest Only-Principal Only (IO PO)
bonds, which have both an Interest-Only (IO) component and a
Principal-Only (PO) component; one of the bonds is an IO bond, and
the remaining two bonds are Principal and Interest (P&I) bonds.

Six of the IO PO bonds were among those placed on review on 15
August 2017 in connection with data input errors in Moody's earlier
analysis. The remaining two IO PO bonds and the one IO bond were
among those placed on review on 29 August 2017 in connection with a
reassessment of Moody's internal linkage of these IO bonds to their
reference bond(s) or pool(s).

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: BlackRock Capital Finance L.L.C. 1996-R1

A-WAC, Confirmed at Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 Aaa (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: BlackRock Capital Finance L.L.C. 1997-R1

WAC, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2017 Caa2 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: BlackRock Capital Finance L.L.C. 1997-R3

A-WAC, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Aug 15, 2017 Caa2 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: Ocwen Residential MBS Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through, 1998-R3

A-WAC, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Aug 15, 2017 Caa2 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: Ocwen Residential MBS Corporation Series 1998-R1

A-WAC, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Aug 15, 2017 B3 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

B-2, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Jan 28, 2013 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Issuer: Ocwen Residential MBS Corporation, Series 1999-R2

AP, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Aug 15, 2017 Caa1 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

B1, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 28, 2013 Affirmed C
(sf)

Issuer: SBMS VII 1997-HUD1

A-WAC, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Aug 15, 2017 Caa3 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Issuer: SBMS VII 1997-HUD2

A-WAC, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Aug 15, 2017 Ba3 (sf)
Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions reflect the recent performance of the underlying
pools and Moody's updated loss expectations on the pools. Some of
the actions also reflect a change in the relative weight that
Moody's assigns to the IO and PO components of the IO PO bonds, the
correction of prior data input errors, and the reassessment of IO
linkage, as discussed below.

The rating of Class B1 from Ocwen 1999-R2, a P&I bond, was upgraded
due to an increase in credit enhancement available to the bond. The
rating of Class B-2 from Ocwen 1998-R1, also a P&I bond, was
downgraded due to a decrease in the credit enhancement available to
the bond.

The action resolves the review of one IO bond, Class IO from SBMS
VII 1997-HUD2, which was among those placed on review for a
reassessment of the IO bond linkages captured in Moody's internal
database, prompted by the identification of errors in that
database. 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. Moody's have reassessed the linkage for Class IO
from SBMS VII 1997-HUD2, and determined that the linkage was
incorrect. The correction of the linkage had no impact on the
rating, and the rating is being confirmed.

The remaining eight bonds in action are IO PO bonds, which have
both an interest-only component and a principal-only component.
Moody's determines the rating of IO PO bonds using a weighted
average of the ratings of the two components. While historically
Moody's were using a more qualitative judgment in the analysis of
these IO PO bonds, Moody's have now assigned weights of 95% and 5%
to the IO and PO components, respectively, because the credit risk
of the transaction is almost solely attributable to the performance
of the IO component. In addition, as the PO components pay off or
take losses, the ratings of the IO PO bonds will eventually become
equal to that of the IO components.

The PO components of the IO PO bonds in this rating action are
linked to the arrearage pool in each transaction; in addition to
receiving principal from the arrearage pools they are entitled to a
share from the senior distribution amount along with the other
senior certificates. The arrearage pool in these transactions
represents past-due payments on the loans at the time of
securitization. The ratings of the PO components take into account
the credit enhancement provided by subordination and payment
priority of the tranche relative to the subordinate tranches. The
ratings on the IO components reflect the linkage reassessment and
updated performance of the respective transactions, including
expected losses on the collateral, and pay-downs or write-offs of
the related reference bonds.

Six of the eight IO PO bonds were among those placed on review in
connection with data input errors in prior analyses: Class A-WAC
from BlackRock 1997-R3, Class A-WAC from Ocwen 1998-R3, Class A-WAC
from Ocwen 1998-R1, Class A-WAC from SBMS VII 1997-HUD1, Class
A-WAC from SBMS VII 1997-HUD2, and Class AP from Ocwen 1999-R2. The
data input errors have been corrected, and updated performance was
considered in connection with this rating action. Moody's have also
reassessed the linkage of these six bonds and determined that they
were linked to the appropriate reference bonds. The rating
downgrades on these IO PO bonds are driven primarily by the greater
weight Moody's are giving to the IO component compared to the PO
component.

The remaining two IO PO bonds, Class A-WAC from BlackRock 1996-R1
and Class WAC from BlackRock 1997-R1, were among those placed on
review for a reassessment of the IO bond linkages captured in
Moody's internal database, prompted by the identification of errors
in that database. Moody's have reassessed the linkage on these
bonds and determined that they were linked to the appropriate
reference bonds. Updated performance information was also
considered in connection with these rating actions. Class A-WAC
from BlackRock 1996-R1 benefits from a guarantee by the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (Freddie Mac); as such, the rating of the
bond was confirmed at Aaa (sf), reflecting the rating of Freddie
Mac. The downgrade of Class WAC from BlackRock 1997-R1 is driven
primarily by the greater weight Moody's are giving to the IO
component compared to the PO component.

Moody's are evaluating the remaining IO bonds on review and note
that, although a number of linkages may be corrected, this will not
necessarily lead to rating movements in all cases.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in January 2017. The
methodologies used in rating BlackRock Capital Finance L.L.C.
1996-R1 A-WAC, BlackRock Capital Finance L.L.C. 1997-R1 WAC,
BlackRock Capital Finance L.L.C. 1997-R3 A-WAC, Ocwen Residential
MBS Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through, 1998-R3 AWAC, Ocwen Residential
MBS Corporation Series 1998-R1 A-WAC, Ocwen Residential MBS
Corporation, Series 1999-R2 AP, SBMS VII 1997-HUD1 A-WAC, SBMS VII
1997-HUD2 IO, and SBMS VII 1997-HUD2 A-WAC were "Moody's Approach
to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO) Securities"
published in June 2017 and "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 November 2017 from 4.6% in
November 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.


[*] Moody's: Credit Quality of US CMBS to Remain Steady in 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------
The credit quality of newly originated and outstanding US
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) conduit/fusion loans
will remain steady in the year head, Moody's Investors Service says
in its 2018 outlook for US CMBS. The refinancing wave of the
troubled 2006-07 vintages has subsided, with only a small fraction
of these loans still outstanding, and the resolution of the balance
will see the levels of both delinquent and specially serviced loans
go down.

"The quality of the underlying collateral of CMBS conduit/fusion
loans next year will remain roughly the same as in 2017," says Vice
President -- Senior Analyst, Kevin Fagan. "Barring any significant
changes in the levels of underwritten leverage, Moody's expect
Moody's loan-to-value ratio to improve."

Rising interest rates and a cyclical inflection point in the US
commercial real estate cycle pose some challenges to CMBS
collateral performance, Fagan says, though declining leverage and
increasing debt service coverage in conduit loans provide some
offset. Additionally, the wave of maturing, aggressively
underwritten loans from the 2006 and 2007 vintages has mostly come
and gone, with the overall delinquency rate set to improve as a
result.

In all five main asset classes, the amount of new inventory coming
online will impede or reverse the trend of improving fundamentals
seen since 2008-09, Moody's says. New supply is most concerning for
the office and hotel asset classes, which account for about half of
CMBS conduit/fusion new issuance and currently receive the highest
Moody's haircuts to underwritten market value.

Meanwhile, the net effect of the risk retention rules that went
into effect late last year appears to be minor through the first
nine months of 2017. The rules will however continue to provide
issuers with an added incentive to focus on collateral quality, and
in the long run should prove to be modestly credit positive.


[*] S&P Cuts Ratings on 3 MBIA-Insured Classes From 5 US CDO Deals
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its ratings on three classes and
withdrew its ratings on five classes from five U.S. cash flow
collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transactions.

The rating actions follow the withdrawal of S&P's long-term rating
on MBIA Insurance Corp. on Dec. 1, 2017. MBIA Insurance Corp.
provides insurance to these eight classes of notes.

S&P said, "For insured classes of notes, our rating is generally
the higher of the rating on the insurer or the S&P Global Ratings'
underlying rating (SPUR) for the tranche. A SPUR is our opinion of
the stand-alone creditworthiness of an obligation--that is, the
capacity to pay debt service on a debt issue in accordance with its
terms--without considering an otherwise applicable bond insurance
policy.  

"The long-term ratings on those classes that currently have an
active SPUR were lowered to match their respective SPUR. We
withdrew the ratings on the remaining classes because we no longer
have sufficient information about the insurers' creditworthiness to
form the basis of an insurer-dependent rating."

  RATINGS LOWERED
  Coronado CDO Ltd.
                       Rating
  Class        To                 From
  A-1          CCC- (sf)         CCC (sf)
  A-2          CCC- (sf)         CCC (sf)

  Mulberry Street CDO II Ltd.
                       Rating
  Class        To                From
  A-1A         CC (sf)          CCC (sf)

  RATINGS WITHDRAWN
  Fulton Street CDO Ltd.
                  Rating
  Class        To         From
  A-1A         NR         CCC (sf)

  Mulberry Street CDO Ltd.
                  Rating
  Class        To         From
  A-1A         NR         CCC (sf)

  Mulberry Street CDO II Ltd.
                 Rating
  Class        To         From
  A-1B         NR         CCC (sf)
  A-1W         NR         CCC (sf)

  Oceanview CBO I Ltd.
                Rating
  Class        To         From
  A-1A         NR         CCC (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


[*] S&P Cuts Ratings on 9 MBIA-Insured Classes From 9 US ABS Deals
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its ratings on nine classes from nine
U.S. asset-backed securities (ABS) transactions. All of these
classes benefit from monoline insurance policies from MBIA
Insurance Corp.

The downgrades on the eight manufactured housing-backed classes and
one marine-backed class follow the Dec. 1, 2017, withdrawal of
S&P's long-term rating on MBIA Insurance Corp.

MBIA Insurance Corp. provides a full financial guarantee insurance
policy guaranteeing full payments of principal and interest to the
noteholders of the downgraded classes. S&P said, "Under our
criteria, the issue credit rating on a fully credit-enhanced bond
issue is the higher of the rating on the credit enhancer or the
Standard & Poor's underlying rating (SPUR) on the class. A SPUR is
our opinion of the stand-alone creditworthiness of an obligation,
(i.e., the capacity to pay debt service on a debt issue in
accordance with its terms without considering an otherwise
applicable bond insurance policy)."

The long-term ratings on these classes were lowered to match their
respective SPURs.

RATINGS LOWERED

  CIT Marine Trust 1999-A
                                     Rating
  Collateral  Series    Class   To          From
  Marine      1999-A    Certs   CC (sf)    CCC (sf)

  GreenPoint Credit Manufactured Housing Contract Trust
                                          Rating
  Collateral              Series  Class  To          From
  Manufactured housing  1999-1  A-5    CCC- (sf)   CCC (sf)
  Manufactured housing  1999-3  IA7    CCC- (sf)   CCC (sf)
  Manufactured housing  1999-3  IIA2   CCC- (sf)   CCC (sf)
  Manufactured housing  2000-2  A-2    CCC- (sf)   CCC (sf)

  Manufactured Housing Contract Trust Pass-Thru Certificates
                                         Rating
  Collateral            Series  Class  To          From
  Manufactured housing  1999-6  A-2    CCC- (sf)   CCC (sf)
  Manufactured housing  2000-3  IIA-2  CCC- (sf)   CCC (sf
  Manufactured housing  2000-5  A-3    CCC- (sf)   CCC (sf)
  Manufactured housing  2000-7  A-2    CCC- (sf)   CCC (sf)


[*] S&P Discontinues Ratings on 16 Classes From 2 CDO/2 CLO Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings discontinued its ratings on two classes from one
cash flow (CF) collateralized debt obligation (CDO) backed by
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), one rating from one
CF CDO Other, and 13 classes from two CF collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) transactions.

The discontinuances follow the complete paydown of the notes as
reflected in the most recent trustee-issued note payment reports
for each transaction:

-- CIFC Funding 2012-II Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption in
December 2017.

-- Crown Point CLO Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption in November
2017.

-- Multi Security Asset Trust L.P. (CF CDO of CMBS): senior-most
tranches paid down; other rated tranche still outstanding.

-- Repackaged Asset-Backed Securities Designated Activity Co. (CF
CDO Other): optional redemption in December 2017.

  RATINGS DISCONTINUED

  CIFC Funding 2012-II Ltd.
                              Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A-1R                NR                  AAA (sf)
  A-2R-F              NR                  AAA (sf)
  A-2R-L              NR                  AAA (sf)
  A-3R                NR                  AA+ (sf)
  B-1R                NR                  A+ (sf)
  B-2R                NR                  BB+ (sf)
  B-3L                NR                  B+ (sf)
  Crown Point CLO Ltd.
                              Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A-1La               NR                  AAA (sf)
  A-1Lb               NR                  AAA (sf)
  A-2L                NR                  AAA (sf)
  A-3L                NR                  AA- (sf)
  B-1L                NR                  BBB (sf)
  B-2L                NR                  BB- (sf)
  Multi Security Asset Trust L.P.

                              Rating
  Class               To                  From
  G                   NR                  BB+ (sf)
  H                   NR                  CCC- (sf)

  Repackaged Asset-Backed Securities Designated Activity Co.
                              Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A(2015-5)           NR                  AAA (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


[*] S&P Discontinues Ratings on 25 Classes From Six CDO Deals
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings discontinued its ratings on three classes from
two cash flow (CF) collateral debt obligations (CDO) backed by
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) and 22 classes from
four cash flow (CF) collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
transactions.

The discontinuances follow the complete paydown of the notes as
reflected in the most recent trustee-issued note payment reports
for each transaction:

-- Cent CDO 12 Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption in December
2017.

-- Dryden XXIV Senior Loan Fund (CF CLO): optional redemption in
November 2017.

-- Madison Park Funding V Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption in
November 2017.

-- Marathon CLO IV Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranches paid down,
other rated tranche still outstanding.

-- RAIT CRE CDO I Ltd. (CF CDO of CMBS): senior-most tranches paid
down, other rated tranches still outstanding.

-- Wrightwood Capital Real Estate CDO 2005-1 Ltd. (CF CDO of
CMBS): senior-most tranche paid down, other rated tranches still
outstanding.

  RATINGS DISCONTINUED

  Cent CDO 12 Ltd.
                              Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A                   NR                  AAA (sf)
  B                   NR                  AA+ (sf)
  C                   NR                  A+ (sf)
  D                   NR                  BBB+ (sf)
  E                   NR                  BB (sf)

  Dryden XXIV Senior Loan Fund
                              Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A-R                 NR                  AAA (sf)
  B-R                 NR                  AA (sf)
  C-R                 NR                  A (sf)
  D-R                 NR                  BBB (sf)
  E-R                 NR                  BB (sf)
  F-R                 NR                  B (sf)

  Madison Park Funding V Ltd.
                              Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A-1a                NR                  AAA (sf)
  A-1b                NR                  AAA (sf)
  A-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)
  B                   NR                  AA+ (sf)
  C                   NR                  AA-(sf)
  D                   NR                  BBB (sf)

  Marathon CLO IV Ltd.
                              Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)
  A-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)
  B-1                 NR                  AA+ (sf)
  B-2                 NR                  AA+ (sf)
  C                   NR                  BBB (sf)

  RAIT CRE CDO I Ltd.
                              Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A-1A                NR                  A (sf)
  A-1B                NR                  A (sf)

  Wrightwood Capital Real Estate CDO 2005-1 Ltd.
                              Rating
  Class               To                  From
  B                   NR                  CCC+ (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


[*] S&P Discontinues Six 'D(sf)' Ratings on Five U.S. CMBS Deals
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings discontinued its 'D (sf)' ratings on six classes
from five U.S. commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions.

S&P said, "We discontinued these ratings according to our
surveillance and withdrawal policy. We had previously lowered the
ratings on these classes to 'D (sf)' because of principal losses
and/or accumulated interest shortfalls that we believed would
remain outstanding for an extended period of time. We view a
subsequent upgrade to a rating higher than 'D (sf)' to be unlikely
under the relevant criteria for the classes within this review."

  RATINGS DISCONTINUED

  Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Trust 2006-5
  Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-5
                    Rating
  Class        To           From
  A-J          NR           D (sf)
  
  Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust
  Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-C29
                    Rating
  Class        To           From
  E            NR           D (sf)

  Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Trust 2008-1
  Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2008-1
                    Rating
  Class        To           From
  C            NR           D (sf)

  Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.
  Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2005-C6
                    Rating
  Class        To           From
  H            NR           D (sf)

  ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-9
  Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2007-9
                    Rating
  Class        To           From
  AJ           NR           D (sf)
  AJ-A         NR           D (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


[*] S&P Takes Actions on 74 iShares Fixed-Income ETFs
-----------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings said it has taken rating actions on 74 iShares
fixed-income exchange traded funds (ETFs) and subsequently removed
the "under criteria observation" (UCO) designation. The rating
actions follow S&P's review of each fund under its revised FCQR and
FVR criteria.

The ratings were assigned the UCO designation on June 26, 2017, in
conjunction with the release of the revised fund credit quality
rating (FCQR) and fund volatility rating (FVR) criteria on the same
date.

The review of the iShares funds under the revised FCQR criteria
resulted in 63 upgrades, nine affirmations, one downgrade, and one
rating withdrawal. The rating changes are largely due to the
revision of the credit factors, the fund rating thresholds, and the
addition of a short-term maturity bucket in our FCQR matrix. The
increase in the credit factors for securities maturing in less than
90 days is mitigated by the addition of credit factors for a 30-day
maturity band. A smaller number of rating changes were caused by
the portfolio risk assessment and associated rating sensitivity
tests within the FCQR framework.

The review of the iShares funds under the revised FVR criteria
resulted in 10 upgrades, 63 affirmations, no downgrades, and one
rating withdrawal. For funds with short or no track records, S&P
evaluated available information including a comparable ("proxy")
fund, designated benchmark, or reference index performance. The FVR
upgrades reflected the declining volatility of monthly returns.

By prospectus, most of the funds generally will invest at least 90%
of its assets in the component securities of the its underlying
index and may invest up to 10% of its assets in certain futures,
options and swap contracts, cash and cash equivalents, including
shares of money market funds advised by BlackRock Fund Advisors
(BFA) or its affiliates as well as in securities not included in
the underlying index, but which BFA believes will help the fund
track the underlying index.

S&P said, "When determining the FCQR, we first ascertain a
preliminary FCQR through our quantitative assessment of a fund's
portfolio credit risk using our fund credit quality matrix. The
assessment reflects the weighted average credit risk of the
portfolios of investments. We then conduct a qualitative assessment
that entails a review of the investment manager's management and
organization, risk management and compliance, credit culture, and
credit research. Our adequate to strong assessment of the
qualitative components of the fund sponsor did not result in any
changes to the preliminary FCQR and thus the intermediate FCQRs
were identical to the preliminary FCQRs.

"For all rated funds we then conducted a portfolio risk assessment
focusing on counterparty risk, concentration risk, liquidity, and
the fund credit score cushion (the proximity of the preliminary
FCQR to a fund rating threshold). For funds that exhibited a
preliminary FCQR in our matrix that was within 10% of the lower
fund rating threshold, we applied sensitivity tests. The rating
sensitivity tests assess the degree to which a fund's asset
portfolio exposure to the fund's largest obligor, lowest credit
quality obligor, and exposure to assets on CreditWatch with
negative implications could lead to a fund downgrade. When
reviewing the 74 rated funds, the sensitivity tests performed
resulted in a one-notch downward adjustment to the intermediate
FCQRs for these six funds: the iShares 1-3 Year International
Treasury Bond ETF, iShares California Muni Bond ETF, iShares J.P.
Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF, iShares iBonds Dec 2022 Term
Muni Bond ETF, iShares® iBonds® Dec 2021 Term Corporate ETF, and
iShares® iBonds® Mar 2020 Term Corporate ex-Financials ETF. For
these six funds, the final FCQRs were one notch lower than their
intermediate FCQRs.

"To determine the FVR, we first determine a preliminary FVR by
assessing the historical volatility and dispersion of fund returns
relative to reference indices. Next, we evaluated portfolio risk,
taking into account duration, credit exposures, liquidity,
derivatives, leverage, foreign currency, and investment
concentration. When reviewing the 74 rated funds, our assessment of
portfolio risk resulted in an intermediate FVR one category weaker
than the preliminary FVR for these six funds: iShares 0-5 Year
High-Yield Corporate Bond ETF, iShares Core 5-10 Year USD Bond ETF,
iShares Core International Aggregate Bond ETF, iShares Edge U.S.
Fixed Income Balanced Risk ETF, iShares Yield Optimized Bond ETF,
and iShares iBoxx $ High Yield ex Oil & Gas Corporate Bond ETF.
Finally, we then used our adequate to strong qualitative assessment
of management to determine that no downward adjustment was required
to the intermediate FVRs.

"In determining the final FCQRs and FVRs, we also performed a
comparable rating analysis with other funds that have similar
portfolio strategy and composition. Here we focused on a holistic
view of each funds' portfolio credit quality and characteristics
relative to its peers. The comparative rating analysis did not
result in any adjustment to the ratings.

"As part of our review, we chose to withdraw the FCQR and FVR
assigned to the iShares CMBS ETF. Issues whose rating input in our
fund credit quality matrix cannot be determined represent a
material part of this fund's assets; therefore, we are unable to
establish an opinion on the overall credit quality of the fund."

The investment manager, BFA, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
BlackRock Inc. (AA-/Stable/A-1+) which, as of June 30, 2017, had
assets under management of $5.7 trillion across equity, fixed
income, cash management, alternative investment, real estate, and
advisory strategies. The funds are among nearly 300 investment
portfolios of the iShares Trust. The trust was organized as a
Delaware statutory trust on Dec. 16, 1999, and is authorized to
have multiple series or portfolios. The trust is an open-end
management investment company registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 as amended. The offering of the trust's shares
is registered under the Securities Act of 1933 as amended. The
shares of the trust are listed and traded at market prices on
national securities exchanges. State Street Bank & Trust Co. is the
administrator, custodian, and transfer agent for the fund.
BlackRock Investments LLC, a subsidiary of BlackRock Inc., is the
fund's distributor.

An S&P Global Ratings FCQR, also known as a "bond fund rating," is
a forward-looking opinion about the overall credit quality of a
fixed-income investment fund. FCQRs, identified by the 'f' suffix,
are assigned to fixed-income funds, actively or passively managed,
typically exhibiting variable net asset values. The ratings reflect
the credit risks of the portfolio investments, the level of the
fund's counterparty risk, and the risk of the fund's management
ability and willingness to maintain current fund credit quality.
Unlike traditional credit ratings (e.g., issuer credit ratings), an
FCQR does not address a fund's ability to meet payment obligations
and is not a commentary on yield levels.

An S&P Global Ratings FVR is a forward-looking opinion about a
fixed-income investment fund's volatility of returns relative to
that of a "reference index" denominated in the base currency of the
fund. A reference index is composed of government securities
associated with the fund's base currency. FVRs are not globally
comparable. S&P said "FVRs reflect our expectation of the fund's
future volatility of returns to remain consistent with its
historical volatility of returns. FVRs reflect S&P Global Ratings'
view of the fund's sensitivity to interest rate risk, credit risk,
and liquidity risk, as well as other factors that may affect
returns such as use of derivatives, use of leverage, exposure to
foreign currency risk, and investment concentration and fund
management. We use different symbology to distinguish FVRs from S&P
Global Ratings' traditional issue or issuer credit ratings. We do
so because FVRs do not reflect creditworthiness but rather our view
of a fund's volatility of returns."

S&P reviews pertinent fund information and portfolio reports
monthly as part of its surveillance process of its fund credit
quality and volatility ratings.

  RATINGS LIST                                                     
                    
                                                      
                                              To        From
  FCQR Raised, FVR Affirmed
  iShares 0-5 Year High Yield
     Corporate Bond ETF                       Bf/S4     B-f/S4
  iShares 0-5 Year Investment Grade
     Corporate Bond ETF                       A-f/S2    B+f/S2
  iShares 0-5 Year TIPS Bond ETF              AA+/S2    AAf/S2
  iShares 1-3 Year International
     Treasury Bond ETF                        Af/S4     B+f/S4
  iShares 1-3 Year Treasury Bond ETF          AA+f/S1   AAf/S1
  iShares 10+ Year Credit Bond ETF            A-f/S4    BBB+f/S4
  iShares 10-20 Year Treasury Bond ETF        AA+f/S4   AAf/S4
  iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF          AA+f/S5   AAf/S5
  iShares 3-7 Year Treasury Bond ETF          AA+f/S2   AAf/S2
  iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF         AA+f/S3   AAf/S3
  iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF    Af/S3     A-f/S3
  iShares Agency Bond ETF                     AA+f/S2   AAf/S2
  iShares Core 1-5 Year USD Bond ETF          BBB-f/S2  BB+f/S2
  iShares Core 10+ Year USD Bond ETF          BBBf/S4   BB+f/S4
  iShares Core 5-10 Year USD Bond ETF         BBBf/S3   BB+f/S3
  iShares Core International Aggregate
     Bond ETF                                 Af/S3     A-f/S3
  iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF        A+f/S2    Af/S2
  iShares Core U.S. Credit Bond ETF           A-f/S3    BBB+f/S3
  iShares Core U.S. Treasury Bond ETF         AA+f/S3   AAf/S3
  iShares Edge U.S. Fixed Income
     Balanced Risk ETF                        BBB-f/S3  BB+f/S3
  iShares Emerging Markets High Yield
     Bond ETF                                 B+f/S4    Bf/S4
  iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF          BB-f/S4   Bf/S4
  iShares Floating Rate Bond ETF              Af/S1     A-f/S1
  iShares GNMA Bond ETF                       AA+f/S2   AAf/S2
  iShares US & Intl High Yield Corp Bond ETF  B+f/S4    Bf/S4
  iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF          Af/S3     A-f/S3
  iShares Interest Rate Hedged
     Corporate Bond ETF                       A-f/S3    BBB+f/S3
  iShares Interest Rate Hedged High Yield
     Bond ETF                                 B+f/S4    B-f/S4
  iShares Intermediate Credit Bond ETF        A-f/S2    BBB+f/S2
  iShares Intermediate Government/
     Credit Bond ETF                          Af/S2     A-f/S2
  iShares International Treasury Bond ETF     Af/S4     BBB+f/S4
  iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets
     Bond ETF                                 BB-f/S4   B+f/S4
  iShares MBS ETF                             AA+f/S2   AAf/S2
  iShares National Muni Bond ETF              AA-f/S3   A+f/S3
  iShares Short Maturity Bond ETF             Af/S1     BBB+f/S1
  iShares TIPS Bond ETF                       AA+f/S3   AAf/S3
  iShares Treasury Floating Rate Bond ETF     AA+f/S1+  AAf/S1+
  iShares U.S. Preferred Stock ETF            BB-f/S3   Bf/S3
  iShares Ultra Short-Term Bond ETF           AA-f/S1   A-f/S1
  iShares Yield Optimized Bond ETF            BBf/S3    BB-f/S3
  iShares iBonds Dec 2020 Term Corporate ETF  A-f/S2    BBB+f/S2
  iShares iBonds Dec 2022 Term Muni Bond ETF  AA-f/S3   A+f/S3
  iShares iBonds Dec 2023 Term Muni Bond ETF  AA-f/S3   A+f/S3
  iShares iBonds Sep 2020 Term Muni Bond ETF  AAf/S2    AA-f/S2
  iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate
      Bond ETF                                B+f/S4    B-f/S4
  iShares iBoxx $ High Yield ex Oil & Gas
      Corporate Bond ETF                      B+f/S4    B-f/S4
  iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate
      Bond ETF                                A-f/S3    BBB+f/S3
  iShares® iBonds® Dec 2019 Term
      Corporate ETF                           A-f/S2    BBB+f/S2
  iShares® iBonds® Dec 2022 Term
      Corporate ETF                           BBB+f/S3  BBBf/S3
  iShares® iBonds® Dec 2023 Term
      Corporate ETF                           BBB+f/S3  BBBf/S3
  iShares® iBonds® Dec 2024 Term
      Corporate ETF                           BBB+f/S3  BBBf/S3
  iShares® iBonds® Dec 2025 Term
      Corporate ETF                           BBB+f/S3  BBBf/S3
  iShares® iBonds® Dec 2026
      Corporate ETF                           BBB+f/S3  BBBf/S3
  iShares® iBonds® Mar 2020 Term
      Corporate ETF                           A-f/S2    BBB+f/S2
  iShares® iBonds® Mar 2023 Term
      Corporate ETF                           A-f/S3    BBB+f/S3

  FCQR Raised, FVR Raised
  iShares 1-3 Year Credit Bond ETF            A-f/S1    BBB+f/S2
  iShares Core Total USD Bond Market ETF      BBB-f/S2  BB+f/S3
  iShares International High Yield Bond ETF   BB-f/S4   Bf/S5
  iShares iBonds Dec 2021 Term Muni Bond ETF  AAf/S2    A+f/S3
  iShares® iBonds® Dec 2018 Term
     Corporate ETF                            A+f/S1+   BBB+f/S2
  iShares® iBonds® Mar 2018 Term
     Corporate ETF                            AA+f/S1+  A-f/S1
  iShares® iBonds® Mar 2018 Term
     Corporate ex-Financials ETF              AAf/S1+   A-f/S1
  iShares® iBonds® Sep 2018 Term
     Muni Bond ETF                            AAA/S1+   AAf/S1

  FCQR Affirmed, FVR Affirmed
  iShares New York Muni Bond ETF              AAf/S3   
  iShares California Muni Bond ETF            AA-f/S3  
  iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF   BB-f/S4  
  iShares Short Treasury Bond ETF             AAAf/S1+
  iShares® iBonds® Mar 2020 Term
     Corporate ex-Financials ETF              A-f/S2   
  iShares® iBonds® Mar 2023 Term
     Corporate ex-Financials ETF              A-f/S3   
  iShares® iBonds® Sep 2019 Term
     Muni Bond ETF                            AAf/S2   

  FCQR Affirmed, FVR Raised iShares
     Short-Term National Muni Bond ETF        AAf/S1    AAf/S2
  iShares® iBonds® Dec 2021 Term
     Corporate ETF                            BBB+f/S2  BBB+f/S3

  FCQR Lowered, FVR Affirmed
  iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local
     Currency Bond ETF                        BB+f/S4   BBB-f/S4

  Ratings Withdrawn
  iShares CMBS ETF                            NR/NR     Af/S4


[*] S&P Takes Various Action on 9 Classes From Four US RMBS Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of nine classes from four
U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions
issued in 2003 and 2004. All of these transactions are backed by
prime jumbo collateral. The review yielded nine downgrades.

Analytical Considerations

S&P said, "These rating actions 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. We apply 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 higher 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 Affect Ratings can be viewed at:

         http://bit.ly/2yH4mBG


[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 10 Classes From 3 US RMBS Deals
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 10 classes from three
U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions
issued between 1998 and 2003. These transactions are backed
primarily by a mix of fixed- and adjustable-rate seasoned
residential building and installment sales contracts, promissory
notes, and related mortgages. The review yielded seven downgrades
and three 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;
-- Proportion of reperforming loans in the pool; and
-- Available subordination and/or overcollateralization.

The affirmations of ratings reflect S&P's opinion that its
projected credit support and collateral performance on these
classes has remained relatively consistent with its prior
projections.

The downgrades reflect an increase in delinquencies in each
transaction since their last review, as well as an erosion of
credit support due partly to the pro rata allocation of principal
to subordinate classes. Further, total delinquencies as a percent
of the current balance have increased to 11.55% (September 2017
from 7.12% (December 2015) for Mid-State Trust VII, 13.71% (October
2017) from 7.77% (January 2016) for Mid-State Trust X, and 15.60%
(October 2017) from 11.26% (January 2016) for Mid-State Trust XI.

  RATINGS LOWERED

                                                  Rating
  Issuer                Class    CUSIP       To          From
  Mid-State Trust VII   A        595498AA4   BBB- (sf)   A+ (sf)
  Mid-State Trust X     A-1      59549RAA2   AA- (sf)    AA+ (sf)
  Mid-State Trust X     A-2      59549RAB0   AA- (sf)    AA+ (sf)
  Mid-State Trust X     M-1      59549RAC8   BBB- (sf)   BBB+ (sf)
  Mid-State Trust X     M-2      59549RAD6   B+ (sf)     BB+ (sf)
  Mid-State Trust XI    M-1      59549WAB9   BBB (sf)    A+ (sf)
  Mid-State Trust XI    M-2      59549WAC7   BB+ (sf)    BBB- (sf)

  Issuer                Class    CUSIP       Rating
  Mid-State Trust X     B        59549RAE4   B- (sf)
  Mid-State Trust XI    A        59549WAA1   AA+ (sf)
  Mid-State Trust XI    B        59549WAD5   B- (sf)


[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 54 Classes From 12 US RMBS Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 54 classes from 12 U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions issued
between 2001 and 2006. All of these transactions are backed by
subprime collateral. The review yielded 20 upgrades, four
downgrades, and 30 affirmations.

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;
-- Available subordination and/or overcollateralization.

Rating Actions

The affirmations of ratings reflect S&P's opinion that its
projected credit support and collateral performance on these
classes has remained relatively consistent with its prior
projections.

Four classes from three transactions had rating increases of six or
more notches. Each upgrade was supported by an increase in
available credit support and/or an expected short duration until
the bond will be paid in full.

Class M-4 from ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust Series
2005-HE2 was upgraded to 'AA (sf)' from 'BBB (sf)' due to its
credit support increasing to 72.96% as of October 2017 from 61.23%
at the time of S&P's prior review. The class is benefiting from a
failing cumulative loss trigger, thus receiving all principal and
excess interest.

Class A-1 from ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust Series
2006-ASAP2 was upgraded to 'AAA (sf)' from 'BB+ (sf)' due to its
credit support increasing to 88.50% as of October 2017 from 60.10%
at the time of our prior review. The class is benefiting from a
failing cumulative loss trigger, thus receiving all principal and
excess interest from group 1. We expect it to pay off in six months
or less. Class A-2D from the same transaction was upgraded to 'A+
(sf)' from 'B- (sf)' due to its credit support increasing to 58.48%
as of October 2017 from 40.17% at the time of our prior review. The
class is benefiting from a failing cumulative loss trigger, thus
receiving all principal and excess interest from group 2.

Class A1 from Asset Backed Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust
Series AEG 2006-HE1 was upgraded to 'A+ (sf)' from 'BB+ (sf)' due
to its credit support increasing to 70.21% as of October 2017 from
56.50% at the time of our prior review. Delinquencies for group 1
also decreased to 15.14% from 23.86% over the same period. The
class is benefiting from a failing cumulative loss trigger, thus
receiving all principal and excess interest from group 1.

A list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at:

          http://bit.ly/2AZleGf


[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 64 Classes From 21 US RMBS Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 64 classes from 21 U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions issued
between 1998 and 2005. All of these transactions are backed by a
mix of collateral. The review yielded eight upgrades, three
downgrades, 47 affirmations, and six 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;
-- Historical interest shortfalls; and
-- Available subordination and/or overcollateralization.

Rating Actions

S&P said, "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 raised our rating on class M-1 from Saxon Asset Securities
Trust 2005-3 to 'AAA (sf)' from 'A+ (sf)'. The cumulative loss
trigger is failing thereby this class is receiving all principal
payments. The class has an outstanding principal balance of
$802,843 as of the November 2017 period, and has received nearly
$4.6 million in principal distributions over the last six months.
Thus, we anticipate the class to be paid in full within the next
one-to-two periods.

"We raised our rating on class 2-M-1 from Terwin Mortgage Trust
2004-21HE to 'A (sf)' from 'BB+ (sf)'. The class experienced an
increase in credit support to 40% in November 2017 from 27.7% at
the last review due to the class receiving all principal payments.
Further, total delinquencies in group 2 decreased to 15% in
November 2017 from 23% at the last review, which decreases future
projected loss expectations."

A list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at:

          http://bit.ly/2AZAaTY


[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 70 Classes From 17 US RMBS Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 70 classes from 17 U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions issued
between 2001 and 2007. All of these transactions are backed by
outside-the-guidelines and document-deficient collateral. The
review yielded 20 upgrades, 31 affirmations, and 19
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;
-- Historical missed interest payments;
-- Priority of principal payments;
-- Loan modification criteria; and
-- Expected short duration.

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 its projected credit support and collateral
performance on these classes has remained relatively consistent
with its prior projections.

A list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at:

          http://bit.ly/2BLKD6M


[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 82 Classes From 16 US RMBS Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 82 classes from 16 U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions issued
between 2002 and 2007. These transactions are backed by subprime,
prime, or alternative-A collateral. The review yielded 19 upgrades,
five downgrades, 54 affirmations, and four 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 performancedelinquency trends;
-- Historical interest shortfalls;
-- Changes in the constant prepayment rate;
-- Available subordination andor overcollateralization; and
-- Payment priority.

Rating Actions

The affirmations of ratings reflect S&P's opinion that its
projected credit support and collateral performance on these
classes has remained relatively consistent with our prior
projections.

The list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at:

          http://bit.ly/2C41em4


[*] S&P Withdraws Ratings on 118 Classes From 61 US RMBS Deals
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its ratings on three classes from two
U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions and
withdrew its ratings on 118 classes from 61 U.S. RMBS
transactions.

The rating actions follow the Dec. 1, 2017, withdrawal of S&P's
financial strength rating on MBIA Insurance Corp.

S&P said, "For insured classes of securities, our rating is
generally the higher of the rating on the insurer or the S&P Global
Ratings' underlying rating (SPUR) for the class. A SPUR is our
opinion of the stand-alone creditworthiness of an obligation--that
is, the capacity to pay debt service on a debt issue in accordance
with its terms--without considering an otherwise applicable bond
insurance policy.

"The long-term ratings on those classes that currently have an
active SPUR were lowered to match their respective SPUR. We
withdrew the ratings on 118 classes because we no longer have
sufficient information about the insurers' creditworthiness to form
the basis of an insurer-dependent rating."

A list of the Affected Ratings is available at:

          http://bit.ly/2AxFBxm


                            *********

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 ***