TCR_Public/170903.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, September 3, 2017, Vol. 21, No. 245

                            Headlines

ALESCO PREFERRED VI: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. B-2 Notes to Ba1
AMERICAN CREDIT 2017-3: S&P Gives Prelim BB- Rating on Cl. E Notes
ANTHRACITE LTD 2004-HY1: S&P Hikes Class B Debt Rating to B+
APIDOS CLO X: S&P Affirms BB(sf) Rating on Class F Notes
ARES CLO XLIV: Moody's Assigns B3(sf) Rating to Class E Notes

BANC OF AMERICA 2007-4: Fitch Affirms CCsf Rating on 3 Tranches
BANC OF AMERICA 2007-4: S&P Raises Class G Certs Rating to B-(sf)
BAYVIEW MORTGAGE 2017-RT3: Fitch Assigns B Rating to Cl. B5 Notes
BAYVIEW MORTGAGE 2017-RT3: Fitch to Rate Class B5 Notes 'Bsf'
BAYVIEW MORTGAGE IVC: Fitch Corrects August 25 Release

BBCMS 2017-DELC: Moody's Assigns B3(sf) Rating to Class F Certs
BUSINESS LOAN 2003-A: S&P Hikes Class B Debt Rating to BB+
BXP TRUST 2017-CC: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E Notes
CANYON CLO 2017-1: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Cl. E Notes
CBAM LTD 2017-2: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class E Notes

CD COMMERCIAL 2007-CD5: Fitch Affirms Bsf Rating on Class E Certs
CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL 2017-1500: S&P Gives B Rating on Class F Certs
CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL 2017-B1: Fitch Gives B Rating to Class F Certs
COMM 2012-CCRE5: Fitch Affirms Bsf Rating on Class G Certs
CREDIT SUISSE 2003-C3: Fitch Affirms 'CCCsf' Rating on Cl. J Certs

CREDIT SUISSE 2006-C4: Moody's Cuts Ratings on Class C Certs to C
CWCAPITAL 2005-1: S&P Affirms CC(sf) Rating on Class D Notes
DEWOLF PARK: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class E Notes
DRIVE AUTO 2015-C: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. E Notes from Ba1
ELEVATION CLO 2014-2: S&P Affirms B(sf) Rating on Class F Notes

FLAGSHIP CREDIT 2017-3: S&P Gives BB-(sf) Rating on Class E Notes
GALAXY CLO XIX: S&P Assigns B-(sf) Rating on Class E-R Notes
GREENWICH CAPITAL 2005-GG5: Moody's Affirms C Ratings on 4 Tranches
GREENWICH CAPITAL 2007-GG11: Fitch Affirms C Rating on Cl. D Certs
GS MORTGAGE 2017-GS7: Fitch Assigns B-sf Rating to Class H-RR Certs

ICG US 2014-1: S&P Affirms B Rating on Class E Notes
JP MORGAN 2017-3: Fitch Assigns 'Bsf' Rating to Class B-5 Certs
JP MORGAN 2017-3: Moody's Assigns B2(sf) Rating to Class B-5 Debt
LB COMMERCIAL 2007-C3: S&P Raises Class B Certs Rating to B(sf)
LEHMAN STRUCTURED 2001-GE5: Moody's Withdraws Caa2 on A2 Certs

MADISON PARK XI: S&P Gives Prelim B-(sf) Rating on Class F-R Notes
MORGAN STANLEY 2003-IQ4: Fitch Affirms 'Csf' Rating on Cl. L Certs
MORGAN STANLEY 2015-XLF1: S&P Affirms B- Rating on ASL2 Certs
MOTEL 6 2017-MTL6: S&P Assigns Prelim B-(sf) Rating on Cl. F Certs
OCEAN TRAILS IV: S&P Gives BB+(sf) Rating on Class E-R Notes

OCP CLO 2014-5: S&P Affirms B(sf) Rating on Class E Notes
OCTAGON INVESTMENT 32: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Cl. E Notes
ONEMAIN FINANCIAL 2017-1: S&P Gives Prelim BB Rating on Cl. D Notes
RACE POINT IX: S&P Gives Prelim BB-(sf) Rating on Class D-R Notes
RAIT CRE CDO I: S&P Hikes Class B Notes Rating to B-(sf)

SARANAC CLO V: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Cl. E-R Notes
SDART 2016-3: Moody's Hikes Rating on Class E Notes to Ba1
SEQUOIA MORTGAGE 2017-6: Moody's Gives Ba3 Rating to Cl. B-4 Certs
TIDEWATER AUTO 2016-A: S&P Affirms BB(sf) Rating on Class E Notes
TOWD POINT 2017-4: Fitch Assigns 'Bsf' Rating to Cl. B2 Notes

TRAINER WORTHAM III: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. A-1 Notes to Caa3
VENTURE CLO XIV: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class E-R Notes
WACHOVIA BANK 2006-C23: Moody's Cuts Class H Certs Rating to Caa2
WACHOVIA BANK 2006-C23: S&P Lowers Class H Notes Rating to 'D(sf)'
WACHOVIA BANK 2006-C26: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Cl. A-M Debt

[*] Moody's Puts C Ratings on 350 IO Bonds on Review for Upgrade
[*] S&P Discontinues Ratings on 43 Classes From 15 CDO Deals
[*] S&P Lowers Ratings on 47 Classes From 25 RMBS Deals to 'D(sf)'
[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 153 Classes From 13 US RMBS Deals
[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 8 Classes From 3 US RMBS Deals


                            *********

ALESCO PREFERRED VI: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. B-2 Notes to Ba1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the following
notes issued by Alesco Preferred Funding VI, Ltd.:

US$50,000,000 Class A-2 Second Priority Senior Secured Floating
Rate Notes Due 2035, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on March 28,
2017 Upgraded to A2 (sf)

US$20,000,000 Class A-3 Second Priority Senior Secured
Fixed/Floating Rate Notes Due 2035, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously
on March 28, 2017 Upgraded to A2 (sf)

US$23,000,000 Class B-1 Deferrable Third Priority Secured Floating
Rate Notes Due 2035 (current balance including interest shortfall
of $24,665,325.85), Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on March 28,
2017 Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

US$12,000,000 Class B-2 Deferrable Third Priority Secured
Fixed/Floating Rate Notes Due 2035 (current balance including
interest shortfall of $15,277,309.41), Upgraded to Ba1 (sf);
previously on March 28, 2017 Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

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

US$365,000,000 Class A-1 First Priority Senior Secured Floating
Rate Notes Due 2035 (current balance of $ 109,009,677.10), Affirmed
Aa1 (sf); previously on March 28, 2017 Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Alesco Preferred Funding VI, Ltd., issued in December 2004, is a
collateralized debt obligation (CDO) backed by a portfolio of bank
and insurance trust preferred securities (TruPS).

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions are primarily a result of the deleveraging of
the Class A-1 notes and an increase in the transaction's
overcollateralization (OC) ratios.

The Class A-1 notes have paid down by approximately 26.9% or $40.0
million since March 2017, using principal proceeds from the
redemption of two underlying assets. Based on Moody's calculations,
the OC ratios for the Class A-1, Class A, and Class B notes have
improved to 287.5%, 175.1%, and 143.1%, respectively, from March
2017 levels of 236.9%, 161.2%, and 136.3%, respectively. As long as
the Class D OC test continues to fail (reported at 78.7% by the
trustee on the July 2017 report, versus a trigger of 102.8%), the
Class A-1 notes will benefit from any excess interest available
after the Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D notes' current
interest is paid.

The rating actions on the notes also reflect the correction of
prior errors. In previous rating actions, payment of defaulted
interest on the Class A-1, Class A-2, and Class A-3 notes was not
modeled, thereby understating the expected loss on the Class A-1
notes and overstating the expected loss on the Class A-2 and Class
A-3 notes. In addition, the base collateral management fee and
subordinate collateral management fee were understated. These
errors have now been corrected, and actions reflect this change.

Methodology Used for the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Approach
to Rating TruPS CDOs," published in October 2016.

Factors that Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating

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

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in the
general economy. Moody's has a stable outlook on the US banking and
insurance sectors.

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

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

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

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

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 895)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: +1

Class A-3: +1

Class B-1: +2

Class B-2: +2

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 2158)

Class A-1: -1

Class A-2: -2

Class A-3: -2

Class B-1: -2

Class B-2: -2

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis

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

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery rate,
are based on its methodology and could differ from the trustee's
reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the underlying
collateral pool has having a performing par and principal proceeds
balance of $313.4 million, defaulted par of $106.0 million, a
weighted average default probability of 14.9% (implying a WARF of
1443), and a weighted average recovery rate upon default of 10.0%.

In addition to the quantitative factors Moody's explicitly models,
qualitative factors are part of rating committee considerations.
Moody's considers the structural protections in the transaction,
the risk of an event of default, recent deal performance under
current market conditions, the legal environment and specific
documentation features. All information available to rating
committees, including macroeconomic forecasts, inputs from other
Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and judgments regarding
the nature and severity of credit stress on the transactions, can
influence the final rating decision.

The portfolio of this CDO contains mainly TruPS issued by small to
medium sized U.S. community banks and insurance companies that
Moody's does not rate publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of
bank TruPS that do not have public ratings, Moody's uses
RiskCalc(TM), an econometric model developed by Moody's Analytics,
to derive credit scores. Moody's evaluation of the credit risk of
most of the bank obligors in the pool relies on the latest FDIC
financial data. For insurance TruPS that do not have public
ratings, Moody's relies on the assessment of its Insurance team,
based on the credit analysis of the underlying insurance firms'
annual statutory financial reports.


AMERICAN CREDIT 2017-3: S&P Gives Prelim BB- Rating on Cl. E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to American
Credit Acceptance Receivables Trust 2017-3's $234.130 million
asset-backed notes series 2017-3.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Aug. 24,
2017. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

-- The availability of approximately 65.0%, 58.8%, 47.6%, 39.7%,
and 35.4% credit support for the class A, B, C, D, and E notes,
respectively, based on break-even stressed cash flow scenarios
(including excess spread), which provides coverage of approximately
2.35x, 2.10x, 1.70x, 1.37x, and 1.20x our 26.75%-27.75% expected
net loss range for the class A, B, C, D, and E notes,
respectively.

-- The timely interest and principal payments made to the
preliminary rated notes by the assumed legal final maturity dates
under our stressed cash flow modeling scenarios that we believe are
appropriate for the assigned preliminary ratings. 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 preliminary 'AAA (sf)', 'AA
(sf)', and 'A (sf)' ratings, the ratings on the class D notes would
remain within one rating category of our preliminary 'BBB (sf)'
rating, and the rating on the class E notes would remain within two
rating categories of our preliminary 'BB- (sf)' rating in the first
year, but that class is expected to default by its legal final
maturity date with approximately 55%-87% repayment. These potential
rating movements are consistent with our credit stability criteria,
which outline the outer bound 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 (see "Methodology: Credit Stability Criteria,"
published May 3, 2010).

-- 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.

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED
  American Credit Acceptance Receivables Trust 2017-3  

  Class     Rating       Type          Interest    Amount
                                       rate        (mil. $)(i)
  A         AAA (sf)     Senior        Fixed         98.64
  B         AA (sf)      Subordinate   Fixed         27.49
  C         A (sf)       Subordinate   Fixed         48.77
  D         BBB (sf)     Subordinate   Fixed         36.55
  E         BB- (sf)     Subordinate   Fixed         22.68

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


ANTHRACITE LTD 2004-HY1: S&P Hikes Class B Debt Rating to B+
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its rating on the class B notes from
Anthracite 2004-HY1 Ltd., a U.S. commercial real estate
collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO) transaction. At the same
time, S&P affirmed its rating on the class C notes from the same
transaction.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the June and July 2017 trustee
reports.

S&P said, "Since our August 2014 rating actions, the class A notes
have been completely paid down by $10.09 million, and the class B
notes have been paid down by $19.54 million, resulting in a
collective paydown of $29.63 million.  

"Following the August 2017 payment date, the outstanding balance of
the class B notes is about 30.51% of its original balance.
Additionally, the notes are now backed by higher-quality assets. We
raised our rating on the notes to 'B+ (sf)' from 'CCC- (sf)' to
reflect this increase in credit support. The rating is constrained
at 'B+ (sf)' by the application of the largest obligor default
test.

"The affirmed rating reflects our belief that the credit support
available is commensurate with the current rating level for the
class C notes.

"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."

  RATING RAISED

  Anthracite 2004-HY1 Ltd.
                  Rating
  Class       To           From
  B           B+ (sf)      CCC- (sf)

  RATING AFFIRMED

  Anthracite 2004-HY1 Ltd.
  Class          Rating
  C              CCC- (sf)


APIDOS CLO X: S&P Affirms BB(sf) Rating on Class F Notes
--------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on the class B-1, B-2, C, and
D notes from Apidos CLO X. S&P said, "At the same time, we removed
these ratings from CreditWatch, where we placed them with positive
implications in July 2017. We also affirmed our ratings on the
class A and E notes from the same transaction, and we removed our
rating on the class E notes from CreditWatch, where we placed it
with positive implications at the same time."

S&P said, "T[he] rating actions follow our review of the
transaction's performance using data from the June 2017 trustee
report."

The upgrades and the affirmation on the class A notes reflect the
$136 million in paydowns to the class A notes since S&P's May 2016
rating actions, resulting in improved reported
overcollateralization (O/C) ratios since the April 2016 trustee
report, which S&P used for its previous rating actions:

-- The class A/B O/C ratio improved to 152.41% from 132.93%.
-- The class C O/C ratio improved to 129.24% from 120.10%.
-- The class D O/C ratio improved to 117.92% from 113.19%.
-- The class E O/C ratio improved to 109.58% from 107.81%.

S&P said, "We did note a decline in the residual portfolio's credit
quality since our previous rating actions. The par amount of
defaulted collateral has increased to $6.36 million as of the June
2017 trustee report from $2.93 million as of the April 2016 trustee
report. Although our cash flow analysis indicated higher ratings
for the class E notes, we considered the increase in defaults and
decline in the portfolio's credit quality.

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

"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."

  RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH POSITIVE

  Apidos CLO X
                    Rating
  Class         To          From
  B-1           AAA (sf)    AA (sf)/Watch Pos
  B-2           AAA (sf)    AA (sf)/Watch Pos
  C             AA+ (sf)    A (sf)/Watch Pos
  D             A+ (sf)     BBB (sf)/Watch Pos

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  Apidos CLO X
            
  Class         Rating
  A             AAA (sf)

  RATINGS AFFIRMED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH POSITIVE

  Apidos CLO X
                Rating
  Class    To               From
  E        BB (sf)          BB (sf)/Watch Pos


ARES CLO XLIV: Moody's Assigns B3(sf) Rating to Class E Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to eight classes of
notes issued by Ares XLIV CLO Ltd. (the "Issuer" or "Ares XLIV").

Moody's rating action is:

US$624,250,000 Class A-1 Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2029 (the
"Class A-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$101,750,000 Class A-2 Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2029 (the
"Class A-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$104,500,000 Class A-3 Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2029 (the
"Class A-3 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$36,500,000 Class B-1 Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2029 (the "Class B-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2
(sf)

US$24,000,000 Class B-2 Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2029 (the "Class B-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2
(sf)

US$66,000,000 Class C Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$55,000,000 Class D Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

US$8,500,000 Class E Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned B3 (sf)

The Class A-1 Notes, the Class A-2 Notes, the Class A-3 Notes, the
Class B-1 Notes, the Class B-2 Notes, the Class C Notes, the Class
D Notes, and the Class E Notes are referred to herein as the "Rated
Notes."

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Ares XLIV is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90% of the portfolio must consist
of senior secured loans and eligible investments purchased with
principal proceeds, and up to 10% of the portfolio may consist of
non-senior secured loans. The portfolio is approximately 70%-80%
ramped as of the closing date.

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

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer issued one class of
subordinated notes and one class of combination notes.

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

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

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

Par amount: $1,100,000,000

Diversity Score: 70

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2912

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.55%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.0%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 49.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9 years.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

The performance of the Rated Notes is subject to uncertainty. The
performance of the Rated Notes is sensitive to the performance of
the underlying portfolio, which in turn depends on economic and
credit conditions that may change. The Manager's investment
decisions and management of the transaction will also affect the
performance of the Rated Notes.

Together with the set of modeling assumptions above, Moody's
conducted an additional sensitivity analysis, which was a component
in determining the ratings assigned to the Rated Notes. This
sensitivity analysis includes increased default probability
relative to the base case.

Below is a summary of the impact of an increase in default
probability (expressed in terms of WARF level) on the Rated Notes
(shown in terms of the number of notch difference versus the
current model output, whereby a negative difference corresponds to
higher expected losses), assuming that all other factors are held
equal:

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2912 to 3349)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2 Notes: -1

Class A-3 Notes: -2

Class B-1 Notes: -2

Class B-2 Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2912 to 3786)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2 Notes: -3

Class A-3 Notes: -4

Class B-1 Notes: -4

Class B-2 Notes: -4

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -3


BANC OF AMERICA 2007-4: Fitch Affirms CCsf Rating on 3 Tranches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded four and affirmed 12 classes of Banc of
America Commercial Mortgage Trust (BACM) commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2007-4.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

High Credit Enhancement (CE): The senior classes benefit from high
and increasing CE due to amortization, loan payoffs and
dispositions since Fitch's last rating action. The upgrades reflect
the overall stable pool performance and high CE of the senior
classes relative to expected losses. As of the August 2017
distribution date, the transaction has paid down 93% since
issuance, to $155 million from $2.2 billion. Interest shortfalls
are currently affecting class J.

Concentrated Pool: The pool is highly concentrated with only 20
loans remaining. Due to the concentrated nature of the pool, Fitch
performed a sensitivity analysis which grouped the remaining loans
based on loan structural features, collateral quality and
performance which ranked them by their perceived likelihood of
repayment. This includes fully amortizing loans, balloon loans, and
Fitch Loans of Concern. The ratings reflect this sensitivity
analysis.

Specially Serviced/Watchlist Loans: Approximately 32% of the
remaining collateral is in special servicing and another 8% is on
the servicer watchlist. Fitch considers 55% of the pool a Fitch
Loan of Concern.

Maturity Schedule: Loans totaling approximately $39 million mature
in the next 12 months. Additionally, two loans totaling $14.3
million will pass their anticipated repayment date (ARD) in
September 2017. The remainder of the pool does not mature until
2022.

The two largest specially serviced loans in the pool are secured by
adjacent properties with common sponsorship; however, the loans are
not cross-collateralized. Both properties are 3-story suburban
office buildings located in Rockville, MD. The loans transferred to
the special servicer due to imminent maturity default in May 2017
as several large tenants had upcoming lease expirations.
Discussions are ongoing between the borrower and special servicer
as to workout options.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Rating Outlooks on classes A-J through C remain Stable due to high
credit enhancement and continued delevering of the pool. Further
upgrades to the most senior classes are possible with additional
paydown and resolutions of loans in special servicing. Ratings on
the distressed classes may be subject to further downgrades as
losses are realized.

Fitch has upgraded the following classes:
-- $2.2 million class A-J to 'Asf' from 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $22.3 million class B to 'BBBsf' from 'CCCsf'; assigned
    Outlook Stable;
-- $19.5 million class C to 'BBsf' from 'CCCsf'; assigned Outlook

    Stable;
-- $22.3 million class E to 'CCCsf' from 'CCsf'; RE 100%.

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:
-- $22.3 million class D at 'CCCsf'; RE 100%;
-- $13.9 million class F at 'CCsf'; RE 100%;
-- $16.7 million class G at 'CCsf'; RE 20%;
-- $27.9 million class H at 'Csf'; RE 0%.
-- $8.4 million class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class O at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class Q at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

Fitch does not rate class S. Classes A-1, A-2, A-3, A-SB, A-4, A-1A
and A-M have paid in full. The rating on class XW was previously
withdrawn.


BANC OF AMERICA 2007-4: S&P Raises Class G Certs Rating to B-(sf)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on seven classes of
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from Banc of America
Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-4, a U.S. commercial mortgage-backed
securities (CMBS) transaction.

S&P said, "The upgrades follow our analysis of the transaction,
primarily using our criteria for rating U.S. and Canadian CMBS
transactions, which included a review of the credit characteristics
and performance of the remaining assets in the pool, the
transaction's structure, and the liquidity available to the trust.
The raised ratings also reflect our expectation of the available
credit enhancement for these classes, which we believe is greater
than our most recent estimate of necessary credit enhancement for
the respective rating levels and our views regarding the current
and future performance of the transaction's collateral and the
trust balance's significant reduction. The raised ratings on
classes A-J and B also considered their interest shortfall
history.

"While available credit enhancement levels suggest further positive
rating movements on classes C, D, E, F, and G, our analysis also
considered their susceptibility to reduced liquidity support from
the eight assets currently with the special servicer ($60.0
million, 38.6%) and the refinancing risks of three loans
aggregating $32.2 million (20.8%) due to single tenant exposure
where the loan term is near the lease term."

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Aug. 10, 2017, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $155.3 million, which is 7.0% of the pool balance
at issuance. The pool included 19 loans and one real estate owned
asset, down from 143 loans at issuance. Seven of these assets
($49.2 million, 31.7%) were reported with the special servicer, 11
loans ($61.1 million, 39.4%) were reported on the master servicer's
watchlist and there were no defeased loans. The master servicer,
KeyBank Real Estate Capital (KeyBank), indicated to S&P that one of
the watchlist loans, the 12th and K – Sacramento loan ($10.8
million, 6.9%), was transferred to special servicing subsequent to
the August 2017 trustee remittance report because of maturity
default. The loan matured on Aug. 1, 2017. KeyBank reported
financial information for 100.0% of the loans in the pool, of which
93.6% was year-end 2016 data, and the remainder was year-end 2015
data.

Excluding the eight specially serviced assets, S&P calculated a
1.25x S&P Global Ratings' weighted average debt service coverage
(DSC) and 74.4% S&P Global Ratings' weighted average loan-to-value
(LTV) ratio using a 7.63% S&P Global Ratings' weighted average
capitalization rate. The top 10 loans have an aggregate outstanding
pool trust balance of $124.6 million (80.2%). Using adjusted
servicer-reported numbers, S&P calculated a S&P Global Ratings'
weighted average DSC and LTV of 1.20x and 77.9%, respectively, for
five of the top 10 loans. The remaining loans are specially
serviced and discussed below.

To date, the transaction has experienced $114.6 million in
principal losses, or 5.1% of the original pool trust balance. S&P
expects losses to reach approximately 6.2% of the original pool
trust balance in the near term, based on losses incurred to date
and additional losses it expects upon the eventual resolution of
the eight specially serviced assets.

CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the Aug. 10, 2017, trustee remittance report, seven assets in
the pool were with the special servicer, LNR Partners LLC (LNR). In
addition, the 12th and K – Sacramento loan was transferred to
special servicing subsequent to the August 2017 trustee remittance
report . Furthermore, LNR recently indicated to us that the Lacamas
Center loan ($5.4 million, 3.5%) was just transferred to special
servicing subsequent to the Aug. 2017 trustee remittance report.
S&P's analysis treated this loan as performing. Details of the
three largest specially serviced assets, all of which are top 10
assets, are below.

The Belward North loan ($12.4 million, 8.0%) is the fourth-largest
loan in the pool and has a total reported exposure of $12.6
million. The loan is secured by a 57,152-sq.-ft. office property in
Rockville, Md. The loan, which has a nonperforming matured balloon
payment status, was transferred to special servicing on May 19,
2017, due to imminent maturity default. The loan matured on July 1,
2017. The reported DSC and occupancy as of year-end 2016 were 1.21x
and 91.7%, respectively. LNR stated that it is exploring various
workout strategies. The loan does not have an appraisal reduction
amount reported yet. S&P expects a moderate loss upon this loan's
eventual resolution.

The 12th and K – Sacramento loan ($10.8 million, 6.9%), the
fifth-largest loan in the pool, has a total reported exposure of
$10.8 million. The loan is secured by a 32,659-sq.-ft. mixed use
property in Sacramento, Calif. The loan, which has a nonperforming
matured balloon payment status, was transferred to special
servicing on Aug. 14, 2017, subsequent to the August 2017 trustee
remittance report, due to maturity default. The loan matured on
Aug. 1, 2017. The reported DSC and occupancy were 1.25x and 100%,
respectively, for year-end 2016. S&P expects a moderate loss upon
its eventual resolution.

The Belward South loan ($10.1 million, 6.5%), the sixth-largest
loan in the pool, has a total reported exposure of $10.2 million.
The loan is secured by a 49,317-sq.-ft. office building in
Rockville, Md. The loan was transferred to the special servicer on
May 22, 2017, due to imminent maturity default. The loan, which has
a nonperforming matured balloon payment status, matured on July 1,
2017. The reported DSC and occupancy as of year-end 2016 were 0.69x
and 74.6%, respectively. S&P expects a moderate loss upon this
loan's eventual resolution.

The six remaining assets with the special servicer each have
individual balances that represent less than 6.4% of the total pool
trust balance. S&P estimated losses for eight specially serviced
assets, arriving at a weighted-average loss severity of 40.8%.

With respect to the specially serviced assets noted above, a
minimal loss is less than 25%, a moderate loss is 26%-59%, and a
significant loss is 60% or greater.

RATINGS LIST

  Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-4
  Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2007-4
                                         Rating                    
            
  Class        Identifier            To               From         
    
  A-J          059513AH4             AA+ (sf)         BB- (sf)     
    
  B            059513AL5             AA (sf)          B (sf)       
    
  C            059513AN1             BBB+ (sf)        B- (sf)      
    
  D            059513AQ4             BB+ (sf)         B- (sf)      
    
  E            059513AS0             BB (sf)          CCC- (sf)    
    
  F            059513AU5             B+ (sf)          CCC- (sf)    
    
  G            059513AW1             B- (sf)          CCC- (sf)


BAYVIEW MORTGAGE 2017-RT3: Fitch Assigns B Rating to Cl. B5 Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following ratings to Bayview
Mortgage Fund IVc Trust 2017-RT3 (BMFT 2017-RT3):

-- $153,523,000 class A notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $153,523,000 class A-IOA notional notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $153,523,000 class A-IOB notional notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $11,614,000 class B1 notes 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $11,614,000 class B1-IOA notional notes 'AAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $11,614,000 class B1-IOB notional notes 'AAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $5,980,000 class B2 notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $5,980,000 class B2-IO notional notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $15,755,000 class B3 notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $15,755,000 class B3-IOA notional notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $15,755,000 class B3-IOB notional notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $14,835,000 class B4 notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $7,820,000 class B5 notes 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

The following class will not be rated by Fitch:

-- $20,470,136 class B6 notes.

The notes are supported by a pool of 3,732 seasoned performing,
re-performing (RPL), and newly originated loans totaling $230
million, which excludes $6.6 million in non-interest-bearing
deferred principal amounts, as of the cutoff date. Distributions of
principal and interest and loss allocations are based on a
sequential pay, senior subordinate structure.

The 'AAAsf' rating on the class A, A-IOA and A-IOB notes reflects
the 33.25% subordination provided by the 5.05% class B1, 2.60%
class B2, 6.85% class B3, 6.45% class B4, 3.40% class B5, and 8.90%
class B6 notes.

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

The extent of damage from Hurricane Harvey to properties in the
mortgage pool is not yet known. The servicer, Bayview Loan
Servicing, LLC, will be conducting inspections on properties
located in affected areas. Fitch currently expects the damage to
likely be greatest within the greater Houston area, where roughly
1.5% of the pool is located. The sponsor (Mortgage Fund IVc, LP) is
obligated to repurchase loans that have incurred damage due to
water, flood or hurricane prior to the transaction's closing that
adversely affects the value of the property. Fitch currently does
not expect the effect of the storm damage to have rating
implications due to the repurchase obligation of the sponsor and
due to the limited exposure to the greater Houston area relative to
the credit enhancement of the rated bonds.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Clean Current Loans (Positive): The loans are seasoned
approximately 11 years with 80.6% paying on time for the past 24
months. In addition, 48.9% has been modified due to performance
issues while the remaining loans were either not modified (28.6%)
or had their interest rates reduced due to a rate reduction rider
at origination (22.5%).

Low Property Values (Concern): Based on Fitch's analysis, the
average current property value of the pool is approximately
$117,000, which is lower than the average of other Fitch-rated RPL
transactions of over $150,000. Historical data from CoreLogic Loan
Performance indicate that recently observed loss severities (LS)
have been higher for very low property values than implied by
Fitch's loan loss model. For this reason, LS floors were applied to
loans with property values below $100,000, which increased the
'AAAsf' loss expectation by roughly 215 basis points (bps).

ADDITIONAL RATING DRIVERS

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

Due Diligence Findings (Concern): A third-party review (TPR), which
was conducted on 100% of the pool, resulted in 12.7% (or 475 loans)
graded 'C' or 'D'. For 373 loans, the due diligence results showed
issues regarding high cost testing; the loans were either missing
the final HUD1, used alternate documentation to test, or had
incomplete loan files. Therefore a slight upward revision to the
model output LS was applied, as further described in the
Third-Party Due Diligence section beginning on page 6 of the
presale report. In addition, timelines were extended on 351 loans
that were missing final modification documents (excluding 60 loans
that were already adjusted for HUD1 issues).

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

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

Solid Alignment of Interest (Positive): The sponsor, Mortgage Fund
IVc, LP, will acquire and retain a 5% vertical interest in each
class of the securities to be issued. In addition, the sponsor will
also be the rep provider until at least December 2020. If the fund
is liquidated or terminated, BAM will be obligated to provide a
remedy for material breaches
of R&Ws.

Deferred Amounts (Negative): Non-interest-bearing principal
forbearance amounts totaling $6.6 million (2.9%) of the unpaid
principal balance are outstanding on 1,534 loans. Fitch included
the deferred amounts when calculating the borrower's LTV and sLTV
despite the lower payment and amounts not being owed during the
term of the loan. The inclusion resulted in higher PDs and LS than
if there were no deferrals. Fitch believes that borrower default
behavior for these loans will resemble that of the higher LTVs, as
exit strategies (that is, sale or refinancing) will be limited
relative to those borrowers with more equity in the property.

Servicing Fee Stress (Negative): Fitch determined that the
servicing fee may be insufficient to attract subsequent servicers
under a period of poor performance and high delinquencies. To
account for the potentially higher fee above what is allowed for
under the current transaction documents, Fitch's cash flow analysis
assumed a 100-bp servicing.

CRITERIA APPLICATION

Fitch's analysis incorporated one criteria variation from "U.S.
RMBS Seasoned, Re-Performing and Non-Performing Loan Rating
Criteria" and one criteria variation from the "U.S. RMBS Rating
Criteria," which are described below.

The first variation is that 1% of the tax, title, and lien review
will be conducted within 90 days after securitization. If there are
any issues found, the loan will be repurchased from the trust.
Fitch also considered the robust servicing and ongoing monitoring
from Bayview Loan Servicing, which is a high-touch servicing
platform that specializes in seasoned loans. Given the strength of
the servicer, Fitch considered the impact of slightly seasoned tax,
title, and lien reviews to be nonmaterial.

The second variation is that three loans (approximately 0.4% by
balance) in the pool are seasoned less than 24 months and
considered newly originated. On average these loans are
approximately 22 months seasoned. The due diligence scope for these
loans was not consistent with Fitch's scope for newly originated
loans. Fitch is comfortable with the due diligence that was
completed on these loans as the loans made up a small percentage of
the pool. In addition, conservative assumptions were made on the
collateral analysis for these loans.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

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

Fitch conducted sensitivity analysis determining how the ratings
would react to steeper MVDs at the national level. The analysis
assumes MVDs of 10%, 20%, and 30%, in addition to the
model-projected 37.2% at 'AAAsf'. The analysis indicates there is
some potential rating migration with higher MVDs, compared with the
model projection.

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


BAYVIEW MORTGAGE 2017-RT3: Fitch to Rate Class B5 Notes 'Bsf'
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings expects to rate Bayview Mortgage Fund IVc Trust
2017-RT3 (BMFT 2017-RT3) as follows:

-- $153,523,000 class A notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $153,523,000 class A-IOA notional notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $153,523,000 class A-IOB notional notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $11,614,000 class B1 notes 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $11,614,000 class B1-IOA notional notes 'AAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $11,614,000 class B1-IOB notional notes 'AAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $5,980,000 class B2 notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $5,980,000 class B2-IO notional notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $15,755,000 class B3 notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $15,755,000 class B3-IOA notional notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $15,755,000 class B3-IOB notional notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $14,835,000 class B4 notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $7,820,000 class B5 notes 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

The following class will not be rated by Fitch:

-- $20,470,136 class B6 notes.

The notes are supported by a pool of 3,732 seasoned performing,
re-performing (RPL), and newly originated loans totaling $230
million, which excludes $6.6 million in non-interest-bearing
deferred principal amounts, as of the cutoff date. Distributions of
principal and interest and loss allocations are based on a
sequential pay, senior subordinate structure.

The 'AAAsf' rating on the class A, A-IOA and A-IOB notes reflects
the 33.25% subordination provided by the 5.05% class B1, 2.60%
class B2, 6.85% class B3, 6.45% class B4, 3.40% class B5, and 8.90%
class B6 notes.

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

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Clean Current Loans (Positive): The loans are seasoned
approximately 11 years with 80.6% paying on time for the past 24
months. In addition, 48.9% has been modified due to performance
issues while the remaining loans were either not modified (28.6%)
or had their interest rates reduced due to a rate reduction rider
at origination (22.5%).

Low Property Values (Concern): Based on Fitch's analysis, the
average current property value of the pool is approximately
$117,000, which is lower than the average of other Fitch-rated RPL
transactions of over $150,000. Historical data from CoreLogic Loan
Performance indicate that recently observed loss severities (LS)
have been higher for very low property values than implied by
Fitch's loan loss model. For this reason, LS floors were applied to
loans with property values below $100,000, which increased the
'AAAsf' loss expectation by roughly 215 basis points (bps).

ADDITIONAL RATING DRIVERS

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

Due Diligence Findings (Concern): A third-party review (TPR), which
was conducted on 100% of the pool, resulted in 12.7% (or 475 loans)
graded 'C' or 'D'. For 373 loans, the due diligence results showed
issues regarding high cost testing; the loans were either missing
the final HUD1, used alternate documentation to test, or had
incomplete loan files. Therefore a slight upward revision to the
model output LS was applied, as further described in the
Third-Party Due Diligence section beginning on page 6 of the
presale report. In addition, timelines were extended on 351 loans
that were missing final modification documents (excluding 60 loans
that were already adjusted for HUD1 issues).

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

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

Solid Alignment of Interest (Positive): The sponsor, Mortgage Fund
IVc, LP, will acquire and retain a 5% vertical interest in each
class of the securities to be issued. In addition, the sponsor will
also be the rep provider until at least December 2020. If the fund
is liquidated or terminated, BAM will be obligated to provide a
remedy for material breaches
of R&Ws.

Deferred Amounts (Negative): Non-interest-bearing principal
forbearance amounts totaling $6.6 million (2.9%) of the unpaid
principal balance are outstanding on 1,534 loans. Fitch included
the deferred amounts when calculating the borrower's LTV and sLTV
despite the lower payment and amounts not being owed during the
term of the loan. The inclusion resulted in higher PDs and LS than
if there were no deferrals. Fitch believes that borrower default
behavior for these loans will resemble that of the higher LTVs, as
exit strategies (that is, sale or refinancing) will be limited
relative to those borrowers with more equity in the property.

Servicing Fee Stress (Negative): Fitch determined that the
servicing fee may be insufficient to attract subsequent servicers
under a period of poor performance and high delinquencies. To
account for the potentially higher fee above what is allowed for
under the current transaction documents, Fitch's cash flow analysis
assumed a 100-bp servicing.

CRITERIA APPLICATION

Fitch's analysis incorporated one criteria variation from "U.S.
RMBS Seasoned, Re-Performing and Non-Performing Loan Rating
Criteria" and one criteria variation from the "U.S. RMBS Rating
Criteria," which are described below.

The first variation is that 1% of the tax, title, and lien review
will be conducted within 90 days after securitization. If there are
any issues found, the loan will be repurchased from the trust.
Fitch also considered the robust servicing and ongoing monitoring
from Bayview Loan Servicing, which is a high-touch servicing
platform that specializes in seasoned loans. Given the strength of
the servicer, Fitch considered the impact of slightly seasoned tax,
title, and lien reviews to be nonmaterial.

The second variation is that three loans (approximately 0.4% by
balance) in the pool are seasoned less than 24 months and
considered newly originated. On average these loans are
approximately 22 months seasoned. The due diligence scope for these
loans was not consistent with Fitch's scope for newly originated
loans. Fitch is comfortable with the due diligence that was
completed on these loans as the loans made up a small percentage of
the pool. In addition, conservative assumptions were made on the
collateral analysis for these loans.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

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

Fitch conducted sensitivity analysis determining how the ratings
would react to steeper MVDs at the national level. The analysis
assumes MVDs of 10%, 20%, and 30%, in addition to the
model-projected 37.2% at 'AAAsf'. The analysis indicates there is
some potential rating migration with higher MVDs, compared with the
model projection.

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


BAYVIEW MORTGAGE IVC: Fitch Corrects August 25 Release
------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings issued a correction on the press release on Bayview
Mortgage Fund IVc Trust 2017-RT3 published Aug. 25, 2017. It
removes the reference to "Structured Finance CDOs Surveillance
Rating Criteria" (June 2017) and adds the reference to "U.S. RMBS
Surveillance and Re-REMIC Rating Criteria" (June 2017).

The revised press release is as follows:

Fitch Ratings expects to rate Bayview Mortgage Fund IVc Trust
2017-RT3 (BMFT 2017-RT3):

-- $153,523,000 class A notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $153,523,000 class A-IOA notional notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $153,523,000 class A-IOB notional notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $11,614,000 class B1 notes 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $11,614,000 class B1-IOA notional notes 'AAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $11,614,000 class B1-IOB notional notes 'AAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $5,980,000 class B2 notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $5,980,000 class B2-IO notional notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $15,755,000 class B3 notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $15,755,000 class B3-IOA notional notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $15,755,000 class B3-IOB notional notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $14,835,000 class B4 notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $7,820,000 class B5 notes 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

The following class will not be rated by Fitch:

-- $20,470,136 class B6 notes.

The notes are supported by a pool of 3,732 seasoned performing,
re-performing (RPL), and newly originated loans totaling $230
million, which excludes $6.6 million in non-interest-bearing
deferred principal amounts, as of the cutoff date. Distributions of
principal and interest and loss allocations are based on a
sequential pay, senior subordinate structure.

The 'AAAsf' rating on the class A, A-IOA and A-IOB notes reflects
the 33.25% subordination provided by the 5.05% class B1, 2.60%
class B2, 6.85% class B3, 6.45% class B4, 3.40% class B5, and 8.90%
class B6 notes.

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

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Clean Current Loans (Positive): The loans are seasoned
approximately 11 years with 80.6% paying on time for the past 24
months. In addition, 48.9% has been modified due to performance
issues while the remaining loans were either not modified (28.6%)
or had their interest rates reduced due to a rate reduction rider
at origination (22.5%).

Low Property Values (Concern): Based on Fitch's analysis, the
average current property value of the pool is approximately
$117,000, which is lower than the average of other Fitch-rated RPL
transactions of over $150,000. Historical data from CoreLogic Loan
Performance indicate that recently observed loss severities (LS)
have been higher for very low property values than implied by
Fitch's loan loss model. For this reason, LS floors were applied to
loans with property values below $100,000, which increased the
'AAAsf' loss expectation by roughly 215 basis points (bps).

ADDITIONAL RATING DRIVERS

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

Due Diligence Findings (Concern): A third-party review (TPR), which
was conducted on 100% of the pool, resulted in 12.7% (or 475 loans)
graded 'C' or 'D'. For 373 loans, the due diligence results showed
issues regarding high cost testing; the loans were either missing
the final HUD1, used alternate documentation to test, or had
incomplete loan files. Therefore a slight upward revision to the
model output LS was applied, as further described in the
Third-Party Due Diligence section beginning on page 6 of the
presale report. In addition, timelines were extended on 351 loans
that were missing final modification documents (excluding 60 loans
that were already adjusted for HUD1 issues).

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

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

Solid Alignment of Interest (Positive): The sponsor, Mortgage Fund
IVc, LP, will acquire and retain a 5% vertical interest in each
class of the securities to be issued. In addition, the sponsor will
also be the rep provider until at least December 2020. If the fund
is liquidated or terminated, BAM will be obligated to provide a
remedy for material breaches
of R&Ws.

Deferred Amounts (Negative): Non-interest-bearing principal
forbearance amounts totaling $6.6 million (2.9%) of the unpaid
principal balance are outstanding on 1,534 loans. Fitch included
the deferred amounts when calculating the borrower's LTV and sLTV
despite the lower payment and amounts not being owed during the
term of the loan. The inclusion resulted in higher PDs and LS than
if there were no deferrals. Fitch believes that borrower default
behavior for these loans will resemble that of the higher LTVs, as
exit strategies (that is, sale or refinancing) will be limited
relative to those borrowers with more equity in the property.

Servicing Fee Stress (Negative): Fitch determined that the
servicing fee may be insufficient to attract subsequent servicers
under a period of poor performance and high delinquencies. To
account for the potentially higher fee above what is allowed for
under the current transaction documents, Fitch's cash flow analysis
assumed a 100-bp servicing.

CRITERIA APPLICATION

Fitch's analysis incorporated one criteria variation from "U.S.
RMBS Seasoned, Re-Performing and Non-Performing Loan Rating
Criteria" and one criteria variation from the "U.S. RMBS Rating
Criteria," which are described below.

The first variation is that 1% of the tax, title, and lien review
will be conducted within 90 days after securitization. If there are
any issues found, the loan will be repurchased from the trust.
Fitch also considered the robust servicing and ongoing monitoring
from Bayview Loan Servicing, which is a high-touch servicing
platform that specializes in seasoned loans. Given the strength of
the servicer, Fitch considered the impact of slightly seasoned tax,
title, and lien reviews to be nonmaterial.

The second variation is that three loans (approximately 0.4% by
balance) in the pool are seasoned less than 24 months and
considered newly originated. On average these loans are
approximately 22 months seasoned. The due diligence scope for these
loans was not consistent with Fitch's scope for newly originated
loans. Fitch is comfortable with the due diligence that was
completed on these loans as the loans made up a small percentage of
the pool. In addition, conservative assumptions were made on the
collateral analysis for these loans.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

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

Fitch conducted sensitivity analysis determining how the ratings
would react to steeper MVDs at the national level. The analysis
assumes MVDs of 10%, 20%, and 30%, in addition to the
model-projected 37.2% at 'AAAsf'. The analysis indicates there is
some potential rating migration with higher MVDs, compared with the
model projection.

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


BBCMS 2017-DELC: Moody's Assigns B3(sf) Rating to Class F Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned definitive ratings to seven
classes of CMBS securities, issued by BBCMS 2017-DELC Mortgage
Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2017-DELC:

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)

Cl. X-CP*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa3 (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, the Hotel
del Coronado (the "Property"). The ratings are based on the
collateral and the structure of the transaction.

The Hotel del Coronado is a 757-guestroom (679 collateral
guestrooms and 78 condominium hotel guestrooms that are not part of
the collateral), luxury hotel and resort located in Coronado, CA
which is part of the greater San Diego area. The Property was
originally built with 380 guestrooms in 1888, at which point it was
then considered to be the largest resort hotel in the world. The
Property is considered an American landmark with its signature
Victorian design and classic red and white color scheme. In 1977,
the Hotel del Coronado was designated a National Historic Landmark
by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The Property is
AAA Four-Diamond rated and offers a full array of luxury amenities
including 64,035 SF of indoor meeting space, nearly 70,000 SF of
outdoor and pre-function space, a 12,500 SF spa, fitness center,
multiple food and beverage outlets, four pools, numerous retail
shops, and 905 parking spaces.

The Hotel del Coronado is located on Coronado Island in the City of
Coronado, approximately 5.2 miles west of downtown San Diego,
California. Coronado Island is located across the San Diego Bay and
is connected to the main land by the Silver Strand isthmus (U.S.
Highway 75 is the main route along the isthmus) and by the San
Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge. The Property has access to three
regional freeways, Interstate 5, Interstate 805, and Interstate 15
via the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge. San Diego International
Airport is located approximately 8.5 miles from the Property.

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 considers a range of qualitative issues as well as the
transaction's structural and legal aspects.

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

The Whole Loan first mortgage balance of $507,600,000 represents a
Moody's LTV of 110.9%. The Moody's Whole Loan First Mortgage Actual
DSCR is 2.89X and Moody's Whole Loan First Mortgage Stressed DSCR
is 0.95X.

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 1.25, reflecting the strong quality of
this asset.

Notable strengths of the transaction include: asset quality,
property location, limited new supply, historical operating
performance, newly formed affiliation with Hilton, and an
experienced and committed Sponsor.

Notable credit challenges of the transaction include: lack of
diversity for this single asset transaction, property type
volatility, the 78 non-collateral condominium hotel units,
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.

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
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%, 14.4%,
and 22.9%, the model-indicated rating for the currently rated Aaa
(sf) classes would be Aa1 (sf), Aa2 (sf), and 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 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.


BUSINESS LOAN 2003-A: S&P Hikes Class B Debt Rating to BB+
----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on 10 classes and affirmed
its ratings on five classes of notes from five Business Loan
Express small business transactions.

Business Loan Express Business Loan Trust 2003-A, 2004-A, 2006-A,
and 2007-A, as well as Business Loan Express Business Loan-Backed
Notes Series 2005-A, are asset-backed securities transactions
backed by payments from small business loans that are primarily
collateralized by first liens on commercial real estate. The credit
support for the notes is provided by a combination of
subordination, a reserve account, and excess spread. There is no
overcollateralization in the securitizations. The notes receive
principal on a pro rata basis.

The upgrades reflect the notes' ability to withstand our stress
scenarios at higher rating levels because of paydowns to the notes,
increased credit enhancement, and stable loan performance, as well
as the application of our supplemental obligor and state
concentration tests. The affirmations reflect the adequate credit
support available to the notes at their current rating levels.

BUSINESS LOAN EXPRESS BUSINESS LOAN TRUST 2003-A

Series 2003-A has paid down to approximately 2.9% of its original
balance. According to the June 2017 servicer report, six loans
remain in the pool, including one which is 90-plus days delinquent,
representing 6.4% of the outstanding pool balance. The five-largest
obligors represented approximately 94% of the pool. Cumulative net
losses for the pool were $5.8 million, or 3.89%. The reserve is
$3.125 million, 2% of the pool's original balance but slightly
below the required amount of $3.277 million. For series 2003-A, the
application of the supplemental tests included the default of the
four-largest obligors and application of recoveries, the results of
which support the applicable rating categories.

BUSINESS LOAN EXPRESS BUSINESS LOAN BACKED NOTES 2004-A

Series 2004-A continues to pay down the three classes, and, as of
the June 2017 servicer report, it has paid down to a 4.8% pool
factor, with 21 loans remaining. One loan is currently delinquent
(31-60 days delinquent), accounting for approximately 2.11% of the
outstanding pool balance. The five-largest obligors represented
approximately 47% of the pool. Cumulative net losses total
approximately 7.69% of the original pool balance. The reserve
account, currently at $4.0 million, is at its required amount.

BUSINESS LOAN EXPRESS BUSINESS LOAN-BACKED NOTES 2005-A

Per the June 2017 servicer report, 35 loans remain in the series
2005-A pool, which had an outstanding balance of approximately
$20.59 million. The securitization has paid down to an 8.2% pool
factor. The five-largest obligors represented approximately 39% of
the pool. There is one 90-plus days delinquent loan, accounting for
2.9% of the pool. Cumulative net losses are approximately 9.03%.
The reserve account is currently at $5.15 million, slightly below
its required amount.

BUSINESS LOAN EXPRESS BUSINESS LOAN TRUST 2006-A

Series 2006-A has paid down to approximately 14.6% of its original
balance as of the June 2017 servicer report. There were 123 loans
remaining in the pool. The five-largest obligors comprise
approximately 21% of the pool. Delinquent and defaulted loans were
4.66%, and cumulative net losses were approximately 8.25%. The
$7.66 million reserve is slightly below its required amount of
$7.84 million.

BUSINESS LOAN EXPRESS BUSINESS LOAN TRUST 2007-A

The series 2007-A class A notes have paid down to approximately
11.9% of their original balance, with 68 loans remaining in the
pool as of the June 2017 servicer report. The five-largest obligors
represent approximately 24% of the pool. Currently, the class C and
D notes are not receiving any scheduled principal and have
significant carry-forward principal amounts. There are four
delinquent and defaulted loans comprising 5.14% of the pool. The
transaction has experienced cumulative net losses of approximately
21.1%. The reserve account's current balance is zero, compared with
the $10.56 million current requisite amount. The notes exceed
collateral by approximately $19.1 million.

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

RATINGS RAISED

  Business Loan Express Business Loan Trust 2003-A
                        Rating
  Class           To            From
  A               BBB- (sf)     BB- (sf)
  B               BB+ (sf)      B+ (sf)

  Business Loan Express Business Loan Trust 2004-A
                        Rating
  Class           To            From
  B               A+ (sf)       BBB+ (sf)
  C               BBB+ (sf)     BB+ (sf)
  
  Business Loan Express Business Loan-Backed Notes Series 2005-A
                          Rating
  Class           To            From
  A               A+ (sf)       BBB+ (sf)
  B               BBB+ (sf)     BB+ (sf)
  C               BB+ (sf)      B+ (sf)

  Business Loan Express Business Loan Trust 2006-A
                        Rating
  Class           To            From
  A               A+ (sf)       BBB+ (sf)
  B               A (sf)        BBB (sf)
  C               A- (sf)       BBB- (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

  Business Loan Express Business Loan Trust 2004-A
  Class           Rating
  A               A+ (sf)

  Business Loan Express Business Loan Trust 2007-A
  Class           Rating
  A               CCC (sf)
  B               CCC- (sf)
  C               CC (sf)
  D               CC (sf)


BXP TRUST 2017-CC: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to BXP Trust 2017-CC's
$332.5 million commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series
2017-CC. S&P withdrew its preliminary rating on the nonoffered
class X-B certificates.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed securities
transaction backed by a $350 million portion of a $550 million
whole commercial mortgage loan, secured by a first lien on the
borrower's fee interest in Colorado Center, 1.2 million sq. ft.
office campus located in the Santa Monica submarket of Los Angeles.
The remaining $200 million of the whole commercial mortgage loan
comprises six companion notes that are currently held by the loan
sellers and will be securitized in separate transactions. The whole
commercial mortgage loan will be serviced and administered
according to the trust and servicing agreement for this
securitization.

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

  RATINGS ASSIGNED
  BXP Trust 2017-CC

  Class     Rating(i)         Amount ($)
  A         AAA (sf)          93,100,000
  X-A(ii)   AAA (sf)          93,100,000(ii)
  B         AA- (sf)          62,700,000
  C         A- (sf)           47,120,000
  D         BBB- (sf)         57,855,000
  E         BB- (sf)          71,725,000
  RR(iii)   NR                17,500,000

(i) The issuer will issue the certificates to qualified
institutional buyers in line with Rule 144A of the Securities Act
of 1933.
(ii) Notional balance. The notional amount of the class X-A
certificates will be equal to the balance of the class A
certificates.
(iii) Nonoffered vertical risk retention certificate. NR--Not
rated.


CANYON CLO 2017-1: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Cl. E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by Canyon CLO 2017-1, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

US$272,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class A Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$49,200,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class B Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$21,250,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2030 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$27,200,000 Class D Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2030 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$21,900,000 Class E Senior 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.

Canyon 2017-1 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90% of the portfolio must consist
of senior secured loans, cash, and eligible investments, and up to
10% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and unsecured
loans. The portfolio is approximately 70%-80% ramped as of the
closing date.

Canyon CLO 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 one class of
subordinated notes and reinvesting holder notes.

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

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

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

Par amount: $425,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2770

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.50%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 5.0%

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
October 2016.

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

The performance of the Rated Notes is subject to uncertainty. The
performance of the Rated Notes is sensitive to the performance of
the underlying portfolio, which in turn depends on economic and
credit conditions that may change. The Manager's investment
decisions and management of the transaction will also affect the
performance of the Rated Notes.

Together with the set of modeling assumptions above, Moody's
conducted an additional sensitivity analysis, which was a component
in determining the ratings assigned to the Rated Notes. This
sensitivity analysis includes increased default probability
relative to the base case.

Below is a summary of the impact of an increase in default
probability (expressed in terms of WARF level) on the Rated Notes
(shown in terms of the number of notch difference versus the
current model output, whereby a negative difference corresponds to
higher expected losses), assuming that all other factors are held
equal:

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2770 to 3186)

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 2770 to 3601)

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


CBAM LTD 2017-2: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to seven classes of
notes issued by CBAM 2017-2, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

US$998,400,000 Class A Floating Rate Notes due 2029 (the "Class A
Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$139,400,000 Class B-1 Floating Rate Notes due 2029 (the "Class
B-1 Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$40,000,000 Class B-2 Floating Rate Notes due 2029 (the "Class
B-2 Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$31,600,000 Class C-1 Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2029
(the "Class C-1 Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$69,800,000 Class C-2 Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2029
(the "Class C-2 Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$88,920,000 Class D Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2029 (the
"Class D Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$67,080,000 Class E Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2029 (the
"Class E Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

CBAM 2017-2 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90.0% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans (including participation interests
with respect to senior secured loans), and up to 10.0% of the
portfolio may consist of collateral obligations that are
second-lien loans and senior unsecured loans. The portfolio is
approximately 99% ramped as of the closing date.

CBAM 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 four-year reinvestment period.
Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest unscheduled principal payments
and proceeds from sales of credit risk assets and distressed
exchange assets, subject to certain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer issued one class of
subordinated notes.

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

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

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

Par amount: $1,560,000,000

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2840

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.47%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.0%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

Factors That Would Lead to 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 2840 to 3266)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B-1 Notes: -1

Class B-2 Notes: -1

Class C-1 Notes: -2

Class C-2 Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2840 to 3692)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B-1 Notes: -3

Class B-2 Notes: -3

Class C-1 Notes: -4

Class C-2 Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1


CD COMMERCIAL 2007-CD5: Fitch Affirms Bsf Rating on Class E Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 19 classes of CD Commercial Mortgage
Trust commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series
2007-CD5.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations reflect the expected paydown from maturing loans
as well as the pool concentration. Fitch modeled losses of 24.5% of
the remaining pool; expected losses on the original pool balance
total 9.6%, including $109.2 million (5.2% of the original pool
balance) in realized losses to date. As of the August 2017
distribution date, the pool's aggregate principal balance has been
reduced by 82.3% to $371.4 million from $2.09 billion at issuance.
Per the servicer reporting, four loans (6.2% of the pool) are
defeased. Interest shortfalls are currently affecting classes G
through S.

Continued Paydown: The transaction continues to delever with $134.5
million in paydown received in August 2017. There are 45 loans
remaining, down from 161 at issuance.

Near-Term Maturities: 100% of the pool is set to mature by December
2017.

Specially Serviced Loans/Assets; Fitch Loans of Concern: Fitch has
designated 19 loans (47.3%) as Fitch Loans of Concern, including 11
specially serviced loans. Additionally, there are three (6.2%) real
estate owned (REO) assets.

The largest contributor to expected losses is the
specially-serviced Versar Center Office Building (2%), which is
secured by two office properties totalling 217,396 square feet (sf)
located in Springfield, VA. The loan transferred to the special
servicer in October 2014 due to imminent default. The property has
struggled with occupancy issues since the economic downturn and the
borrower has indicated that it can no longer fund shortfalls. The
special servicer is pursuing foreclosure, which is expected to be
completed within the next few months. According to the March 2017
rent roll, the property is 56.5% occupied.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Rating Outlooks for all non-distressed classes are Stable due to
increasing credit enhancement and continued paydown. Upgrades are
possible depending on how many loans refinance at maturity and if
the specially serviced assets are resolved with better than
anticipated recoveries. Downgrades to the distressed classes will
occur as losses are realized.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

-- $26.7 million class AM at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $35.2 million class A-MA at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $111.8 million class AJ at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $27 million class A-JA at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $20.9 million class B at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $20.9 million class C at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $20.9 million class D at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $18.3 million class E at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $18.3 million class F at 'CCCsf'; RE 50%;
-- $20.9 million class G at 'CCsf'; RE 0%.
-- $23.6 million class H at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $23.6 million class J at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $3.2 million class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class O at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class Q at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

The class A-1, A-2, A-3, A-AB, A-4 and A-1A certificates have paid
in full. Fitch does not rate the class S certificates. Fitch
previously withdrew the ratings on the interest-only class XP and
XS certificates.


CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL 2017-1500: S&P Gives B Rating on Class F Certs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to Citigroup Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2017-1500's $240 million commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2017-1500.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed securities
transaction backed by a $240 million trust mortgage loan secured by
a first lien on the borrower's fee interest in 1500 Market, a 1.76
million- sq.-ft. office complex located in Philadelphia within the
Market Street West submarket.

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

  RATINGS ASSIGNED
  Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2017-1500

  Class       Rating(i)         Amount ($)
  A           AAA (sf)         108,752,000
  X-CP        A- (sf)          153,533,000(ii)
  X-NCP       A- (sf)          153,533,000(ii)
  B           AA- (sf)          25,589,000
  C           A- (sf)           19,192,000
  D           BBB- (sf)         23,542,000
  E           BB- (sf)          31,986,000
  F           B (sf)            18,739,000
  HRR(iii)    B- (sf)           12,200,000

(i)The issuer will issue the certificates to qualified
institutional buyers in line with Rule 144A of the Securities Act
of 1933.
(ii)Notional balance. The notional amount of the class X-CP and
X-NCP certificates will be equal to the aggregate certificate
balance of the class A, B, and C certificates.
(iii)Non-offered horizontal interest certificate.


CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL 2017-B1: Fitch Gives B Rating to Class F Certs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following ratings and Ratings
Outlooks to Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2017-B1:

-- $21,308,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $52,843,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $245,000,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $268,110,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $38,890,000 class A-AB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $89,450,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $715,601,000b class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $38,016,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $38,016,000b class X-B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $36,899,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $41,370,000a class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $41,370,000ab class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $21,245,000a class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $21,245,000ab class X-E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $8,945,000a class F 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

Since Fitch published its expected ratings on Aug. 7, 2017, Fitch
assigned a rating of 'AA-sf' to the class X-B, previously expected
to be rated 'A-sf'. In addition, the class X-B balance was
decreased to $38,016,000.

The following classes are not rated:

-- $8,945,000ad class G;
-- $17,890,000ab class X-F;
-- $23,481,024a class H;
-- $23,481,024ab class X-H;
-- $47,079,054abc VRR Interest.

(a) Privately placed.
(b) Notional amount and interest-only.
(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.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 48 loans secured by 69
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
$941,581,078 as of the cut-off date. The loans were contributed to
the trust by Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp., Citi Real
Estate Funding Inc., Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC,
and Bank of America, National Association.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 79.4% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis of 80.5%, and asset summary reviews
on 100% of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Fitch Leverage In-line with Recent Transactions: The transaction
exhibits leverage that is in-line with other recent Fitch-rated
multiborrower transactions. The pool's Fitch DSCR and LTV of 1.27x
and 100.9%, respectively, are comparable to the 2017 YTD averages
of 1.25x and 101.9%. However, excluding the investment-grade credit
option loans, the pool has a Fitch DSCR and LTV of 1.23x and
109.6%, respectively, exceeding the average leverage for 2017 of
1.20x and 106.5%.

Investment-Grade Credit Opinion Loans: Three loans representing
17.6% of the pool have investment-grade credit opinions. The
General Motors Building (9.9% of the pool) has a credit opinion of
'AAAsf*', Two Fordham Square (5.6% of the pool) has a credit
opinion of 'BBB-sf*', and Del Amo Fashion Center (2.2% of the pool)
has a credit opinion of 'BBBsf*'.

Higher Hotel Concentration: Loans secured by hotels make up 18.9%
of the pool, above the YTD 2017 average of 14.9% for other
Fitch-rated multiborrower 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 33.8% of the pool. Loans
secured by retail properties and mixed-use properties that are
predominantly retail make up 26.6% of the pool. Office and retail
properties have an average probability of default.

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 the
CGCMT 2017-B1 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.


COMM 2012-CCRE5: Fitch Affirms Bsf Rating on Class G Certs
----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 14 classes of Deutsche Bank Securities,
Inc.'s (COMM) commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series
2012-CCRE5.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are based on the stable performance of the
underlying collateral. As of the August 2017 distribution date, the
pool's aggregate balance has been reduced by 12% to $997.1 million,
from $1.1 billion at issuance.

Stable Performance: The overall pool performance remains stable
from issuance. All of the loans in the pool are current, with no
loans in special servicing. Four loans are on the watch list, one
of which, The Heights at MacArthur Park Phase II (0.6%), has been
designated a Fitch Loan of Concern.

Retail Concentration: Loans backed by retail properties represent
approximately 34.9% of the pool. This includes three loans in the
top 15, which total 16.7% of the pool and all reflect exposure to
Sears, JCPenney, or Macy's. One of these, Holiday Village Mall
(2.6%), previously included a Sears anchor, which has since closed
and been backfilled by Hobby Lobby and PetSmart.

Paydown and Defeasance: Eight loans totaling 10.9% of the pool are
defeased. Additionally, the pool has paid down approximately 12%
since issuance.

Maturity Concentration: Approximately 10.5% of the pool is
scheduled to mature in 2017 while the remaining 89.5% of loans
mature in 2022. Notably, 2017 maturities include the Holiday
Village Mall (2.6%), a regional mall which previously lost its
Sears anchor.

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 significant paydown or
defeasance. Downgrades to the classes are possible should overall
pool performance decline.

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

--$108.6 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$90.9 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$100 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$357.6 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$780.3 million class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$52.4 million class X-B at 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$123.3 million class A-M at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$52.4 million class B at 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$211.1 million class PEZ at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
--$35.4 million class C at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
--$22.7 million class D at 'BBB+sf'; Outlook Stable;
--$32.6 million class E at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
--$21.3 million class F at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$18.4 million class G at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

The class A-1 certificates have paid in full. Fitch does not rate
the class H certificates.

The class A-M, B, and C certificates may be exchanged for the class
PEZ certificates, and the class PEZ certificates may be exchanged
for the class A-M, B, and C certificates. Fitch rates the class PEZ
equivalent to the first loss of the lowest rated class C
exchangeable certificates.


CREDIT SUISSE 2003-C3: Fitch Affirms 'CCCsf' Rating on Cl. J Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed six classes of Credit Suisse First
Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. (CSFB), series 2003-C3 commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

High Expected Losses: Losses on class J remain possible due to the
high concentration of specially serviced loans.

As of the August 2017 distribution date, the transaction has paid
down 99% since issuance, to $16 million from $1.7 billion.

Concentrated Pool: The pool is highly concentrated with only nine
loans remaining. Due to the concentrated nature of the pool, Fitch
performed a sensitivity analysis which grouped the remaining loans
based on loan structural features, collateral quality and
performance which ranked them by their perceived likelihood of
repayment. This includes defeased loans, fully amortizing loans,
balloon loans, and Fitch loans of concern including the specially
serviced loans. The ratings reflect this sensitivity analysis.

Specially Serviced Loans: Two assets totalling 50.6% of the pool
are in special servicing and consist of the largest and
third-largest in the pool.

The largest asset in the pool (26%) is a real estate owned (REO)
retail center located in Las Vegas, NV. The loan became REO in
November 2016. Per the servicer, they are working to stabilize the
property before marketing it for sale. The second specially
serviced loan is collateralized by an office property in Elmsford,
NY. The servicer filed for foreclosure in April 2017.
Defeasance: Two loans totalling 6.9% are defeased.

Maturity Schedule: The non-specially serviced loans consist of five
loans that mature in 2018 (16.7%), one loan that matures in 2021
(7.2%), and one loan that matures in 2023 (25.5%).

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Paydown to class J is reliant on proceeds from the specially
serviced loans. Upgrades to class J may be possible if the REO
asset is disposed of with limited realized losses. Downgrades are
possible if losses are higher than currently anticipated.

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

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

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $9.8 million class J notes at 'CCCsf'; RE 100%
-- $6.3 million class K notes at 'Dsf'; RE 5%;
-- $0 million class L notes at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class M notes at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class N notes at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 million class O notes at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

The class A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, ASP, 622A,
622B, 622C, 622D, 622E, and 622F certificates have paid in full.
Fitch does not rate the class P certificates. Fitch previously
withdrew the ratings on the interest-only class A-X and A-Y
certificates.


CREDIT SUISSE 2006-C4: Moody's Cuts Ratings on Class C Certs to C
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on six classes
and downgraded the rating on one classes in Credit Suisse
Commercial Mortgage Trust 2006-C4, Commercial Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2006-C4:

Cl. A-J, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2016 Upgraded to
Ba1 (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2016 Affirmed Caa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2016 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

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

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on four P&I Classes, Classes A-J, B, D and E, were
affirmed because the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected
loss.

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

The rating on one IO class, Class A-Y, were affirmed based on the
credit quality of its referenced loans.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 44.5% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 31.3% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 11.4% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 11.3% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://v3.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.

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

Moody's analysis incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since 39% of the pool is in
special servicing and Moody's has identified additional troubled
loans representing 26% of the pool. 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 and troubled loans to the
most junior classes and the recovery as a pay down of principal to
the most senior classes.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the August 17, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 94% to $240 million
from $4.3 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 19 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 25% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 96% 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 6, compared to 12 at Moody's last review.

Nine loans, constituting 30% 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.

Eighty loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $379 million (for an average loss
severity of 61%). Seven loans, constituting 39% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced loan
is the Maxtor Campus loan ($43.9 million -- 18.3% of the pool),
which is secured by a single tenant suburban office building in
Longmont, Colorado. The property is 100% vacant. The loan
transferred to special servicing due to imminent default in
September 2015. The foreclosure sale occurred in June 2016 and the
property became REO in July 2016.

The second largest specially serviced loan is the Acropolis
Portfolio ($23.9 million -- 9.9% of the pool), which is secured by
a suburban office park located in the suburbs of Dayton, Ohio. The
portfolio consists of seven office condominium buildings. The loan
entered special servicing in May 2013 due to imminent default, and
became REO in October 2015. The property was 55% occupied as of May
2017, compared to 66% in June 2016 and 77% in September 2014.

The third largest specially serviced loan is the Antelope Valley
Plaza loan ($12.6 million -- 5.2% of the pool), which is secured by
a neighborhood shopping center in Lancaster, California in northern
Los Angeles County. The loan was previously modified in February
2011 and transferred back to special servicing for imminent default
in February 2014 and became REO in December 2015. As of April 2017,
the property was 58% occupied, the same as of December 2015.

The remaining four specially serviced loans are secured by a mix of
property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $76.0 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (80% expected loss on average).

Moody's has also assumed a high default probability for two poorly
performing loans, constituting 26% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $30.6 million (a 50% expected loss on average)
from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 88% of the
pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 97%, compared to 101%
at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans
with structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 33% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 8.5%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.49X and 1.15X,
respectively, compared to 1.40X and 1.11X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three performing loans represent 49% of the pool balance.
The largest performing loan is the 828-850 Madison Avenue Loan
($60.0 million -- 24.9% of the pool), which is secured by a 17,300
SF retail property on Manhattan's Upper East Side. As of June 2017,
the property was 100% leased, the same as at last review. The
property is leased to several luxury retailers. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 102% and 0.85X, respectively, compared to 100%
and 0.86X at last review.

The second largest loan is the Edge at Avenue North Loan ($51.9
million -- 21.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 799 unit
student housing complex located in Philadelphia, PA. The loan was
transferred to special servicing in April 2016 and received a
modification in January 2017, extending the original loan term by
fifteen months. The loan returned to the master servicer in March
2017 as a corrected loan. The property was 83% occupied as of March
2017, compared to 77% as of December 2015. The loan is on the
master servicer's watchlist due to low DSCR and Moody's has
identified this as a troubled loan.

The third largest loan is the Brookshire Brothers Distribution
Facility Loan ($6.6 million -- 2.8% of the pool), which is secured
by an approximately 652,000 SF distribution center for Brookshire
Brothers grocery chain located in Lufkin, Texas. The loan is fully
amortizing and has amortized 63% since securitization. Brookshire
Brothers lease expiration coincides with the loan's maturity date.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 28% and greater than 4.00X,
respectively.


CWCAPITAL 2005-1: S&P Affirms CC(sf) Rating on Class D Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings affirmed its rating on the class D notes and
discontinued its rating on the class C notes from CWCapital COBALT
I Ltd.'s series 2005-1. CWCapital COBALT I Ltd. 2005-1 is a cash
flow collateralized debt obligation (CDO) backed by commercial
mortgage-backed securities that closed in May 2005 and is managed
by CW Capital Investments LLC.

S&P said, "T[he] rating actions follow our review of the
transaction's performance using data from the June 30, 2017,
trustee report and Aug. 10, 2017, note valuation report.

"Since our last rating actions in November 2015, the class B and C
notes have been paid down in full, and the class C notes' deferred
balance was repaid in full as of the February 2017 payment date. We
are discontinuing our rating on the class C notes now that the full
principal and deferred balance has been paid off per the August
2017 payment date report.

"The affirmation reflects our belief that the credit support
available to class D is commensurate with the current rating. There
have been significant senior and deferred balance paydowns totaling
$61.09 million; however, the overcollateralization (O/C) and
interest coverage (I/C) tests at the class D level are still
failing per the trustee reports. Although the class C/D O/C test
improved to 58.33% in August 2017 from 33.68% in June 2017, the
test requirement is 122.75%. Similarly, the class C/D I/C test
ratio improved to 64.69% from 63.17% over the same period, but it
is still under the requirement of 130.75%.

"The transaction has also benefited from upgrades in the collateral
portfolio since our last rating actions, which allow class D to be
backed by performing collateral. However, interest payments to this
class currently depend on principal proceeds, which are being
diverted to pay interest due on account of the failing I/C test.
Although this class is now current on interest and receiving
principal payments, the I/C risk from the portfolio not generating
sufficient interest currently outweighs the transaction's improved
performance, and we believe that the credit support is adequate at
the current rating level. We will be monitoring the I/C on this
class in the coming months and will take rating actions as we deem
necessary.

"For this analysis we relied on the largest obligor default test
calculations and did not run cash flows due to the small amount of
obligors remaining in the underlying asset pool. The largest
obligor default test is a supplemental stress test included as part
of our corporate CDO criteria.

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

  RATING AFFIRMED
  CWCapital COBALT I Ltd. (Series 2005-1)
  Class         Rating
  D             CC (sf)    

  RATING DISCONTINUED
  CWCapital COBALT I Ltd. (Series 2005-1)
                    Rating
  Class         To          From
  C             NR          CC (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


DEWOLF PARK: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by Dewolf Park CLO, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

US$390,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class A Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$60,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class B Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$35,500,000 Class C Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$36,500,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$30,000,000 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 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.

Dewolf Park is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90% of the portfolio must consist
of senior secured loans, cash, and eligible investments, and up to
10% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and unsecured
loans. The portfolio is approximately 70%-80% ramped as of the
closing date.

GSO / Blackstone Debt Funds 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 5.1 year
reinvestment period. Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest
unscheduled principal payments and proceeds from sales of credit
risk assets, subject to certain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer issued one class of
subordinated notes.

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

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

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

Par amount: $600,000,000

Diversity Score: 55

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2817

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.35%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.0%

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
October 2016.

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

The performance of the Rated Notes is subject to uncertainty. The
performance of the Rated Notes is sensitive to the performance of
the underlying portfolio, which in turn depends on economic and
credit conditions that may change. The Manager's investment
decisions and management of the transaction will also affect the
performance of the Rated Notes.

Together with the set of modeling assumptions above, Moody's
conducted an additional sensitivity analysis, which was a component
in determining the ratings assigned to the Rated Notes. This
sensitivity analysis includes increased default probability
relative to the base case.

Below is a summary of the impact of an increase in default
probability (expressed in terms of WARF level) on the Rated Notes
(shown in terms of the number of notch difference versus the
current model output, whereby a negative difference corresponds to
higher expected losses), assuming that all other factors are held
equal:

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2817 to 3240)

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 2817 to 3662)

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



DRIVE AUTO 2015-C: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. E Notes from Ba1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded fifteen tranches and
affirmed eleven tranches from the Drive Auto Receivables Trust
transactions issued between 2015 and 2017. The securitizations are
sponsored by Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC).

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-A

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Upgraded to A2 (sf)

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-B

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-C

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-D

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Upgraded to A2 (sf)

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-A

Class B Note, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-B

Class B Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Class C Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-C

Class A-2 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class A-3 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class B Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Affirmed Aa1 (sf)

Class C Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Affirmed Aa2 (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017
Affirmed Baa2 (sf)

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2017-A

Class A-2 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 31, 2017
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class A-3 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 31, 2017
Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Class B Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 31, 2017
Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Class C Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 31, 2017
Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jan 31, 2017
Definitive Rating Assigned Baa1 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The upgrades resulted from the build-up of credit enhancement due
to the sequential pay structures and non-declining reserve accounts
as well as stable performance of the underlying collateral pools.
The lifetime cumulative net loss (CNL) expectations were lowered to
24.0% from 27.0% for the 2015-B transaction, to 25.0% from 27.0%
for the 2015-A, 2015-C, 2015-D, 2016-B, 2016-C and 2017-A
transactions, and remained unchanged at 27.00% for the 2016-A
transaction.

In January 2017 Moody's has learned that for DRIVE securitizations
that closed before January 1, 2016, SC did not subtract the cost
associated with repossessing vehicles of defaulted borrowers from
the liquidation proceeds allocated to the trust, and thus did not
include the repossession expenses in its reporting of net loss. SC
began including repossession expenses in its net loss reporting for
DRIVE securitizations that closed after January 1, 2016.
Consideration of the repossession expenses in the net loss
calculation had a fairly small impact on the updated historical
static pool loss curves, resulting in no change to Moody's lifetime
CNL expectations for the transactions.

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

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-A

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 25.00%, prior expectation (January
2017) -- 27.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 25.54%

Aaa (sf) level -- 55.00%

Pool factor -- 33.33%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 68.50%, Class D Notes
38.50%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 12.3%

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-B

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 24.00%, prior expectation (January
2017) -- 27.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 26.55%

Aaa (sf) level -- 55.00%

Pool factor -- 36.87%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 75.33%, Class D Notes
48.20%, Class E Notes 31.92%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 12.3%

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-C

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 25.00%, prior expectation (January
2017) -- 27.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 24.34%

Aaa (sf) level -- 55.00%

Pool factor -- 38.16%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 73.67%, Class D Notes
47.46%, Class E Notes 31.74%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 12.7%

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-D

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 25.00%, prior expectation (January
2017) -- 27.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 24.31%

Aaa (sf) level -- 55.00%

Pool factor -- 42.05%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 62.61%, Class D Notes
38.82%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 12.9%

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-A

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 27.00%, prior expectation (January
2017) -- 27.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 26.08%

Aaa (sf) level -- 60.00%

Pool factor -- 50.39%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class B Notes 90.82%, Class C Notes
59.56%, Class D Notes 35.25%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 12.8%

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-B

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 25.00%, prior expectation (January
2017) -- 27.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 25.77%

Aaa (sf) level -- 60.00%

Pool factor -- 61.03%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class B Notes 84.51%, Class C Notes
60.75%, Class D Notes 37.24%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 11.3%

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-C

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 25.00%, prior expectation (January
2017) -- 27.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 27.05%

Aaa (sf) level -- 65.00%

Pool factor -- 78.07%

Total Hard credit enhancement -- Class A Notes 89.67%, Class B
Notes 74.94%, Class C Notes 56.36%, Class D Notes 37.98%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 11.9%

Issuer: Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2017-A

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 25.00%, original expectation (January
2017) -- 27.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 26.82%

Aaa (sf) level -- 65.00%

Pool factor -- 82.78%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class A Notes 84.92%, Class B Notes
71.33%, Class C Notes 54.11%, Class D Notes 37.99%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 12.0%

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

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

Up

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

Down

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


ELEVATION CLO 2014-2: S&P Affirms B(sf) Rating on Class F Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings affirmed its ratings on the class A-1F, A-1L, B,
C, D, E, and F notes from Elevation CLO 2014-2 Ltd. (formerly known
as Arrowpoint CLO 2014-2 Ltd.), a U.S. collateralized loan
obligation transaction that closed in March 2014 and is managed by
Arrowpoint Asset Management LLC.

S&P said, "T[he] rating actions follow our review of the
transaction's performance using data from the August 2017 trustee
report. The transaction is scheduled to remain in its reinvestment
period until March 2018.

"The affirmed ratings reflect our belief that the credit support
available is commensurate with the current rating levels and the
transaction's stable performance since our August 2014 effective
date rating affirmations."

According to the August 2017 trustee report that S&P used for this
review, the overcollateralization (O/C) ratios for each class have
exhibited mild declines since the July 2014 trustee report, which
S&P used for its August 2014 rating affirmations:

-- The class A/B O/C ratio was 133.48%, down from 133.98%.
-- The class C O/C ratio was 121.31%, down from 121.77%. The class
D O/C ratio was 113.77%, down from 114.20%.
-- The class E O/C ratio was 107.90%, down from 108.30%.

Even with the decline in credit support, all coverage tests are
currently passing and are above the minimum requirements.

S&P said, "Although our cash flow analysis indicated higher ratings
for the class B, C, D, and E notes, our rating actions considered
additional sensitivity runs and allowed for volatility in the
underlying portfolio given that the transaction is still in its
reinvestment period.

"On a stand-alone basis, the results of the cash flow analysis
indicated a lower rating on the class F notes. However, we
considered the strong O/C ratio for the class and our "Criteria For
Assigning 'CCC+', 'CCC', 'CCC-', And 'CC' Ratings," published Oct.
1, 2012. As a result, we did not lower the rating to the level
suggested by the cash flow analysis.

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

"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."

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  Elevation CLO 2014-2 Ltd.
  Class                Rating
  A-1F                 AAA (sf)
  A-1L                 AAA (sf)
  B                    AA (sf)
  C                    A (sf)
  D                    BBB (sf)
  E                    BB- (sf)
  F                    B (sf)

  OTHER CLASSES OUTSTANDING

  Elevation CLO 2014-2 Ltd.
  Class                 Rating
  Subordinated notes    NR

  NR--Not rated.


FLAGSHIP CREDIT 2017-3: S&P Gives BB-(sf) Rating on Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to Flagship Credit Auto
Trust 2017-3's $223.00 million automobile receivables-backed notes
series 2017-3.

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

The ratings reflect:

-- The availability of approximately 49.89%, 40.21%, 31.32%,
24.42%, and 19.65% credit support (including excess spread) for the
class A, B, C, D, and E notes, respectively, based on stressed cash
flow scenarios. These credit support levels provide coverage of
approximately 3.50x, 3.00x, 2.30x, 1.75x, and 1.40x our
12.75%-13.25% expected cumulative net loss range for the class A,
B, C, D, and E notes, respectively. These break-even scenarios
cover total cumulative gross defaults (using a recovery assumption
of 40%) of approximately 83%, 67%, 52%, 41%, and 33%,
respectively.

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

-- The expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress scenario,
all else being equal, our ratings on the class A and B notes would
not be lowered by more than one rating category from our 'AAA (sf)'
and 'AA (sf)' ratings throughout the transaction's life, and our
ratings on the class C and D notes would not be lowered more than
two rating categories from our 'A (sf)' and 'BBB (sf)' ratings. The
rating on the class E notes would remain within two rating
categories of our 'BB- (sf)' rating within the first year, but the
class would eventually default under the 'BBB' stress scenario
after receiving 35%-40% of its principal. The above rating
movements are within the one-category rating tolerance for 'AAA'
and 'AA' rated securities during the first year and three-category
tolerance over three years; a two-category rating tolerance for
'A', 'BBB', and 'BB' rated securities during the first year; and a
three-category tolerance for 'A' and 'BBB' rated securities over
three years. The 'BB' rated securities are permitted to default
under a 'BBB' stress scenario (see "Methodology: Credit Stability
Criteria," published May 3, 2010).

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

-- The characteristics of the collateral pool being securitized.

-- The transaction's payment and legal structures.

  RATINGS ASSIGNED
  Flagship Credit Auto Trust 2017-3  

  Class     Rating      Type            Interest      Amount
                                          rate       (mil. $)
  A         AAA (sf)    Senior           Fixed         129.41
  B         AA (sf)     Subordinate      Fixed          32.93
  C         A (sf)      Subordinate      Fixed          26.57
  D         BBB (sf)    Subordinate      Fixed          21.38
  E         BB- (sf)    Subordinate      Fixed          12.71


GALAXY CLO XIX: S&P Assigns B-(sf) Rating on Class E-R Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the replacement class
A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, D-1-R, D-2-R, and E-R notes from Galaxy XIX
CLO Ltd., a U.S. collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction
managed by PineBridge Investments LLC. We withdrew our ratings on
the original class A-1a, A-1b, A-2, B, C, D, and E notes following
payment in full on the Aug. 24, 2017, refinancing date).

On the Aug. 24, 2017, refinancing date, the proceeds from the new
note issuances were used to redeem the original notes as outlined
in the transaction document provisions; therefore, we are
withdrawing the rating on the original class A-1a, A-1b, A-2, B, C,
D, and E notes in line with its full redemption, and assigning
final ratings to the replacement notes.

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

-- The transaction will have an updated capital structure.

-- The non-call period, the reinvestment period, and the stated
maturity will be extended to July 2019, July 2022, and July 2030,
respectively. The weighted average life test has also been
extended.

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 take rating actions as it deems
necessary."

  RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Galaxy XIX CLO Ltd.
  Replacement class    Rating          Amount (mil $)
  A-1-R                AAA (sf)               313.000
  A-2-R                AA (sf)                 61.000
  B-R                  A (sf)                  36.500
  C-R                  BBB (sf)                27.000
  D-1-R                BB- (sf)                16.200
  D-2-R                BB- (sf)                 5.000
  E-R                  B- (sf)                  9.000
  Class A sub. notes   NR                      41.950
  Class B sub. notes   NR                       0.250

  RATINGS WITHDRAWN

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

  Sub.--Subordinate.
  NR--Not rated.


GREENWICH CAPITAL 2005-GG5: Moody's Affirms C Ratings on 4 Tranches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on five classes
in Greenwich Capital Commercial Funding Corp., 2005-GG5, Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-GG5:

Cl. B, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2016 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Sep 8, 2016 Affirmed C (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on the five P&I classes were affirmed because the
ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss. Eight loans,
representing over 99% of the pool balance, are in special
servicing, including seven loans that are already real estate owned
("REO").

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 74.7% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 69.1% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 10.6% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 11.1% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "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 99.5% of the pool is in
special servicing. In this approach, Moody's determines a
probability of default for each specially serviced and troubled
loan that it expects will generate a loss and estimates a loss
given default based on a review of broker's opinions of value (if
available), other information from the special servicer, available
market data and Moody's internal data. The loss given default for
each loan also takes into consideration repayment of servicer
advances to date, estimated future advances and closing costs.
Translating the probability of default and loss given default into
an expected loss estimate, Moody's then applies the aggregate loss
from specially serviced loans to the most junior classes and the
recovery as a pay down of principal to the most senior classes.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the August 11, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 95% to $226 million
from $4.295 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by nine mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 78% of the pool. Eight loans, constituting over 99% of
the pool, are currently in special servicing and seven loans,
constituting 94% of the pool, are already real estate owned (REO).

Fifty loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $288 million (for an average loss
severity of 36%). The largest remaining specially serviced loan is
the Schron Industrial Portfolio ($176.4 million -- 78.0% of the
pool), which is secured by a 1.3 million square feet (SF) portfolio
of six industrial REO properties. Originally a 6.2 million SF
portfolio of 36 industrial properties located across 14 U.S.
states, the servicer has sold 30 properties of the portfolio.
Moody's has estimated a significant loss on this loan.

The second largest specially serviced loan is the Shoppes at
Foxmoor ($11.6 million -- 5.1% of the pool), which is secured by a
125,000 SF neighborhood shopping center located in Robbinsville,
NJ. The loan transferred to special servicing in March 2015 due to
imminent default. As of December 2016, the property was only 51%
leased.

The third largest specially serviced loan is the Park Place Office
Building ($10.3 million -- 4.6% of the pool), which is secured by a
70,000 SF, two-story class B office building located in Las Vegas,
NV, just south of the airport. The loan transferred to special
servicing in May 2012 and became REO in March 2013. As of year-end
2016, the property was 62% leased.

The remaining five specially serviced loans are secured by a mix of
property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $168.9 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (75% expected loss on average).

As of the August 11, 2017 remittance statement cumulative interest
shortfalls were $33.8 million. Moody's anticipates interest
shortfalls will continue because of the exposure to specially
serviced loans and/or modified loans. Interest shortfalls are
caused by special servicing fees, including workout and liquidation
fees, appraisal entitlement reductions (ASERs), loan modifications
and extraordinary trust expenses.

The sole performing loan is the Kalani Industrial Loan ($1 million
-- 0.5% of the pool). The loan is secured by a seven industrial
buildings, totaling 242,000 SF located in Honolulu, HI. The
properties were 89% leased as of March 2017. The loan is fully
amortizing, has amortized over 88% since securitization and matures
in August 2018. Moody's LTV on this loan is less than 10%.


GREENWICH CAPITAL 2007-GG11: Fitch Affirms C Rating on Cl. D Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded one class and affirmed 13 classes of
Greenwich Capital Commercial Funding Corporation (GCCFC) commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates series 2007-GG11.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The upgrade to class C reflects the significant paydown of $1.5
billion since Fitch's last rating action with lower than expected
losses. The affirmation of the distressed class D reflects the
expected losses from the specially serviced loans. Fitch modeled
losses of 29.3% of the remaining pool; expected losses on the
original pool balance total 9.6%, including $249 million (9.3% of
the original pool balance) in realized losses to date.

As of the August 2017 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 98.8% to $32.9 million from
$2.69 billion at issuance. No loans are defeased. Interest
shortfalls are currently affecting classes E through S.

Concentrated Pool: The pool is concentrated with two performing
loans and five specially serviced assets. The largest loan in the
pool (23.7%) is secured by a 52 room-hotel and a 20,624 square foot
(sf) retail component located on Santa Catalina Island. As of
year-end 2016, debt service coverage ratio and occupancy were
reported to be 2.12x and 65%, respectively. The master servicer
reports that the sponsor is in the process of refinancing the loan
before the November 2017 maturity.

Specially Serviced Loans/Asset: There is one real estate owned
(REO) asset (20.3%) and four loans (47.2%) that have recently
transferred to the special servicer for maturity default. The
largest specially serviced asset is the REO property, which
consists of two industrial buildings totaling 160,177-sf located in
Bloomington, MN. The servicer foreclosed in July 2017, but title
will not transfer until after the six month redemption period,
which is January 2018. Current occupancy is 18%.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

A Stable Outlook has been assigned to class C. Fitch expects the
class to pay in full but it could be vulnerable to interest
shortfalls. A further upgrade is not likely given the pool
concentration. The distressed class D is subject to a downgrade as
losses are realized.

Fitch upgrades the following classes and assigns a Rating Outlook
as indicated:

--$3.2 million class C to 'Asf' from 'CCsf'; Assign Outlook
Stable.

Fitch affirms the following classes:

--$20.2 million class D at 'Csf'; RE 75%;
--$9.6 million class E at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
--$0 class F at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
--$0 class G at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
--$0 class H at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
--$0 class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
--$0 class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
--$0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
--$0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
--$0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
--$0 class O at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
--$0 class P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
--$0 class Q at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

The class A-1, A-2, A-3, A-AB, A-4, A-1-A, A-M, A-J and B
certificates have paid in full. Fitch does not rate the class S
certificates. Fitch previously withdrew the ratings on the
interest-only class XP and XC certificates.


GS MORTGAGE 2017-GS7: Fitch Assigns B-sf Rating to Class H-RR Certs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following ratings and Rating
Outlooks to GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2017-GS7 commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates:

-- $18,155,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $56,176,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $315,000,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $340,612,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $27,207,000 class A-AB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $831,513,000b class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $98,700,000b class X-B 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $74,363,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $47,322,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $51,378,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $20,281,000a class D 'BBB+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $37,133,000ab class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $16,852,000a class E 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $21,005,000ac class F-RR 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $27,042,000ac class G-RR 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $12,168,000ac class H-RR 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

The following classes are not rated by Fitch:
-- $54,082,734ac class J-RR.

(a) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144A.
(b) Notional amount and interest only.
(c) Horizontal credit risk retention interest representing 5.0% of
the pool balance (as of the closing date).

The final ratings are based on information provided by the issuer
as of Aug. 24, 2017.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 32 loans secured by 35
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
$1,081,643,735 as of the cut-off date. The loans were contributed
to the trust by Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 82.5% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis of 88.7%, and asset summary reviews
on 100% of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Higher Fitch Leverage than Recent Transactions: The pool's leverage
is slightly greater than that of recent, comparable Fitch-rated
multiborrower transactions. The pool's Fitch DSCR and LTV are 1.21x
and 103.8%, respectively, which reflect slightly worse leverage
statistics compared to the YTD 2017 averages of 1.25x and 101.9%.
Excluding credit opinion loans, the pool has a Fitch DSCR and LTV
of 1.18x and 111.2%, respectively, compared with the YTD 2017
normalized averages of 1.20x and 106.5%.

Investment-Grade Credit Opinion Loans: Two loans: 1999 Avenue of
the Stars (12.7% of pool) and Olympic Tower (3.7% of pool), have
investment-grade credit opinions. The pool's credit opinion loan
concentration of 16.4% is greater than the YTD 2017 and the 2016
averages of 9.63% and 8.36%, respectively. Net of the credit
opinion loans, Fitch's DSCR and LTV are 1.18x and 111.2%,
respectively.

Highly Concentrated Pool: The pool is more concentrated than that
of the other, recent Fitch-rated multiborrower transactions.
Specifically, the pool has 32 loans, compared with the YTD 2017 and
the 2016 averages of 50 loans. Moreover, the largest 10 loans
compose 64.3% of the pool, which is greater than the respective YTD
2017 and 2016 averages of 53.5% and 54.8% for other Fitch-rated
multiborrower deals. This results in a loan concentration index
(LCI) score of 555, which is higher than the respective YTD 2017
and 2016 averages of 401 and 422. The largest loan in the pool is
1999 Avenue of the Stars at 12.7% of the pool.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 11.6% 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 GSMS
2017-GS7 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.


ICG US 2014-1: S&P Affirms B Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings affirmed its ratings on ICG US CLO 2014-1 Ltd.'s
class A-1, A-2, B, C, D, E, and combination notes. ICG US CLO
2014-1 Ltd. is a U.S. collateralized loan obligation that
originally closed in March 2014.

The affirmations follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the July 2017 trustee report. The
transaction is scheduled to remain in its reinvestment period until
April 2018.

The transaction has benefitted from a drop in the portfolio's
weighted average life to 4.66 years as of the July 2017 trustee
report from 5.79 years as of the June 2014 effective date report.
At the same time, assets rated 'CCC+' and below in the portfolio
increased to $25.91 million from none as of the effective date.

Furthermore, according to the July 2017 trustee report, the
overcollateralization (O/C) ratios for each class have remained
relatively stable since the June 2014 trustee report, which we used
for our effective date analysis:

-- The class A O/C decreased to 130.96% from 131.13%.
-- The class B O/C decreased to 121.66% from 121.81%.
-- The class C O/C decreased to 114.14% from 114.29%.
-- The class D O/C decreased to 108.75% from 108.89%.

Overall, the increase in assets rated 'CCC+' and below has been
largely offset by the decrease in the weighted average life.
However, any significant deterioration in these metrics could
negatively affect the deal in the future, especially the junior
tranches. As such, the affirmed ratings reflect our belief that the
credit support available is commensurate with the current rating
levels.

On a stand-alone basis, the results of the cash flow analysis
indicated a slightly higher rating on the class A-2, B, C, D, E,
and combination notes. However, because the transaction currently
has some exposure to 'CCC+' and below rated collateral obligations,
we decided to affirm the ratings at their current levels. In
addition, the ratings reflect additional sensitivity runs that
allowed for volatility in the underlying portfolio given that the
transaction is still in its reinvestment period.

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

"We will continue to review whether 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."

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  ICG US CLO 2014-1 Ltd.

  Class                Rating
  A-1                  AAA (sf)
  A-2                  AA (sf)
  B                    A (sf)
  C                    BBB (sf)
  D                    BB (sf)
  E                    B (sf)
  Combination notes    AA (sf)


JP MORGAN 2017-3: Fitch Assigns 'Bsf' Rating to Class B-5 Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings assigns ratings to J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust
2017-3:

-- $862,387,000 class 1-A-1 exchangeable certificates 'AA+sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $862,387,000 class 1-A-2 exchangeable certificates 'AA+sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $807,341,000 class 1-A-3 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $807,341,000 class 1-A-4 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $605,506,000 class 1-A-5 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $605,506,000 class 1-A-6 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $201,835,000 class 1-A-7 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $201,835,000 class 1-A-8 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $158,043,000 class 1-A-9 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $158,043,000 class 1-A-10 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $43,792,000 class 1-A-11 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $43,792,000 class 1-A-12 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $55,046,000 class 1-A-13 exchangeable certificates 'AA+sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $55,046,000 class 1-A-14 certificates 'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $862,387,000 class 1-AX-1 notional certificates 'AA+sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $862,387,000 class 1-AX-2 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $807,341,000 class 1-AX-3 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $605,506,000 class 1-AX-4 notional certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $201,835,000 class 1-AX-5 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $158,043,000 class 1-AX-6 notional certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $43,792,000 class 1-AX-7 notional certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $55,046,000 class 1-AX-8 notional certificates 'AA+sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $93,689,000 class 2-A-1 exchangeable certificates 'AA+sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $87,708,000 class 2-A-2 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $5,981,000 class 2-A-3 certificates 'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $93,689,000 class 2-A-4 exchangeable certificates 'AA+sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $87,708,000 class 2-A-5 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $5,981,000 class 2-A-6 exchangeable certificates 'AA+sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $93,689,000 class 2-AX-1 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $87,708,000 class 2-AX-2 notional certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $5,981,000 class 2-AX-3 notional certificates 'AA+sf'; Outlook

    Stable;
-- $14,239,000 class B-1 certificates 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $16,274,000 class B-2 certificates 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $11,697,000 class B-3 certificates 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $8,645,000 class B-4 certificates 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $5,594,000 class B-5 certificates 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch will not be rating the following certificates:

-- $4,577,512 class B-6 certificates;
-- $537,634,873 class A-IO-S certificates.

Seventeen loans (1.07% of the pool) are located in Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated areas that are
affected by Hurricane Harvey. It is not yet known which properties
included in the pool have been damaged by the storm, if any.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. will order property inspections on all 17
properties to assess the damage. Four of the properties have flood
insurance, 11 of the properties have gap reps (reps that are active
from the time the loans were acquired to deal closing) provided by
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. (JPMMAC), and the remaining
two loans have reps provided by Bank of Oklahoma, NA.

If there is damage to any of the properties, JPMMAC or Bank of
Oklahoma will repurchase the loans in accordance with the loan
level 'No Damage' representation and warranty made at the
transaction's closing. Consequently, Fitch did not make any
adjustments to its loss projections for this pool as a result of
the storm.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

High-Quality Mortgage Pool (Positive): The collateral pool consists
of high-quality 30-year and 15-year, fully amortizing conforming
and non-conforming fixed-rate loans to borrowers with strong credit
profiles and low leverage. The pool has a weighted average (WA)
FICO score of 765 and an original combined loan-to-value (CLTV)
ratio of 70.7%. The collateral attributes of the pool are generally
consistent with recent JPMMT transactions.

Majority of Expenses Deducted from Net WAC (Neutral): Unlike prior
JPMMT transactions, the majority of extraordinary trust expenses
(ETEs) are scheduled to reduce the net weighted average available
coupon (WAC). ETEs include arbitration expenses for enforcement of
the representations and warranties, additional fees and expenses of
the breach reviewer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC (Pentalpha), as
well as amounts reimbursable to the securities administrator,
master servicer, custodian and trustee. Expenses coming out of the
net WAC are subject to an annual cap of $550,000 ($200,000 for the
trustee, $150,000 for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and $200,000 for the
breach reviewer), which is higher compared to recent prime
transactions.

Leakage from Reviewer Expenses (Concern): The trust is obligated to
reimburse Pentalpha each month for any reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses incurred if the company is requested to participate in any
arbitration, legal or regulatory actions, proceedings or hearings.
If Pentalpha's expenses exceed the annual cap of $200,000,
Pentalpha is able to be reimbursed up to an additional $100,000 per
year from the pool's available funds. This construct can result in
principal and interest shortfalls to the bonds, starting from the
bottom of the capital structure. To account for the risk of these
noncredit events reducing subordination, Fitch adjusted its loss
expectations upward by 11 basis points (bps) at the 'AAAsf' level.

Tier 3 Representation and Warranty Framework (Concern): Fitch views
the value of the rep and warranty framework as diluted by the
presence of qualifying and conditional language in conjunction with
sunset provisions, which reduces lender breach liability. While
Fitch believes the high credit-quality pool and clean diligence
results mitigate these risks, Fitch considered the weaker framework
in Fitch analysis.

Strong Due Diligence Results (Positive): Loan-level due diligence
was performed on 100% of the loans. The full diligence sample size
for the agency loans is an improvement over the previous
transaction that Fitch rated, JPMMT 2017-1, in which only a sample
of the conforming loans were reviewed. Nearly all the reviewed
loans received a third-party 'A' or 'B' grade, indicating strong
underwriting practices and sound quality control procedures.

Geographic Concentration (Concern): The pool's primary
concentration is in California, representing approximately 49% of
the pool, with the San Francisco and Los Angeles metropolitan
statistical areas (MSAs) representing approximately 19% and 16% of
the pool, respectively. The increased geographic distribution
resulted in a minor probability of default (PD) penalty of 3%,
which is in line with what Fitch has observed in previous JPMMT
deals.

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

To mitigate tail risk, which arises as the pool seasons and fewer
loans are outstanding, a subordination floor of 0.65% of the
original balance will be maintained for the senior certificates.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch's analysis incorporates a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate
how the ratings would react to steeper market value declines (MVDs)
than assumed at the MSA level. The implied rating sensitivities are
only an indication of some of the potential outcomes and do not
consider other risk factors that the transaction may become exposed
to or may be considered in the surveillance of the transaction.
Three sets of sensitivity analyses were conducted at the state and
national levels to assess the effect of higher MVDs for the subject
pool.

This defined stress sensitivity analysis demonstrates how the
ratings would react to steeper market value declines at the
national level. The analysis assumes market value declines of 10%,
20% and 30%, in addition to the model-projected 5.5%. The analysis
indicates that there is some potential rating migration with higher
MVDs, compared with the model projection.

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


JP MORGAN 2017-3: Moody's Assigns B2(sf) Rating to Class B-5 Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned definitive ratings to 36
classes of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) issued by
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2017-3 (JPMMT 2017-3). The ratings range
from Aaa (sf) to B2 (sf).

The certificates are backed by two pools of prime quality 30-year
and 15-year, fully-amortizing fixed rate mortgage loans with a
total balance of $1,017,102,512 as of August 1, 2017 cut-off date.
The first pool consists of primarily 30-year mortgages (Group 1)
and the second pool consists of 15-year mortgages (Group 2).
Similar to prior JPMMT transactions, JPMMT 2017-3 includes
conforming fixed-rate mortgage loans originated by JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N. A. (Chase) 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. will be the
servicer on the conforming loans, while Shellpoint Mortgage
Servicing, Everbank, Bank of Oklahoma, PHH Mortgage Corporation,
Guaranteed Rate Inc., Johnson Bank and First Republic 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
Trust 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 cross-collateralization and a senior and
subordination floor.

The complete rating actions are:

Issuer: J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2017-3

Cl. 1-A-1, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-A-2, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-A-3, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-A-4, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-A-5, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-A-6, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-A-7, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-A-8, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-A-9, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-A-10, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-A-11, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-A-12, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-A-13, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

Cl. 1-A-14, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

Cl. 1-AX-1, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. 1-AX-2, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. 1-AX-3, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-AX-4, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-AX-5, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-AX-6, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-AX-7, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 1-AX-8, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-1, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 2-A-2, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 2-A-3, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-4, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 2-A-5, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 2-A-6, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. 2-AX-1, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. 2-AX-2, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. 2-AX-3, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. B-1, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa3 (sf)

Cl. B-2, Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

Cl. B-3, Definitive Rating Assigned Baa2 (sf)

Cl. B-4, Definitive Rating Assigned Ba1 (sf)

Cl. B-5, Definitive Rating Assigned B2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

Summary Credit Analysis and Rating Rationale

Expected cumulative net losses on Group 1 are 0.45% and reach 5.40%
at a stress level consistent with Aaa ratings. Expected cumulative
net losses for Group 2 are 0.20% and reach 1.55% at a stress level
consistent with 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 Moody's definitive 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 2017-3 is a securitization of a pool of 1,483 primarily
30-year and 15-year, fully-amortizing mortgage loans with a total
balance of $1,017,102,512 as of the cut-off date, with a weighted
average (WA) remaining term to maturity of 337 months, and a WA
seasoning of 6 months. The borrowers in this transaction have high
FICO scores and sizeable equity in their properties. The WA current
FICO score is 770 and the WA original combined loan-to-value ratio
(CLTV) is 70.7%. The characteristics of the loans underlying the
pool are generally comparable to other JPMMT transactions backed by
30-year and 15-year fixed mortgage loans that Moody's has rated.

In this transaction, 22.9% of the pool by loan balance was
underwritten by Chase 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 $532,687.
The higher conforming loan balance of loans in JPMMT 2017-3 is
attributable to the greater amount of properties located in
high-cost areas, such as the metro areas of New York City and San
Francisco. Everbank contributes approximately 13.4% 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 2017-3'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 reviews 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,
N.A. (rated Aa2), who is the R&W provider for approximately 22.9%
(by loan balance) of the loans, is the strongest R&W provider.
Moody's has made no adjustments on the Chase loans in the pool, as
well as loans originated by Everbank, PHH Mortgage Corporation,
First Republic Bank and Homestreet 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, Central
Clearing and Settlement LLC, (CCS) MAXEX's subsidiary and seller
under the assignment, assumption and recognition agreement with
JPMMAC, will make the R&Ws. The R&Ws provided by CCS to JPMMAC and
assigned to the trust are in line with the R&Ws found in the JPMMT
transactions. MAXEX 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 Trust National Association.
The custodians functions will be performed by Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. 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 0.65% of the
original pool balance ($6,611,166), 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 0.50% of the
original pool balance ($5,085,513), 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 is structured as a two-pool 'Y' 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 in each group. Next, principal
payments are made to the senior bonds in each group based on the
principal collections for the underlying assets in each group.
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. Of
note, if the principal amount of B-5 and B-6 bonds has been reduced
to zero, any principal amount that would have been distributed to
the senior support bonds will instead be distributed sequentially
to the super senior bonds and then to the senior support bonds.

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 in the
related group until their principal balance is reduced to zero.
Next, losses are allocated to the senior support bonds in the
unrelated group. Next realized losses are allocated to super senior
bond in the related group until their principal balance is written
off. and finally losses are allocated to the super senior bonds in
the unrelated group.

In addition, the pass-through rate on the bonds is based on the net
WAC in each pool 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

Unlike prior JPMMT transactions, extraordinary trust expenses in
the JPMMT 2017-3 transaction are deducted from Net Wac as opposed
to available distribution amount. Moody's believes there is a very
low likelihood that the rated certificates in JPMMT 2017-3 will
incur any losses from extraordinary expenses or indemnification
payments from potential future lawsuits against key deal parties.
First, the loans are prime quality, 100% Qualified Mortgages and
were originated under a regulatory environment that requires
tighter controls for originations than pre-crisis, which reduces
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 all of the mortgage loans by independent third parties (AMC,
Inglet Blair, Opus and Clayton Services LLC). 100% due diligence
was performed on the pool. 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 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.

Additionally, the methodology used in rating Cl. 1-AX-1, Cl.
1-AX-2, Cl. 1-AX-3, Cl. 1-AX-4, Cl. 1-AX-5, Cl. 1-AX-6, Cl. 1-AX-7,
Cl. 1-AX-8, Cl. 2-AX-1, Cl. 2-AX-2 and Cl. 2-AX-3, was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017.


LB COMMERCIAL 2007-C3: S&P Raises Class B Certs Rating to B(sf)
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on three classes of
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from LB Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2007-C3, a U.S. commercial mortgage-backed
securities (CMBS) transaction.

S&P said, "The upgrades follow our analysis of the transaction,
primarily using our criteria for rating U.S. and Canadian CMBS
transactions, which included a review of the credit characteristics
and performance of the remaining assets in the pool, the
transaction's structure, and the liquidity available to the trust.
We raised our ratings on classes A-J, A-JFL, and B to also reflect
our expectation of the available credit enhancement for these
classes, which we believe is greater than our most recent estimate
of necessary credit enhancement for the respective rating levels,
as well as the significantly lower trust balance.

"While available credit enhancement levels suggest further positive
rating movements on classes A-J, A-JFL, and B, our analysis also
considered the recent interest shortfalls these classes
experienced. We also considered their susceptibility to reduced
liquidity support from the seven specially serviced assets ($177.5
million, 82.8%), as well as the fact that the remaining performing
loans exhibit property type concentration risk because all of them
are secured by retail properties. In addition, we also considered
that the fourth-largest asset, the Plaza on San Felipe loan ($10.8
million, 5.0%), is secured by a 35,727-sq.-ft. retail property
located in Houston, and the extent of any flood damage from
Hurricane Harvey is currently unknown. If the loan defaults, we
expect liquidity for the classes to decline."

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Aug. 17, 2017, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $214.3 million, which is 6.6% of the pool balance
at issuance. The pool currently includes nine loans and two real
estate owned (REO) assets, down from 117 loans at issuance. Seven
of these assets are with the special servicer, one loan ($6.7
million, 3.1%) is on the master servicer's watchlist, and no loans
are defeased. The master servicer, KeyBank Real Estate Capital,
reported year-end 2016 financial information for 97.3% of the
assets in the pool.

S&P said, "Excluding the specially serviced assets, we calculated a
1.31x S&P Global Ratings weighted average debt service coverage
(DSC) and a 71.1% S&P Global Ratings weighted average loan-to-value
ratio using a 7.41x S&P Global Ratings weighted average
capitalization rate for the remaining performing loans.

"To date, the transaction has experienced $229.2 million in
principal losses, or 7.1% of the original pool trust balance. We
expect losses to reach approximately 10.2% of the original pool
trust balance in the near term, based on losses incurred to date
and additional losses we expect upon the eventual resolution of the
specially serviced assets."

CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the Aug. 17, 2017, trustee remittance report, seven assets in
the pool were with the special servicer, LNR Partners LLC. Details
of the two largest specially serviced assets are as follows:

The University Mall REO asset ($92.0 million, 42.9%) is the largest
asset in the trust and has a total reported exposure of $97.0
million. The asset is a regional mall property consisting of
609,493 sq. ft. located in South Burlington, Vt. The loan was
transferred to the special servicer on July 6, 2015, due to
imminent default and the property became REO on Oct. 31, 2016. The
reported DSC and occupancy as of year-end 2016 were 0.34x and
99.3%, respectively. According to the special servicer, a value-add
strategy is currently in place. An appraisal reduction amount (ARA)
of $55.3 million is in effect against the asset. Major tenants at
the property include Sears, Kohl's, JCPenney, and Bon-Ton. S&P
expects a significant loss upon the asset's eventual resolution.

The 50 Danbury Road ($59.8 million, 27.9%) and 64 Danbury Road
loans ($6.6 million, 3.1%) are cross-collateralized and
cross-defaulted, with an aggregate balance of $66.4 million
(31.0%). Together, they make up the second-largest asset in the
pool and have a total reported exposure of $66.7 million.

The 50 Danbury Road loan is secured by an office property totaling
219,041 sq. ft. located in Wilton, Conn. The loan, which has a
late-but-less-than-one-month-delinquent payment status, was
transferred to the special servicer on Feb. 27, 2015, due to
imminent default. The loan has been modified with its maturity date
extended to Jan. 11, 2018, and it became interest-only. According
to the special servicer, the property faces near-term vacancy risk
because AIG downsized to about 22% of the space from 39%
previously. In addition, tenant D.L. Ryan, which occupies about 38%
of the space, will vacate at lease expiration in December 2017. The
reported DSC and occupancy as of year-end 2016 were 1.15x and 100%,
respectively. No ARA is currently in effect against this loan. S&P
expects a significant loss upon its eventual resolution.

The 64 Danbury Road loan is secured by a 46,101-sq.-ft. office
property in Wilton, Conn. The loan, which has a reported
late-but-less-than-one-month-delinquent payment status, was
transferred to special servicer on Feb. 26, 2015, due to imminent
default. The reported DSC as of year-end 2016 was 1.48x and
occupancy was reported to be around 85.0% as of March 2017. An ARA
of $1.6 million is in effect against the loan. S&P expects a
minimal loss upon its eventual resolution.

The remaining four assets with the special servicer have individual
balances that represent less than 2.7% of the total pool trust
balance. S&P estimated losses for the seven specially serviced
assets, arriving at a weighted average loss severity of 55.9%.

With respect to the specially serviced assets noted above, a
minimal loss is less than 25%, a moderate loss is 26%-59%, and a
significant loss is 60% or greater.

RATINGS LIST

  LB Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C3
  Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2007-C3
                                           Rating                  
            
  Class        Identifier           To                  From       
     
  A-J          50177AAH2            B+ (sf)             B- (sf)    
     
  B            50177AAJ8            B (sf)              CCC (sf)   
     
  A-JFL        50177AAV1            B+ (sf)             B- (sf)


LEHMAN STRUCTURED 2001-GE5: Moody's Withdraws Caa2 on A2 Certs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has withdrawn the rating of Cl. A2 issued
by Lehman Structured Securities Corp. Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2001-GE5.

Rating action:

Issuer: Lehman Structured Securities Corp. Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2001-GE5

Cl. A2, Withdrawn (sf); previously on Jun 20, 2017 Downgraded to
Caa2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's has withdrawn the rating on Cl. A2 issued by Lehman
Structured Securities Corp. Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2001-GE5 due to insufficient information. Cl. A2 is an interest
only (IO) tranche currently backed by the Cl. S IO tranche from
seven GE Capital Mortgage Services RMBS transactions, and Moody's
does not maintain a rating on four of these IOs due to low
effective number of borrowers in those underlying transactions.

Moody's has withdrawn the rating because it believes it has
insufficient or otherwise inadequate information to support the
maintenance of the rating.


MADISON PARK XI: S&P Gives Prelim B-(sf) Rating on Class F-R Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to the class
A-R, B-R, C-R, D-R, E-R, and F-R replacement notes from Madison
Park Funding XI Ltd., a collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
originally issued in 2013 that is managed by Credit Suisse Asset
Management LLC. The replacement notes will be issued via a proposed
amended indenture. S&P also assigned a preliminary rating to a new
class X note that was created as part of the refinancing.

S&P said, "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 Aug. 28,
2017. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differs from the preliminary ratings.

On the Sept. 17, 2017, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
issuance of the replacement notes are expected to redeem the
original notes. S&P said, "At that time, we anticipate withdrawing
the ratings on the original notes and assigning ratings to the
replacement notes. However, if the refinancing doesn't occur, we
may affirm the ratings on the original notes and withdraw our
preliminary ratings on the replacement notes.

"Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis,
based on the portfolio and transaction as presented to us in
connection with this review, 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 results of
the cash flow analysis demonstrated, in our view, that all of the
rated outstanding classes have adequate credit enhancement
available at the preliminary rating levels associated with these
rating actions."

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Madison Park Funding XI Ltd./Madison Park Funding XI LLC

  New class                 Rating      Amount (mil. $)
  X                         AAA (sf)               4.50

  Replacement class         Rating      Amount (mil. $)
  A-R                       AAA (sf)             325.00
  B-R                       AA (sf)               65.80
  C-R                       A (sf)                40.80
  D-R                       BBB- (sf)             31.60
  E-R                       BB- (sf)              21.00
  F-R                       B- (sf)               10.60


MORGAN STANLEY 2003-IQ4: Fitch Affirms 'Csf' Rating on Cl. L Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed six classes of Morgan Stanley Capital I
Trust, commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series
2003-IQ4.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Although credit enhancement has increased since Fitch's last rating
action from loan payoffs and continued amortization, the
affirmation reflects the concentration and adverse selection of the
remaining pool. As of the August 2017 distribution date, the pool's
aggregate principal balance has been reduced by 98.1% to $13.9
million from $727.8 million at issuance.
Pool Concentration & Adverse Selection: The pool is highly
concentrated with only 18 of the original 119 loans remaining.
Fitch designated six loans/assets (52% of pool) as Fitch Loans of
Concern (FLOCs), including the largest asset (34.7%) which is
real-estate owned (REO). Significant losses are expected on the REO
asset.

The five other non-specially serviced FLOCs (17.3%) are
collateralized by retail properties with upcoming rollover
concerns, recent occupancy fluctuations or remain dark and one
mixed-use property that continues to undergo stabilization from
prior year's performance declines.

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
reflect this sensitivity analysis.

REO Asset: The North Mayfair asset (34.7% of pool) is a 102,542
square foot office building located in Wauwatosa, WI (a northwest
suburb of Milwaukee). The loan was transferred to the special
servicer in August 2009 for imminent default. The borrower was
unable to refinance the loan at that time due to loss of tenants,
low occupancy and declining cash flow. The asset became REO in
December 2014. Since taking title, the special servicer has
completed parking garage repairs and improvements. The asset has
recently experienced positive leasing momentum through lease
renewals and new leasing which have helped boost occupancy. As of
the July 2017 rent roll, the asset was 72.9% occupied, compared to
66% one year earlier and 61% at year-end 2015. Upcoming lease
rollover includes 21.5% of the net rentable area in 2018 and 10% in
2019. The property is currently on the market for sale.

Fully Amortizing Loans: 15 loans (55.4% of pool) are fully
amortizing, including one of which is defeased (0.8%).

Loan Maturity: Excluding the REO asset, 0.4% of the pool matures in
2017, 16.1% in 2018, 4.4% in 2019, 7.2% in 2020, 6.1% in 2022 and
31% in 2023.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Rating Outlooks on classes H through K reflect
increasing credit enhancement and expected continued paydowns.
Upgrades to class J and K will be limited due to the concentrated
nature of the pool. Downgrades to classes L and M would occur as
losses are realized.

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $211,662 class H at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $3.6 million class J at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $1.8 million class K at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $5.5 million class L at 'Csf'; RE 80%;
-- $1.8 million class M at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $964,122 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

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


MORGAN STANLEY 2015-XLF1: S&P Affirms B- Rating on ASL2 Certs
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on the class B and C
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from Morgan Stanley
Capital I Trust 2015-XLF1, a U.S. commercial mortgage-backed
securities (CMBS) transaction. At the same time, S&P affirmed its
ratings on six other classes and discontinued its rating on class A
from the same transaction.

S&P said, "The rating actions on the principal- and interest-paying
certificates follow our analysis of the transaction primarily using
our criteria for rating U.S. and Canadian CMBS transactions, in
which we re-evaluated the remaining collateral securing the
transaction, and reviewed the deal structure and liquidity
available to the trust.

"The raised ratings on classes B and C reflect the significantly
reduced pool trust balance; our expectation of the credit
enhancement available to the classes, which we believe is greater
than our estimates of credit enhancement necessary at the most
recent rating levels; and our view of the current and future
performance of the transaction's remaining collateral.

"The affirmation on class D reflects our expectation that the
available credit enhancement for the class is more or less within
our estimate of the necessary credit enhancement required for the
current rating and our view of the current and future performance
of the remaining collateral. In addition, according to the Aug. 16,
2017, trustee remittance report, class D had a reported $242 of
accumulated interest shortfalls outstanding. We considered this
amount as de-minimis because it represents less than one basis
point of the class' original principal balance on a cumulative
basis.

"The affirmation on the class X-EXT interest-only (IO) certificates
is based on our criteria for rating IO securities, in which the
ratings on the IO securities would not be higher than that of the
lowest-rated reference class. The notional balance on class X-EXT
references classes A, B, C, and D.

"The affirmed ratings on the class AFS1 and AFS2 raked certificates
reflect our re-evaluation of the Ashford Full Service Portfolio
loan. The "AFS" raked certificates derive 100% of their cash flow
from a subordinate nonpooled component of this loan. Details of the
Ashford Full Service Portfolio loan are
below.

"The affirmed ratings on the class ASL1 and ASL2 raked certificates
reflect our re-evaluation of the Ashford Select Service Portfolio
loan. The "ASL" raked certificates derive 100% of their cash flow
from a subordinate nonpooled component of this loan. Details of the
Ashford Select Service Portfolio loan are below.

"Lastly, we discontinued our rating on class A following its full
principal repayment as noted in the Aug. 16, 2017, trustee
remittance report."

As of the Aug. 16, 2017, trustee remittance report, the trust
consisted of two remaining floating-rate IO loans indexed to
one-month LIBOR (currently reported at 1.226%) with an aggregate
pooled trust balance of $130.0 million and an aggregate trust
balance of $209.0 million, down from four pooled loans totaling
$348.4 million of the pooled trust balance and five loans totaling
$545.1 million in the trust at issuance. According to the
transaction documents, the borrowers will pay the special
servicing, work-out, and liquidation fees, as well as costs and
expenses incurred from appraisals and inspections conducted by the
special servicer. To date, the trust has not incurred any principal
losses.

S&P said, "We based our analysis, in part, on a review of the
borrower's operating statements for the available trailing 12
months (TTM) ended March 31, 2017, and years ended Dec. 31, 2016,
2015, 2014, and 2013, that the master servicer provided to
determine our opinion of a sustainable cash flow for the
properties. In addition, we reviewed the available Smith Travel
Research (STR) reports and the most recent property inspections for
each of the remaining lodging properties. Details on the two
remaining loans are as follows:

-- The Ashford Full Service Portfolio loan is the larger of the
two remaining loans in the pool. The loan has a whole loan balance
of $168.5 million that consists of a $103.8 million senior pooled
trust component (79.8% of the pooled trust balance) and a $64.7
million subordinate nonpooled trust component that supports the
"AFS" raked certificates. In addition, the equity interest in the
mortgage borrower secures mezzanine debt totaling $31.5 million.
The mortgage loan is secured by five full-service hotels totaling
1,424 rooms in California, Minnesota, Alaska, and Pennsylvania. The
loan is IO, pays a floating interest rate of LIBOR plus spread
(2.849487835% [pooled], 4.95% [senior nonpooled], and 5.95%
[subordinate nonpooled]) per year, and currently matures on Feb. 9,
2018. The loan has one 12-month extension option remaining. S&P
said, "Our analysis considered the stable reported net operating
income (NOI) for the last three years. The loan is on the master
servicer's watchlist due to deferred maintenance items noted. The
master servicer, Berkadia commercial Mortgage LLC (Berkadia),
reported an overall 5.78x debt service coverage (DSC) on the trust
balance for the TTM ended March 31, 2017. Our expected-case value,
using a 9.16% S&P Global Ratings' weighted average capitalization
rate, yielded S&P Global Ratings' loan-to-value (LTV) ratios of
56.7% and 92.1% on the pooled trust and trust balance (including
the rake portion), respectively."

-- The Ashford Select Service Portfolio loan is the smallest loan
remaining in the pool. The loan has a whole loan balance of $40.5
million that consists of a $26.2 million senior pooled trust
component (20.2% of the pooled trust balance) and a $14.3 million
subordinate nonpooled trust component that supports the "ASL" raked
certificates. In addition, the equity interest in the mortgage
borrower secures mezzanine debt totaling $14.4 million. Following
the release of the 162-key SpringHill Suites Gaithersburg property
in late 2016, the mortgage loan is currently secured by four
extended-stay and limited service hotels totaling 615 rooms in
Nevada, Maryland, Virginia, and Indiana. The loan is IO, pays a
floating interest rate of LIBOR plus spread (1.790835987% [pooled],
4.95% [senior nonpooled], and 5.95% [subordinate nonpooled]) per
year, and currently matures on Aug. 9, 2018. The loan has one
12-month extension option remaining. S&P said, "Our analysis
considered the stable reported NOI for the last three years. The
loan is on Berkadia's watchlist due to deferred maintenance items
noted. Berkadia reported an overall 3.71x DSC on the trust balance
for the TTM ended March 31, 2017. Our expected-case value, using a
10.00% S&P Global Ratings' weighted average capitalization rate,
yielded S&P Global Ratings' LTV ratios of 63.8% and 98.5% on the
pooled trust and trust balance (including the rake portion),
respectively."

RATINGS LIST

  Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2015-XLF1
Commercial mortgage-backed pass-through certificates series
2015-XLF1
                                       Rating                      
          
  Class        Identifier        To                   From         
    
  A            61765AAA2         NR                   AAA (sf)     
    
  X-EXT        61765AAE4         BBB- (sf)            BBB- (sf)    
    
  B            61765AAG9         AAA (sf)             AA- (sf)     
    
  C            61765AAJ3         A (sf)               A- (sf)      
    
  D            61765AAL8         BBB- (sf)            BBB- (sf)    
    
  AFS1         61765AAQ7         BB- (sf)             BB- (sf)     
    
  AFS2         61765AAS3         B- (sf)              B- (sf)      
    
  ASL1         61765AAU8         BB- (sf)             BB- (sf)     
    
  ASL2         61765AAW4         B- (sf)              B- (sf)      
    

  NR--Not rated.


MOTEL 6 2017-MTL6: S&P Assigns Prelim B-(sf) Rating on Cl. F Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Motel 6
Trust 2017-MTL6's $2.075 billion commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2017-MTL6.

The note issuance is commercial mortgage-backed securities
transaction backed by a two-year, floating-rate commercial mortgage
loan totaling $2.075 billion, with five, one-year extension
options, secured by mortgages or similar security interests in 451
limited-service and extended-stay hotels (the owned hotel
portfolio); IP, including a borrower's interests in the IP license
agreements; the payment guarantor's equity interests in the IP
borrower and the franchisors; and a pledge of all cash flow
received from nine properties with ground leases that are not
subject to a mortgage in favor of the issuer (the pledged hotel
portfolio).

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Aug. 30,
2017. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

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

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED
  Motel 6 Trust 2017-MTL6  

  Class                    Rating(i)             Amount ($)
  A                        AAA (sf)             641,820,000
  X-CP(ii)                 BBB- (sf)          1,005,328,000(iii)
  X-EXT(ii)                BBB- (sf)          1,256,660,000(iii)
  B                        AA- (sf)             226,670,000
  C                        A- (sf)              167,200,000
  D                        BBB- (sf)            220,970,000
  E                        BB- (sf)             348,460,000
  F                        B- (sf)              316,445,000
  G                        NR                    49,685,000
  VRR(iv)                  NR                    62,250,000
  Retained interest(iv)    NR                    41,500,000

(i)The issuer will issue the certificates to qualified
institutional buyers in line with Rule 144A of the Securities Act
of 1933.
(ii)Interest only.
(iii)Notional balance. The notional amount of the class X-CP
certificates will equal the aggregate of the portion balances of
the class A portion 2, B portion 2, C portion 2, and D portion 2 at
certain times. The notional amount of the class X-EXT certificates
will equal the aggregate of the certificate balances of the class
A, B, C, and D certificates at certain times.
(iv)Non-offered vertical interest components.
NR--Not rated.


OCEAN TRAILS IV: S&P Gives 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 from Ocean Trails CLO IV, a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) originally issued in August
2013 that is managed by Five Arrows Managers North America LLC, a
subsidiary of Rothschild Credit Management. S&P said, "We withdrew
our ratings on the original class A, B, C, D, and E notes following
payment in full on the Aug. 29, 2017, refinancing date. At the same
time, we affirmed our ratings on the class F notes."

On the Aug. 29, 2017, 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, we withdrew our
ratings on the original notes in line with their full redemption,
and we are 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.

"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

  Ocean Trails CLO IV
  Replacement class        Rating         Amount (mil $)
  A-R                      AAA (sf)               242.50
  B-R                      AA+ (sf)                51.00
  C-R                      AA- (sf)                25.75
  D-R                      A- (sf)                 20.25
  E-R                      BB+ (sf)                16.50

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  Ocean Trails CLO IV
  Class                 Rating
  F                     B (sf)

  RATINGS WITHDRAWN

  Ocean Trails CLO IV
                             Rating
  Original class         To                From
  A                      NR                AAA (sf)
  B                      NR                AA+ (sf)
  C                      NR                A+ (sf)
  D                      NR                BBB+ (sf)
  E                      NR                BB (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


OCP CLO 2014-5: S&P Affirms B(sf) Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings affirmed its ratings on the class A-1, A-2, B,
C, D, E, and combination notes from OCP CLO 2014-5 Ltd., a U.S.
collateralized loan obligation transaction that closed in March
2014 and is managed by Onex Credit Partners LLC.

S&P said, "Today's rating actions follow our review of the
transaction's performance using data from the July 2017 trustee
report. The transaction is scheduled to remain in its reinvestment
period until April 2018.

Since the transaction's effective date, the trustee-reported
collateral portfolio's weighted average life has decreased to 4.70
years from 5.44 years. This seasoning has decreased the overall
credit risk profile. In addition, the number of obligors in the
portfolio has increased during this period to 204 from 115, which
increased the portfolio's diversification.

The transaction has experienced an increase in both defaults and
assets rated 'CCC+' and below since the June 2014 effective date
report. Specifically, the amount of defaulted assets increased to
$5.82 million as of July 2017 from none as of the effective date
report. The amount of assets rated 'CCC+' and below increased to
$22.33 million from $15.48 million over the same period.

The increase in defaulted assets, as well as other factors, has
affected the level of credit support available to all tranches. As
a result, the overcollateralization (O/C) ratios have declined
since the June 2014 effective date report:

-- The class A/B O/C ratio decreased to 129.97% from 132.34%.
-- The class C O/C ratio decreased to 119.96% from 122.15%. The
class D O/C ratio decreased to 112.49% from 114.55%.
-- The class E O/C ratio decreased to 106.76% from 108.72%.
-- Even with the decline in credit support, all coverage tests are
currently passing and are above their required levels.

Overall, the increase in defaulted assets has been largely offset
by the decline in the weighted average life. However, any
significant deterioration in these metrics could negatively affect
the deal in the future, especially the junior tranches. As such,
the affirmed ratings reflect S&P's belief that the credit support
available is commensurate with the current rating levels.

S&P said, "Although our cash flow analysis indicated higher ratings
for the class A-2, B, C, D, and combination notes, we considered
additional sensitivity runs that took into account the exposure to
specific distressed industries and allowed for volatility in the
underlying portfolio given that the transaction is still in its
reinvestment period. The results of the cash flow analysis also
indicated a lower rating on the class E notes; however, we believe
the class has sufficient credit enhancement to support the current
rating.

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

"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."

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  OCP CLO 2014-5 Ltd.
  Class                Rating
  A-1                  AAA (sf)
  A-2                  AA (sf)
  B                    A (sf)
  C                    BBB (sf)
  D                    BB (sf)
  E                    B (sf)
  Combination notes    AA (sf)


OCTAGON INVESTMENT 32: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Cl. E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to seven classes of
notes issued by Octagon Investment Partners 32, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

US$305,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$20,000,000 Class A-2 Junior Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes
due 2029 (the "Class A-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa
(sf)

US$40,000,000 Class B-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class B-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$10,000,000 Class B-2 Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2029
(the "Class B-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$35,000,000 Class C Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2
(sf)

US$27,500,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Baa3 (sf)

US$22,500,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Junior Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class E 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 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.

Octagon 32 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up to
7.5% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and
unsecured loans. The portfolio is approximately 70% 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 5 year reinvestment
period. Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest unscheduled principal
payments and proceeds from sales of credit risk assets, subject to
certain restrictions.

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

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

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

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

Par amount: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 55

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2808

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.50%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.50%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9.0 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

Factors That Would Lead to 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 2808 to 3229)

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 Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2808 to 3650)

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 Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1


ONEMAIN FINANCIAL 2017-1: S&P Gives Prelim BB Rating on Cl. D Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to OneMain
Financial Issuance Trust 2017-1's $639.060 million personal
consumer loan-backed notes.

The note issuance is an asset-backed securities transaction backed
by personal consumer loan receivables.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Aug. 24,
2017. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

-- The availability of approximately 45.0%, 40.4%, 35.0%, and
26.8% credit support to the class A (A-1 and A-2), B, C, and D
notes, respectively, in the form of subordination,
overcollateralization, a reserve account, and excess spread (see
the Credit Enhancement Summary table above for more information).
These credit support levels are sufficient to withstand stresses
commensurate with the preliminary ratings on the notes based on our
stressed cash flow scenarios.

-- S&P said, "Our expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
scenario, all else being equal, our 'AA (sf)' rating on the class A
notes will remain within one rating category of the assigned
preliminary rating in the next 12 months, and our 'A (sf)', 'BBB
(sf)', and 'BB (sf)' ratings on the class B, C, and D notes,
respectively, will remain within two rating categories of the
assigned ratings in the next 12 months, based on our credit
stability criteria (see "Methodology: Credit Stability Criteria,"
May 3, 2010)."

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

-- The characteristics of the pool being securitized and
receivables expected to be purchased during the revolving period.

-- The operational risks associated with OneMain Holding Inc.'s
(OneMain's) hybrid business model.

-- The relatively limited time since Springleaf Finance Corp. and
OneMain Financial Holdings LLC (OMFH) integrated their platforms.
On Nov. 15, 2015, OneMain, through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Independence Holdings LLC, completed the acquisition of OMFH from
CitiFinancial Credit Co. for $4.5 billion in cash. OneMain and its
subsidiaries (other than OMFH) are referred to as "Springleaf."

-- The transaction's payment and legal structures.

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED
  OneMain Financial Issuance Trust 2017-1  

  Class    Rating     Type            Interest          Amount
                                         rate          (mil. $)(i)
  A-1      AA (sf)    Senior          Fixed             247.56(ii)
  A-2      AA (sf)    Senior          Floating(iii)     247.56
  B        A (sf)     Subordinate     Fixed              39.32
  C        BBB (sf)   Subordinate     Fixed              42.98
  D        BB (sf)    Subordinate     Fixed              61.64

(i)The actual size of these tranches will be determined on the
pricing date.
(ii)The total amount of class A notes will be $495.12 million, with
class A-2 notes constituting up to $247.56 million.
(iii)If the sum of LIBOR plus the spread is less than 0.00% for any
interest period, then the interest rate for the class A-2 notes for
such interest period will equal 0.00%.


RACE POINT IX: S&P Gives Prelim BB-(sf) Rating on Class D-R Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to the class
A-1A-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, and D-R replacement and new class X notes
from Race Point IX CLO Ltd./Race Point IX CLO Corp., a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) originally issued in 2013 that
is managed by Bain Capital L.P. (see list). S&P Global Ratings did
not rate the original notes. The replacement notes will be issued
via a proposed supplemental indenture.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's opinion that the credit
support available is commensurate with the associated rating
levels. The replacement classes are all expected to be issued at
floating spreads, replacing the current floating-rate notes.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Aug. 29,
2017. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

On the Sept. 21, 2017, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
issuance of the replacement notes are expected to redeem the
original notes.

The replacement notes are being issued via a proposed supplemental
indenture, which, will outline the terms of 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.

"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

  Race Point IX CLO Ltd./Race Point IX CLO Corp.
  Replacement class         Rating      Amount (mil. $)
  X                         AAA (sf)               2.80
  A-1A-R                    AAA (sf)             285.00
  A-1B-R                    NR                    31.00
  A-2-R                     AA (sf)               59.50
  B-R (deferrable)          A (sf)                30.00
  C-R (deferrable)          BBB- (sf)             29.75
  D-R (deferrable)          BB- (sf)              18.50
  Preferred shares          NR                    63.15

  NR--Not rated.


RAIT CRE CDO I: S&P Hikes Class B Notes Rating to B-(sf)
--------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on the class A-1A, A-1B, A-2,
and B notes from RAIT CRE CDO I Ltd., a commercial real estate
collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO) transaction managed by
RAIT Partnership L.P. At the same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on
the class C, D, E, F, G, H, and J notes from the same transaction.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the July 5, 2017, trustee report. The
upgrades reflect increased credit support since our previous
review.

The transaction has paid $254.31 million in collective paydowns to
the class A-1A and A-1B notes since S&P's January 2016 rating
actions. These paydowns resulted in improved reported
overcollateralization (O/C) ratios since the December 2015 trustee
report, which S&P used for its previous rating actions:

-- The class A/B O/C ratio improved to 207.63% from 160.17%.
-- The class C/D/E O/C ratio improved to 154.94% from 137.50%.
-- The class F/G/H O/C ratio improved to 141.27% from 130.46%.

S&P said, "Although our cash flow analysis indicates higher ratings
for the class A-2, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and J notes, our analysis
considered the credit quality of the assets backing the notes.

"The affirmed ratings reflect our belief that the credit support
available is commensurate with the current rating levels.

"Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis,
based on the portfolio and transaction as reflected in the July
2017 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 will take further rating actions as
we deem necessary."

  RATINGS RAISED

  RAIT CRE CDO I Ltd.
  Class                 Rating
               To                From
  A-1A           A (sf)            BB- (sf)
  A-1B           A (sf)            BB- (sf)
  A-2            BB- (sf)          B- (sf)
  B              B- (sf)           CCC+ (sf)

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  RAIT CRE CDO I Ltd.
  Class          Rating
  C              CCC+ (sf)
  D              CCC (sf)
  E              CCC (sf)
  F              CCC (sf)
  G              CCC- (sf)
  H              CCC- (sf)
  J              CCC- (sf)


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

US$222,500,000 Class A-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class A-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$27,500,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2029
(the "Class B-R Notes"), Assigned Aa1 (sf)

US$27,000,000 Class C-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$20,000,000 Class D-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class D-R Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$18,000,000 Class E-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class E-R Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

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

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The Issuer has issued the Refinancing Notes on August 25, 2017 (the
"Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of all
classes of the rated notes (the "Refinanced Original Notes")
previously issued on November 26, 2013 (the "Original Closing
Date"). On the Refinancing Date, the Issuer used proceeds from the
issuance of the Refinancing Notes to redeem in full the Refinanced
Original Notes.

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

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

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. For modeling
purposes, Moody's used the following base-case assumptions:

Performing par and principal proceeds balance: $339,510,253

Defaulted par: $489,747

Diversity Score: 75

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2770

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.70%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 5.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 46.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8.2 years.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

The performance of the Refinancing Notes is subject to uncertainty.
The performance of the Refinancing Notes is sensitive to the
performance of the underlying portfolio, which in turn depends on
economic and credit conditions that may change. The Manager's
investment decisions and management of the transaction will also
affect the performance of the Refinancing Notes.

Together with the set of modeling assumptions above, Moody's
conducted an additional sensitivity analysis, which was a component
in determining the ratings assigned to the Refinancing Notes. This
sensitivity analysis includes increased default probability
relative to the base case.

Below is a summary of the impact of an increase in default
probability (expressed in terms of WARF level) on the Refinancing
Notes (shown in terms of the number of notch difference versus the
current model output, whereby a negative difference corresponds to
higher expected losses), assuming that all other factors are held
equal:

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2770 to 3186)

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: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2770 to 3601)

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


SDART 2016-3: Moody's Hikes Rating on Class E Notes to Ba1
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded 24 tranches and affirmed an
additional 29 tranches from Santander SDART Auto Receivables Trust
securitizations issued between 2013 and 2016. The securitizations
are sponsored by Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC).

Complete rating actions are as follow:

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-2

Class D, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Class E, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017 Upgraded
to Aa1 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-4

Class C, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Class D, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Class E, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017 Upgraded
to Aa2 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-5

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-A

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-2

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-3

Class C Asset Backed Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan
24, 2017 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Asset Backed Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan
24, 2017 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class E Asset Backed Notes, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Jan
24, 2017 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-4

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to A2 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-5

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to A2 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-2

Class B Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-3

Class B Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-4

Class B Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-1

Class A-3 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class B Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Class C Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to A3 (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-2

Class A-2-A Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class A-2-B Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class A-3 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class B Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Class C Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Baa1 (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-3

Class A-2 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class A-3 Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class B Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aa1 (sf)

Class C Notes, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Aa3 (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Baa2 (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017
Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The upgrades resulted from the build-up of credit enhancement due
to the sequential pay structures and non-declining reserve
accounts. The lifetime cumulative net loss (CNL) expectations
remained unchanged for the eight transactions issued between 2013
and 2014 and range between 13.00% and 14.00%. The lifetime CNL
expectations were lowered to 14.00% from 15.00% for the 2015-2 and
2015-3, to 14.50% from 15.00% for the 2015-4, to 15.00% from 16.00%
for the 2016-1, and to 15.00% from 17.00% for the 2016-2 and 2016-3
transactions.

In January 2017, Moody's has learned that for SDART and DRIVE
securitizations that closed before January 1, 2016, SC did not
subtract the cost associated with repossessing vehicles of
defaulted borrowers from the liquidation proceeds allocated to the
trust, and thus did not include the repossession expenses in its
reporting of net loss. SC began including repossession expenses in
its net loss reporting for SDART and DRIVE securitizations that
closed after January 1, 2016. Consideration of the repossession
expenses in the net loss calculation had a fairly small impact on
the updated historical static pool loss curves, resulting in no
change to Moody's lifetime CNL expectations for the transactions.

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

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-2

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

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 12.88%

Aaa (sf) level - 32.00%

Pool factor -- 11.80%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class D Notes 74.33%, Class E Notes
31.95%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 10.7%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-4

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

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 11.75%

Aaa (sf) level - 32.00%

Pool factor -- 14.00%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 104.26%, Class D
Notes 64.99%, Class E Notes 29.28%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 9.6%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-5

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 13.75%, prior expectation (January
2017) -- 13.75%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 12.46%

Aaa (sf) level - 34.00%

Pool factor -- 17.22%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 96.04%, Class D Notes
61.49%, Class E Notes 31.59%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 10.4%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-A

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 13.25%, prior expectation (January
2017) -- 13.25%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 11.01%

Aaa (sf) level - 34.00%

Pool factor -- 15.00%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 98.35%, Class D Notes
61.68%, Class E Notes 28.34%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 9.0%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-2

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

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 11.52%

Aaa (sf) level - 34.00%

Pool factor -- 19.82%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 75.80%, Class D Notes
52.08%, Class E Notes 26.09%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 10.3%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-3

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

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 11.93%

Aaa (sf) level - 34.00%

Pool factor -- 22.69%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 82.01%, Class D Notes
47.84%, Class E Notes 25.81%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 9.8%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-4

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

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 14.64%

Aaa (sf) level - 36.00%

Pool factor -- 27.28%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 71.07%, Class D Notes
42.66%, Class E Notes 24.33%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 9.5%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-5

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

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 14.25%

Aaa (sf) level - 36.00%

Pool factor -- 30.66%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 65.11%, Class D Notes
39.83%, Class E Notes 23.52%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 9.8%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-2

Lifetime CNL expectation - 14.00%, prior expectation (January 2017)
-- 15.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 15.95%

Aaa (sf) level - 38.00%

Pool factor -- 36.71%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class B Notes 91.60%, Class C Notes
56.18%, Class D Notes 35.07%, Class E Notes 21.45%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 10.2%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-3

Lifetime CNL expectation -- 14.00%, prior expectation (January
2017) -- 15.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 14.96%

Aaa (sf) level - 38.00%

Pool factor -- 40.20%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class B Notes 85.03%, Class C Notes
52.69%, Class D Notes 33.41%, Class E Notes 20.97%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 9.9%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-4

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

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 14.96%

Aaa (sf) level - 40.00%

Pool factor -- 44.25%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class B Notes 78.71%, Class C Notes
49.34%, Class D Notes 31.82%, Class E Notes 20.52%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 9.9%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-1

Lifetime CNL expectation - 15.00%, prior expectation (January 2017)
-- 16.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 16.26%

Aaa (sf) level - 44.00%

Pool factor -- 55.45%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class A Notes 88.87%, Class B Notes
67.05%, Class C Notes 43.60%, Class D Notes 29.62%, Class E Notes
20.61%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 9.8%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-2

Lifetime CNL expectation - 15.00%, prior expectation (January 2017)
-- 17.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 16.46%

Aaa (sf) level - 46.00%

Pool factor -- 62.23%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class A Notes 81.04%, Class B Notes
61.59%, Class C Notes 40.70%, Class D Notes 28.25%, Class E Notes
20.21%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 10.3%

Issuer: Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-3

Lifetime CNL expectation - 15.00%, prior expectation (January 2017)
-- 17.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 16.88%

Aaa (sf) level - 48.00%

Pool factor -- 73.62%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class A Notes 70.09%, Class B Notes
53.48%, Class C Notes 35.58%, Class D Notes 25.75%, Class E Notes
18.97%

Excess Spread per annum - Approximately 10.7%

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

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

Up

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

Down

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


SEQUOIA MORTGAGE 2017-6: Moody's Gives Ba3 Rating to Cl. B-4 Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned definitive ratings to the
classes of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) issued by
Sequoia Mortgage Trust (SEMT) 2017-6. The certificates are backed
by one pool of prime quality, first-lien mortgage loans, including
25 super conforming mortgage loans. The assets of the trust consist
of 478 fully amortizing, fixed rate mortgage loans, substantially
all of which have an original term to maturity of 30 years. The
borrowers in the pool have high FICO scores, significant equity in
their properties and liquid cash reserves.

The complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2017-6

Cl. A-1, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-5, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-6, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-7, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-8, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-9, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-10, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-11, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-12, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-13, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-14, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-15, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-16, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-17, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-18, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-19, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. A-20, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. A-21, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. A-22, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-23, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-24, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. B-1, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa3 (sf)

Cl. B-2, Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

Cl. B-3, Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

Cl. B-4, Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

Summary Credit Analysis

Moody's expected cumulative net loss on the aggregate pool is 0.30%
in a base scenario and reaches 3.40% at a stress level consistent
with the Aaa ratings. Moody's 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 at a pool level, for the
default risk of HOA properties in super lien states. The adjustment
to Moody's Aaa stress loss above the model output also includes
adjustments related to aggregator and originators assessments. 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.

Collateral Description

The SEMT 2017-6 transaction is a securitization of 478 first lien
residential mortgage loans, with an aggregate unpaid principal
balance of $355,413,851. There are 125 originators in this pool,
including First Republic Bank (18.41%). None of the originators
other than First Republic Bank contributed 10% or more of the
principal balance of the loans in the pool. The loan-level third
party due diligence review (TPR) encompassed credit underwriting,
property value and regulatory compliance. In addition, Redwood has
agreed to backstop the rep and warranty repurchase obligation of
all originators other than First Republic Bank.

The loans were all aggregated by Redwood Residential Acquisition
Corporation (Redwood), which Moody's has assessed as an Above
Average aggregator of prime jumbo residential mortgages. As of the
July 2017 remittance report, there have been no losses on
Redwood-aggregated transactions that Moody's has rated to date, and
delinquencies to date have also been very low.

Structural considerations

Similar to recent rated Sequoia transactions, in this transaction,
Redwood is adding a feature prohibiting the servicer, or securities
administrator, from advancing principal and interest to loans that
are 120 days or more delinquent. These loans on which principal and
interest advances are not made are called the Stop Advance Mortgage
Loans ("SAML"). The balance of the SAML will be removed from the
principal and interest distribution amounts calculations. Moody's
views the SAML concept as something that strengthens the integrity
of senior and subordination relationships in the structure. Yet, in
certain scenarios the SAML concept, as implemented in this
transaction, can lead to a reduction in interest payment to certain
tranches even when more subordinated tranches are outstanding. The
senior/subordination relationship between tranches is strengthened
as the removal of SAML in the calculation of the senior percentage
amount, directs more principal to the senior bonds and less to the
subordinate bonds. Further, this feature limits the amount of
servicer advances that could increase the loss severity on the
liquidated loans and preserves the subordination amount for the
most senior bonds. On the other hand, this feature can cause a
reduction in the interest distribution amount paid to the bonds;
and if that were to happen such a reduction in interest payment is
unlikely to be recovered. The final ratings on the bonds, which are
expected loss ratings, take into consideration Moody's expected
losses on the collateral and the potential reduction in interest
distributions to the bonds. Furthermore, the likelihood that in
particular the subordinate tranches could potentially permanently
lose some interest as a result of this feature was considered.

Moody's believes there is a low likelihood that the rated
securities of SEMT 2017-6 will incur any losses from extraordinary
expenses or indemnification payments owing to potential future
lawsuits against key deal parties. First, the loans are prime
quality and were originated under a regulatory environment that
requires tighter controls for originations than pre-crisis, which
reduces the likelihood that the loans have defects that could form
the basis of a lawsuit. Second, Redwood, who initially retains the
subordinate classes and provides a back-stop to the representations
and warranties of all the originators except for FRB, has a strong
alignment of interest with investors, and is incentivized to
actively manage the pool to optimize performance. Third, historical
performance of loans aggregated by Redwood has been very strong to
date. Fourth, 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 must review loans
for breaches of representations and warranties when a loan becomes
120 days delinquent, which reduces the likelihood that parties will
be sued for inaction.

Tail Risk & Subordination Floor

The transaction 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. The transaction provides for a
subordination floor of 1.50% of the closing pool balance, which
mitigates tail risk by protecting the senior bonds from eroding
credit enhancement over time.

Third-party Review and Reps & Warranties

One TPR firm conducted a due diligence review of 100% of the
mortgage loans in the pool. For 415 loans, the TPR firm conducted a
review for credit, property valuation, compliance and data
integrity ("full review") and limited review for 63 First Republic
loans. For the 63 loans, Redwood Trust elected to conduct a limited
review, which did not include a TPR firm check for TRID
compliance.

For the full review loans, the third party review found that the
majority of reviewed loans were compliant with Redwood's
underwriting guidelines and had no valuation or regulatory defects.
Most of the loans that were not compliant with Redwood's
underwriting guidelines had strong compensating factors.
Additionally, the third party review didn't identify material
compliance-related exceptions relating to the TILA-RESPA Integrated
Disclosure (TRID) rule for the full review loans.

No TRID compliance reviews were performed by the TPR firm on the
limited review loans. Therefore, there is a possibility that some
of these loans could have unresolved TRID issues. We, however
reviewed the initial compliance findings of loans from the same
originator where a full review was conducted and there were no
material compliance findings. As a result, Moody's did not increase
Moody's Aaa loss for the limited review loans.

After a review of the TPR appraisal findings, Moody's found the
exceptions to be minor in nature and did not pose a material
increase in the risk of loan loss. Moody's note that there are five
escrow holdback loans, including 2 loans where escrow holdbacks
amounts are more than 10%. In the event the escrow funds greater
than 10% have not been disbursed within six months of the Closing
Date, the Seller shall repurchase the affected Escrow Holdback
Mortgage Loan, on or before the date that is six months after the
Closing Date at the applicable Repurchase Price. Given that the
small number of such loans and that the seller has the obligation
to repurchase, Moody's did not make an adjustment for these loans.

The originators and the seller have provided unambiguous
representations and warranties (R&Ws) including an unqualified
fraud R&W. There is provision for binding arbitration in the event
of dispute between investors and the R&W provider concerning R&W
breaches.

Trustee & Master Servicer

The transaction trustee is Wilmington Trust, National Association.
The paying agent and cash management functions will be performed by
Citibank, N.A. and the custodian functions will be performed by
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., rather than the trustee. In addition,
CitiMortgage Inc., as Master Servicer, is responsible for servicer
oversight, and termination of servicers and for the appointment of
successor servicers. In addition, CitiMortgage is committed to act
as successor if no other successor servicer can be found.

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.

Methodology

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating US Prime RMBS" published in February 2015.

In addition, Moody's publishes a weekly summary of structured
finance credit ratings and methodologies, available to all
registered users of Moody's website, www.moodys.com/SFQuickCheck

Significant weight was put on judgment taking into account the
results of the modeling tools as well as the aggregate impact of
the third-party review and the quality of the servicers and
originators.


TIDEWATER AUTO 2016-A: 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 two classes from Tidewater Auto Receivables Trust
(TMCAT) 2016-A. S&P said, "We also affirmed our ratings on two
classes from TMCAT 2014-A. The transactions are backed by subprime
retail auto loans originated and serviced by Tidewater Motor Credit
(TMC)."

S&P said, "T[he] rating actions reflect each transaction's
collateral performance to date and our views regarding future
collateral performance, our economic outlook, each transaction's
structure, and the respective credit enhancement levels. In
addition, our analysis incorporated secondary credit factors, such
as credit stability, payment priorities under various scenarios,
and sector- and issuer-specific analyses. Considering all these
factors, we believe the creditworthiness of the notes remains
consistent with the raised and affirmed ratings.

"TMCAT 2014-A is performing in line with our initial expectations
(see table 1and 2). Therefore, we maintained our expected lifetime
credit loss on the transaction at the 13.25%-13.75% range. As of
the August 2017 distribution date, the transaction had 38 months of
performance and 19.01% of the pool remaining. To date, the
transaction has incurred 10.74% in cumulative net credit losses.

"While TMCAT 2016-A is still in the earlier stages of its
performance life, we believe the transaction is performing in line
with our initial expectations. We therefore maintained our initial
expected lifetime credit loss at the 13.75%-14.75% range. As of the
August 2017 distribution date, the transaction had 18 months of
performance and 52.20% of the initial pool remaining. To date, the
transaction has incurred 5.18% in cumulative net credit losses."

  Table 1
  Collateral Performance
  As of the August 2017 distribution date

                           Pool    Current               60+ day
  Series       Mo.    factor(%)        CNL     delinquencies (%)
  2014-A        38        19.01      10.74                 15.09
  2016-A        18        52.20       5.18                  9.63

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

  Table 2
  CNL Expectations (%)

           Initial/former           Revised
                 lifetime          lifetime
  Series         CNL exp.          CNL exp.
  2014-A      13.25-13.75       13.25-13.75
  2016-A      13.75-14.75       13.75-14.75

  CNL exp.--Cumulative net loss expectations.
  N/A--Not applicable.

Each transaction has a sequential principal payment structure and
was structured with credit enhancement consisting of
overcollateralization and a nonamortizing reserve account. The
more-senior tranches also benefit from subordination.

The credit enhancement levels for TMCAT 2014-A and TMCAT 2016-A are
at the specified overcollateralization and reserve targets.

For TMCAT 2014-A, the reserve account is at its floor of 1.00% of
the initial collateral balance, which currently equals 5.26% of the
current receivables balance. For TMCAT 2016-A, the reserve account
is also at its target of 1.00% of the initial collateral balance,
which currently equals 1.91% of the current receivable balance.

The overcollateralization for TMCAT 2014-A and TMCAT 2016-A are at
their respective target levels of 14.00% and 15.10% of the current
collateral balance, respectively.

Each series features a cumulative net loss trigger that will cause
the overcollateralization target to increase. The cumulative net
loss triggers are tested monthly and are not curable once breached,
though the overcollateralization floor remains at 2.0%. To date,
the cumulative net loss triggers have not been breached.

For series 2014-A, the target overcollateralization amount will
increase to 28.0% of the current pool balance if the cumulative net
loss triggers are breached. For series 2016-A, the target
overcollateralization amount will increase to 28.0% of the current
pool balance if the cumulative net loss triggers are breached
between months one and 18 and will increase to 38% of the current
pool balance if the cumulative net loss triggers are breached at
month 19 or thereafter.

  Table 3
  Hard Credit Support
  As of the August 2017 distribution date

                             Total hard       Current total hard
                         credit support           credit support
  Series     Class   at issuance (%)(i)        (% of current)(i)
  2014-A     C                    22.40                    81.87
  2014-A     D                    10.50                    19.26
  2016-A     A-2                  51.25                    92.87
  2016-A     B                    40.80                    72.88
  2016-A     C                    27.50                    47.43
  2016-A     D                    15.90                    25.24
  2016-A     E                    11.60                    17.01

(i)Calculated as a percentage of the total receivable pool balance,
consisting of a reserve account, overcollateralization, and, if
applicable, subordination.

S&P said, "We incorporated a 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

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

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  Tidewater Auto Receivables Trust 2014-A
  Class         Rating
  C             AAA (sf)         
  D             BBB- (sf)

  Tidewater Auto Receivables Trust 2016-A
  Class         Rating
  A-2           AAA (sf)
  E             BB (sf)


TOWD POINT 2017-4: Fitch Assigns 'Bsf' Rating to Cl. B2 Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings rates Towd Point Mortgage Trust 2017-4 (TPMT
2017-4):

-- $920,892,000 class A1 notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $78,237,000 class A2 notes 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $999,129,000 class A3 exchangeable notes 'AAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $1,063,258,000 class A4 exchangeable notes 'Asf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $64,129,000 class M1 notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $55,151,000 class M2 notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $44,890,000 class B1 notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $26,934,000 class B2 notes 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

The following classes will not be rated by Fitch:

-- $30,782,000 class B3 notes;
-- $30,782,000 class B4 notes;
-- $30,782,499 class B5 notes.

The notes are supported by one collateral group that consists of
5,528 seasoned performing and re-performing mortgages with a total
balance of approximately $1.3 billion (which includes $37.7
million, or 2.9%, of the aggregate pool balance in
non-interest-bearing deferred principal amounts) as of the
statistical calculation date.

The 'AAAsf' rating on the class A1 notes reflects the 28.20%
subordination provided by the 6.10% class A2, 5.00% class M1, 4.30%
class M2, 3.50% class B1, 2.10% class B2, 2.40% class B3, 2.40%
class B4 and 2.40% class B5 notes.

Fitch's ratings on the class notes reflect the credit attributes of
the underlying collateral, the quality of the servicers, Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS, rated 'RPS1-') and Selene Finance
LP (Selene, rated 'RPS3+'), and the representation (rep) and
warranty framework, minimal due diligence findings and the
sequential pay structure.

Approximately 1.5% of the pool is located in Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) designated disaster areas that are
affected by Hurricane Harvey. It is not yet known which properties
included in the pool have been damaged by the storm, if any. Fitch
believes that the risk of additional loss due to property damage
will not be material due to the pool's limited number of loans in
the designated disaster areas and the repurchase obligations of the
loan seller in the event that any affected loan results in a breach
of a loan-level representation or warranty.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Distressed Performance History (Concern): The collateral pool
consists primarily of peak-vintage, seasoned re-performing loans
(RPLs), including loans that have been paying for the past 24
months, which Fitch identifies as "clean current" (72.6%), and
loans that are current but have recent delinquencies or incomplete
pay strings, identified as "dirty current" (27.4%). All loans were
current as of the cutoff date, and 90.3% of the loans have received
modifications.

Low Loan-to-Value Ratio (Positive): The spotty pay history of these
borrowers is mitigated by the relatively low sustainable loan to
value (sLTV) ratio of 78.4%. The original combined LTV (CLTV) of
80.8% also reflects ample equity in the homes at origination. The
sLTV ratio is significantly lower than that of previous TPMT
transactions as well as other recently rated RPL transactions.

High Geographic Concentration (Concern): The pool's primary
concentration is in California, representing approximately 63.3% of
the pool. Approximately 29.4% of the pool is located in the top two
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), 15.6% in San Francisco and
13.8% Los Angeles. Given the pool's high regional concentration, an
additional penalty of approximately 3% was applied to the pool's
lifetime default expectations.

Third-Party Due Diligence (Concern): A third-party due diligence
review was conducted and focused on regulatory compliance, pay
history and a tax and title lien search. The third-party review
(TPR) firm's due diligence review resulted in approximately 17% 'C'
and 'D' graded loans, meaning the loans had material violations or
lacked documentation to confirm regulatory compliance.

No Servicer P&I Advances (Mixed): The servicers will not be
advancing delinquent monthly payments of P&I, which reduce
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 severity
(LS) are less for this transaction than for those where the
servicer is obligated to advance P&I. Structural provisions and
cash flow priorities, together with increased subordination,
provide for timely payments of interest to the 'AAAsf' and 'AAsf'
rated classes.

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

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

Representation Framework (Concern): Fitch considers the
representation, warranty and enforcement (RW&E) mechanism construct
for this transaction to generally be consistent with what it views
as a Tier 2 framework, due to the inclusion of knowledge qualifiers
and the exclusion of loans from certain reps as a result of
third-party due diligence findings. For 44 loans that are seasoned
less than 24 months, Fitch viewed the framework as a Tier 3 because
the reps related to the origination and underwriting of the loan,
which are typically expected for newly originated loans, were not
included. Thus, Fitch increased its 'AAAsf' PD expectations by
roughly 392bps to account for a potential increase in defaults and
losses arising from weaknesses in the reps.

Timing of Recordation and Document Remediation (Neutral): An
updated title and tax search, as well as a review to confirm that
the mortgage and subsequent assignments were recorded in the
relevant local jurisdiction, was also performed. Per the
representations provided in the transaction documents, all loans
have all been recorded in the appropriate jurisdiction, are in the
process of being recorded or will be sent for recordation within 12
months of the closing date.

While Fitch views the expected timelines for recordation and
remediation as reasonable, Fitch believes that FirstKey's oversight
for completion of these activities serves as a strong mitigant to
potential delays. In addition, FirstKey's obligation to repurchase
loans in which assignments are not recorded and endorsements are
not completed by the payment date in September 2018, aligns the
issuer's interests regarding completing the recordation process
with those of noteholders.

Deferred Amounts (Negative): Non-interest-bearing principal
forbearance amounts totaling $37.7 million (2.9%) of the unpaid
principal balance are outstanding on 789 loans. Fitch included the
deferred amounts when calculating the borrower's LTV and sLTV,
despite the fact that lower payment and amounts are not owed during
the term of the loan. The inclusion resulted in higher PDs and LS
than if there were no deferrals. Fitch believes that borrower
default behavior for these loans will resemble that of the higher
LTVs, as exit strategies (that is, sale or refinancing) will be
limited relative to those borrowers with more equity in the
property.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

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

Fitch conducted sensitivity analysis determining how the ratings
would react to steeper MVDs at the national level. The analysis
assumes MVDs of 10%, 20%, and 30%, in addition to the
model-projected 38.6% at 'AAAsf'. The analysis indicates there is
some potential rating migration with higher MVDs, compared with the
model projection.

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


TRAINER WORTHAM III: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. A-1 Notes to Caa3
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on notes issued
by Trainer Wortham First Republic CBO III, Limited:

US$195,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
2033 (current outstanding balance of $11,025,162.77), Upgraded to
Caa2 (sf); previously on April 9, 2010 Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Trainer Wortham First Republic CBO III, Limited, issued in February
2003, is a collateralized debt obligation backed primarily by a
portfolio of RMBS originated in 2001 to 2005.

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating action is primarily a result of the deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's
over-collateralization (OC) ratios since October 2016. The Class
A-1 notes have paid down by approximately 39.3%, or $7.1 million
since then. Based on Moody's calculation, the OC ratio of the Class
A-1 notes is 172.6%, versus 131.6% in October 2016. The paydown of
the Class A-1 notes is partially the result of payments from
certain assets treated as defaulted by the trustee in amounts
materially exceeding expectations. Accordingly, Moody's has assumed
the deal will continue to benefit from potential recoveries on
defaulted securities, some of which have experienced significant
price increases in the last two years.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: Primary causes of uncertainty about
assumptions are the extent of any deterioration in either consumer
or commercial credit conditions and in the residential real estate
property markets. The residential real estate property market's
uncertainties include housing prices; the pace of residential
mortgage foreclosures, loan modifications and refinancing; the
unemployment rate; and interest rates.

2) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from principal proceeds, recoveries from
defaulted assets, and excess interest proceeds will continue and at
what pace. Faster than expected deleveraging could have a
significantly positive impact on the notes' ratings.

3) Amortization profile assumptions: Moody's modeled the
amortization of the underlying collateral portfolio based on its
assumed weighted average life (WAL). Regardless of the WAL
assumption, due to the sensitivity of amortization assumption and
its impact on the amount of principal available to pay down the
notes, Moody's supplemented its analysis with various sensitivity
analysis around the amortization profile of the underlying
collateral assets.

4) Recovery of defaulted assets: The amount of recoveries received
from defaulted assets reported by the trustee and those that
Moody's assumes as having defaulted as well as the timing of these
recoveries create additional uncertainty. Moody's analyzed
defaulted assets assuming limited recoveries, and therefore,
realization of any recoveries exceeding Moody's expectation in the
future would positively impact the notes' ratings.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applies a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDROM(TM) to model the loss distribution for SF CDOs. The simulated
defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo scenarios
define the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's then uses
the loss distribution as an input in the CDOEdge(TM) cash flow
model.

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

Caa ratings notched up by two rating notches (2882):

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: 0

Class D: 0

Caa ratings notched down by two notches (4061):

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: 0

Class D: 0


VENTURE CLO XIV: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class E-R Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to the following
notes (the "Refinancing Notes") issued by Venture XIV CLO,
Limited.

US$346,000,000 Class A-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2029 (the "Class A-R Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$60,000,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2029
(the "Class B-R Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

US$55,500,000 Class C-R Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
A2 (sf)

US$34,000,000 Class D-R Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (the "Class D-R Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Baa3 (sf)

US$31,750,000 Class E-R Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2029 (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.

MJX Venture Management LLC (the "Manager"), as successor collateral
manager to MJX Asset Management LLC, 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 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 issued the Refinancing Notes on August 28, 2017 (the
"Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of all
classes of secured notes (the "Refinanced Original Notes")
previously issued on August 14, 2013 (the "Original Closing Date").
On the Refinancing Date, the Issuer used the proceeds from the
issuance of the Refinancing Notes to redeem in full the Refinanced
Original Notes.

In addition to the issuance of the Refinancing Notes, a variety of
other changes to transaction features occurred in connection with
the refinancing. These include: extension of the reinvestment
period; extensions of the stated maturity and non-call period;
changes to certain collateral quality tests; changes to the
waterfall and coverage tests; assignment of the collateral manager
role from MJX Asset Management LLC to MJX Venture Management LLC;
changes to the initial asset matrix, and a variety of other changes
to transaction features.

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

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. For modeling
purposes, Moody's used the following base-case assumptions:

Performing par and principal proceeds balance: $561,568,713

Defaulted par: $9,401,570

Diversity Score: 75

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2970

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.90%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

The performance of the 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 2970 to 3416)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-R Notes: 0

Class B-R Notes: 0

Class C-R Notes: -1

Class D-R Notes: -1

Class E-R Notes: -1

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

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-R Notes: 0

Class B-R Notes: -2

Class C-R Notes: -3

Class D-R Notes: -2

Class E-R Notes: -1


WACHOVIA BANK 2006-C23: Moody's Cuts Class H Certs Rating to Caa2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the rating on one class
and affirmed the rating on one class in Wachovia Bank Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2006-C23, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2006-C23:

Cl. H, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 9, 2016 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating on the P&I class H was downgraded due to anticipated
losses and realized losses from specially serviced and troubled
loans. This class has already expreinced a 6% realized loss as a
result of previously liquidated loans.

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 10.5% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 53.1% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 6.4% of the
original pooled balance, the same as at Moody's last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The 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-C was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the August 17th, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 99% to $43 million
from $4.2 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 10 mortgage loans ranging in size from 7% to 26%
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 6, compared to 12 at Moody's last review.

Five loans, constituting 44% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Thirty-five loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $268 million (for an average loss
severity of 58%). One loan, constituting 10% of the pool, is
currently in special servicing. The sole specially serviced loan is
the American Way Plaza loan ($4.4 million -- 10.3% of the pool),
which is secured by a retail center located in Memphis, Tennessee.
The loan transferred to special servicing effective December 17th,
2015 due to a maturity default. Current economic occupancy is 95%,
however, two tenants have both gone dark bringing overall physical
occupancy to 83%, as of January 2017. Moody's estimates a severe
loss for the specially serviced loan.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and partial year 2017 operating results for 55% of the pool
(excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's weighted
average conduit LTV is 89%, compared to 85% 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 25% to the most recently available net operating
income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 8.8%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.32X and 1.29X,
respectively, compared to 1.34X and 1.25X 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 59% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Walgreens Pool 1 Loan ($11.2 million -- 26.0%
of the pool), which is secured by three cross-collateralized and
cross-defaulted loans secured by properties located in Michigan.
All three properties are 100% leased to Walgreens through 2021. The
loan had an anticipated repayment date of January 2016. Due to the
single tenant exposure, Moody's stressed the value of the property
utilizing a lit/dark analysis. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
124% and 0.77X, respectively, compared to 116% and 0.82X at the
last review.

The second largest loan is the Walgreens Pool 2 Loan ($7.8 million
-- 18.1% of the pool), which is secured by two cross-collateralized
and cross-defaulted loans secured by two properties located in
Michigan. Both properties are leased to Walgreens through 2021. Due
to the single tenant exposure, Moody's stressed the value of the
property utilizing a lit/dark analysis . Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 124% and 0.77X, respectively, compared to 115% and 0.83X
at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Arbutus Business Center Loan ($6.6
million -- 15.3% of the pool), which is secured by an industrial
property located in Arbutus, Maryland, located approximately six
miles southwest of Baltimore, Maryland. As of August 2017, the
property was 95% leased, compared to 97% in August 2016. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 64% and 1.49X, respectively, compared to
66% and 1.44X at the last review.


WACHOVIA BANK 2006-C23: S&P Lowers Class H Notes Rating to 'D(sf)'
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its rating to 'D(sf)' on the class H
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from Wachovia Bank
Commercial Mortgage Trust's series 2006-C23, a U.S. commercial
mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction.

The downgrade on class H reflects principal losses as detailed in
the Aug. 17, 2017, trustee remittance report. The reported
principal losses on class H totaled $3.3 million (6.2% of the
original class balance) because the specially serviced Lansing Town
Centre asset was liquated. The asset was liquidated at a loss
severity of 61.3% of its $13.5 million original pooled trust
balance. Consequently, class J, which is not rated by S&P Global
Ratings, experienced a 100% loss of its respective beginning
balance, with the remaining balance allocated to class H.

RATINGS LIST

  Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust
  Commercial mortgage pass-through cerfiticates series 2006-C23
                                         Rating                    
          
  Class        Identifier         To               From            

  H            92976BEJ7          D (sf)           CCC- (sf)


WACHOVIA BANK 2006-C26: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Cl. A-M Debt
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the rating on one class and
downgraded the ratings on two classes in Wachovia Bank Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2006-C26:

Cl. A-M, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Sep 23, 2016 Downgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A-J, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Sep 23, 2016
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating on the P&I class A-M 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 A-J was downgraded due to anticipated
losses and realized losses from specially serviced and troubled
loans that were higher than Moody's had previously expected. Class
A-J has already experienced a 36% realized loss as a result of
previously liquidated loans.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 44.6% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 42.9% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 17.6% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 14.9% 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 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-C was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017.

Moody's analysis incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since 98% 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 [and troubled loans] to the most junior
class(es) and the recovery as a pay down of principal to the most
senior class(es).

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the August 17th, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 94% to $118 million
from $1.73 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by three mortgage loans ranging in size from 2% to
54% 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 2, compared to 14 at Moody's last review.

Twenty-eight loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $259 million (for an average loss
severity of 58%). Two loans, constituting 98% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The larger specially serviced loan
is the Chemed Center Leasehold(3) loan ($54.7 million -- 53.6% of
the pool), which is secured by the borrower's leasehold interest in
a Class A office building located in in downtown Cincinnati, Ohio.
The loan was on an unsubordinated 99-year ground lease which
expired in April 2105. The loan transferred to special servicing in
March 2016 and subsequently defaulted at maturity in May 2016. As
of July 2017, the property was 86% leased, the same as of August
2016.

The other specially serviced loan is Chemed Center Fee ($45.0
million -- 44.1% of the pool), which is secured by the borrower's
leased fee interest in a 99-year unsubordinated ground lease in
Cincinnati, Ohio currently improved with the Class A office tower
that backs the the Chemed Center Leasehold(3) loan. The loan
defaulted on the maturity date of May 11th, 2016 when it failed to
payoff.

Moody's estimates an aggregate $29.8 million loss for the specially
serviced loans (30% expected loss on average).


[*] Moody's Puts C Ratings on 350 IO Bonds on Review for Upgrade
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has placed on review the ratings of
1659 Interest-Only (IO) bonds from 953 US residential mortgage
backed transactions (RMBS), issued by multiple issuers prior to
2009. The ratings of 350 IO bonds currently rated C were placed on
review for upgrade; the ratings of 5 IO bonds currently rated Aaa
and 1 IO bond currently rated A2 were placed on review for
downgrade; and the remaining 1303 bonds were placed on review
direction uncertain. The bonds in action have been placed on review
pending a reassessment of Moody's internal linkage of these IO
bonds to their reference bond(s) or pool(s). Following this linkage
reassessment, and as part of Moody's resolutions of this review,
Moody's will also reevaluates on a case-by-case basis the
sufficiency of on-going reported performance information needed to
maintain any such IO rating.

A list of the Affected Ratings is available at:

                       http://bit.ly/2iHoGzP

RATINGS RATIONALE

The review action results from 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. Following the
linkage reassessment, and as part of Moody's resolutions of this
review, Moody's will also evaluates the sufficiency of ongoing
reported performance information needed to maintain any such IO
ratings. In addition, Moody's will also reassess the IO linkages in
Moody's resolutions of the 140 IO bonds that Moody's placed on
review on 15 August 2017 following the identification of errors in
the data inputs used in the prior analysis of these 140 bonds.

- Principal Methodologies

During the review period, Moody's will reevaluate the IO bond
linkages maintained in Moody's database and used to maintain these
IO bond ratings; where linkage errors are identified, Moody's will
correct them, assess whether Moody's receive sufficient performance
data to maintain ratings on the type of IO bond based on the new
linkages, and reassess the affected IO bond ratings.

The rating action includes 1,059 of the 1133 and 21 bonds that were
cited in Moody's June 9, 2017 and June 20, 2017 press releases,
respectively, as having no rating changes resulting from the
adoption of the updated rating methodology, "Moody's Approach to
Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published
on June 8, 2017. In addition to examining these bonds to determine
whether they were subject to the mapping error explained in the 9
June and 20 June press releases, during the review period Moody's
will also reassess the linkages and the sufficiency of reported
performance data for all of these IO bonds as well.

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

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


[*] S&P Discontinues Ratings on 43 Classes From 15 CDO Deals
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings discontinued its ratings on 39 classes from 12
cash flow (CF) collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transactions,
three classes from two CF collateral debt obligations (CDO) backed
by commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) and one class from
one CF CDO Other.

The discontinuances follow the complete paydown of the notes as
reflected in the most recent trustee-issued note payment reports
for each transaction:

-- 1776 CLO I Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid down; other
rated tranches still outstanding.

-- Black Diamond CLO 2012-1 Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranches
paid down; other rated tranches still outstanding.

-- Carlyle Global Market Strategies CLO 2013-1 Ltd. (CF CLO): all
rated tranches paid down.

-- Eastland CLO Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranches paid down;
other rated tranches still outstanding.

-- ECP CLO 2012-3 Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption in August
2017.

-- Franklin CLO VI Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid down;
other rated tranches still outstanding.

-- Gramercy Real Estate CDO 2005-1 Ltd. (CF CDO of CMBS):
senior-most tranches paid down; other rated tranches still
outstanding.

-- Gramercy Real Estate CDO 2006-1 Ltd. (CF CDO of CMBS): all
rated tranches paid down.

-- Greenbriar CLO Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid down;
other rated tranches still outstanding.

-- Hempstead CLO L.P. (CF CLO): optional redemption in July 2017.

-- Primus CLO II Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption in July 2017.

-- Race Point VII CLO Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption in August
2017.

-- Repackaged Asset-Backed Securities Ltd. (CF CDO Other):
senior-most tranche paid down; other rated tranche still
outstanding.

-- Sound Point CLO I Ltd. (CF CLO): optional redemption in July
2017.

-- Symphony CLO XI L.P. (CF CLO): optional redemption in June
2017.

  RATINGS DISCONTINUED

  1776 CLO I Ltd.
                              Rating
  Class               To                  From
  C                   NR                  AA+ (sf)

  Black Diamond CLO 2012-1 Ltd.
                            Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)
  A-2                 NR                  AA+ (sf)

  Carlyle Global Market Strategies CLO 2013-1 Ltd.
                            Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)
  A-2A                NR                  AA+ (sf)
  A-2B                NR                  AA+ (sf)
  B                   NR                  A+ (sf)
  C                   NR                  BBB+ (sf)
  D                   NR                  BB (sf)

  Eastland CLO Ltd.
                            Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)
  A-2b                NR                  AAA (sf)

  ECP CLO 2012-3 Ltd.
                            Rating
  Class               To                  From
  B                   NR                  AA+ (sf)
  C                   NR                  A+ (sf)
  D                   NR                  BB+ (sf)

  Franklin CLO VI Ltd.
                            Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A                   NR                  AAA (sf)

  Gramercy Real Estate CDO 2005-1 Ltd.
                            Rating
  Class               To                  From
  E                   NR                  CCC- (sf)

  Gramercy Real Estate CDO 2006-1 Ltd.
                            Rating
  Class               To                  From
  E                   NR                  CCC- (sf)
  F                   NR                  CCC- (sf)

  Greenbriar CLO Ltd.
                            Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A                   NR                  AAA (sf)

  Hempstead CLO L.P.
                            Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)
  A-2                 NR                  AA (sf)

  Primus CLO II Ltd.
                            Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A                   NR                  AAA (sf)
  B                   NR                  AAA (sf)
  C                   NR                  AA- (sf)
  D                   NR                  BBB+ (sf)
  E                   NR                  B+ (sf)

  Race Point VII CLO Ltd.
                            Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A-R                 NR                  AAA (sf)
  B-R                 NR                  AA (sf)
  C-R                 NR                  A (sf)
  D                   NR                  BBB (sf)
  E                   NR                  BB- (sf)

  Repackaged Asset-Backed Securities Ltd.
                            Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A (2014-3)          NR                  AAA (sf)

Sound Point CLO I Ltd.
                            Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A                   NR                  AAA (sf)
  B                   NR                  AAA (sf)
  C                   NR                  AA+ (sf)
  D                   NR                  A+ (sf)
  E                   NR                  BB+ (sf)

  Symphony CLO XI L.P.
                            Rating
  Class               To                  From
  A                   NR                  AAA (sf)
  B-1                 NR                  AA+ (sf)
  B-2                 NR                  AA+ (sf)
  C                   NR                  A+ (sf)
  D                   NR                  BBB+ (sf)
  E                   NR                  BB (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


[*] S&P Lowers Ratings on 47 Classes From 25 RMBS Deals to 'D(sf)'
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its ratings on 47 classes of mortgage
pass-through certificates from 26 U.S. residential mortgage-backed
securities transactions issued between 2002 and 2009 to 'D (sf)'.

The transactions in this review are backed by a mix of fixed- and
adjustable-rate mixed collateral mortgage loans, which are secured
primarily by first liens on one- to four-family residential
properties. The downgrades reflect S&P's assessment of the
principal write-downs' impact on the affected classes during recent
remittance periods.

All of the classes were rated either 'CCC (sf)' or 'CC (sf)' before
today's rating actions.

Principal-Only Ratings

This review included three principal-only (PO) ratings. Of these
three PO classes, one is categorized as a PO strip class and two
are categorized as PO senior classes.

Class A-P from ChaseFlex Trust Series 2005-1 is a PO strip class.
PO strip classes receive principal primarily from discount loans
within the related transaction. When a discount loan takes a loss,
the PO strip class is allocated a loan-specific percentage of that
loss.

However, because these PO classes are senior classes in the
waterfall, they are reimbursed from cash flows that would otherwise
be paid to the most junior classes. Further, S&P does not expect
any future reimbursements from the transaction's cash flow because
the balances of the subordinate classes have been reduced to zero.
Therefore, the PO strip class within this review has incurred a
loss on its principal obligation without the likelihood of future
reimbursement. S&P is lowering the rating of the PO strip class
within this review to 'D (sf)'.

Classes A-8 and A-19 from GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-J1 are
senior PO classes. PO senior classes are not structured to receive
principal from discount loans and the rating should simply reflect
the credit risk of the class. S&P is lowering the ratings of the
two senior PO classes within this review to 'D (sf)'.

The 47 defaulted classes consist of the following:

-- 32 from prime jumbo transactions (68.09%);
-- Eight from Alternative-A transactions (17.02%);
-- Three from subprime transactions (6.38%);
-- One from a negative amortization transaction (2.13%);
-- One from a Federal Housing Administration/Veteran Affairs
transaction;
-- One from an outside the guidelines transaction; and One from a
resecuritized real estate mortgage investment conduit transaction.

All of the transactions in this review receive credit enhancement
from a combination of subordination, excess spread, and
overcollateralization, where applicable.

S&P said, "We will continue to monitor our ratings on securities
that experience principal write-downs, and we will take rating
actions as we consider appropriate according to our criteria."

A list of the Affected Ratings is available at:

          http://bit.ly/2vuUMoz


[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 153 Classes From 13 US RMBS Deals
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 153 classes from 13 U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions issued
between 2002 and 2005. All of these transactions are backed by
prime jumbo and Alternative-A (Alt-A) mortgage loan collateral. The
review yielded five upgrades, 35 downgrades, 102 affirmations, 10
withdrawals, and one discontinuance.

Analytical Considerations

S&P incorporates various considerations into its decisions to
raise, lower, or affirm ratings when reviewing the indicative
ratings suggested by its projected cash flows. These considerations
are based on transaction-specific performance or structural
characteristics (or both) and their potential effects on certain
classes. Some of these considerations include:

-- Collateral performance/delinquency trends;
-- Priority of principal payments;
-- Proportion of reperforming loans in the pool;
-- Erosion of credit support;
-- Expected short duration;
-- Interest-only criteria;
-- Principal-only criteria;
-- Tail risk; and
-- Available subordination and/or overcollateralization.

Rating Actions

S&P said, "We lowered our ratings on classes I-A-1, I-A-2, I-A-3,
I-A-4, I-A-6, II-A, and III-A from Washington Mutual MSC Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates' series 2003-MS5 based on tail risk. We
believe that pools with less than 100 loans remaining create an
increased risk of credit instability because a liquidation and
subsequent loss on one or a small number of loans at the tail end
of a transaction's life may have a disproportionate impact on a
tranche's remaining credit support. As of July 2017, this
transaction was backed by 37 mortgage loans, two of which made up
approximately 32% of the total pool. These loans were modified with
balance capitalization and have current balances of approximately
$246,000 and $111,000. They are expected to be paid off in the next
six months, which we believe is highly unlikely and will result in
a high amount of losses. Further, the hard dollar credit support
for these classes decreased significantly from $372,000 in July
2016 to $116,000 in July 2017.

A list of the Affected Ratings is available at:

          http://bit.ly/2vAQd85


[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 8 Classes From 3 US RMBS Deals
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of eight classes from three
U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions
issued in 2002 or 2004. All of these transactions are backed by
closed-end second-lien or home equity line of credit (HELOC)
collateral. The review yielded three upgrades, one affirmation, and
four withdrawals.

Analytical Considerations

S&P incorporates various considerations into its decisions to
raise, lower, or affirm ratings when reviewing the indicative
ratings suggested by our projected cash flows. These considerations
are based on transaction-specific performance or structural
characteristics (or both) and their potential effects on certain
classes. Some of these considerations include:

-- Collateral performance/delinquency trends;

-- Historical interest shortfalls;

-- Priority of principal payments; and

-- Available subordination and/or overcollateralization.

Rating Actions

S&P said, "We withdrew our ratings on classes A-4, A-5, M-1, and
M-2 from CWABS Inc. 2002-S1 because the related pool has a small
number of loans remaining. Once a pool has declined to a de minimis
amount, we believe there is a high degree of credit instability
that is incompatible with any rating level."

A list of the Affected Ratings is available at:

          http://bit.ly/2waR2Wf


                            *********

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 ***