---

         T R O U B L E D   C O M P A N Y   R E P O R T E R

              Sunday, January 28, 2018, Vol. 22, No. 27

                            Headlines

AASET TRUST 2018-1: Fitch to Rate Class C Notes 'BBsf'
ACCESS TO LOANS 1998: Fitch Lowers Ratings on 9 Tranches to CCCsf
AIMCO CLO 2015-A: Moody's Assigns B3(sf) Rating to Class F-R Notes
ALESCO PREFERRED VIII: Moody's Hikes Ratings on 2 Tranches to Ba3
ALLEGRO CLO III: S&P Affirms B(sf) Rating on Class F Notes

ALLEGRO CLO VI: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class E Notes
ALM LTD XIV: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- Rating on Class D-R2 Notes
ANCHORAGE CAPITAL 5-R: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E Notes
APIDOS CLO XVII: Moody's Lowers Class E Notes Rating to Caa1(sf)
ARCAP 2003-1: Fitch Affirms C Ratings on 6 Tranches

ARES LTD XLVI: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class E Notes
AVID AUTOMOBILE 2018-1: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- Rating on C Notes
BANK 2018-BNK10: Fitch to Rate Class E Certificates 'BB-sf'
BEAR STEARNS 2003-TOP12: Moody's Affirms Caa1 Rating on X-1 Certs
BEAR STEARNS 2005-TOP18: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Class G Debt

BEAR STEARNS 2006-TOP22: Moody's Hikes Class F Debt Rating to Ba1
BEAR STEARNS 2007-PWR15: Moody's Affirms C Ratings on 4 Tranches
BENCHMARK 2018-B1: Fitch to Rate Class F-RR Certs 'B-sf'
BLADE ENGINE: Fitch Lowers Ratings on 2 Tranches to Bsf
BLUEMOUNTAIN FUJI III: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Class E Notes

BOMBARDIER CAPITAL 1999-A: S&P Cuts Cl. A-3 Notes Rating to D(sf)
BX TRUST 2017-CQHP: DBRS Finalizes B(high) on Class F Certs
CALIFORNIA COUNTY TSA: S&P Affirms CCC Rating on 2006A/B Bonds
CANYON CAPITAL 2014-1: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating to E-R Notes
CBA COMMERCIAL 2004-1: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Ratings on 3 Tranches

CBA COMMERCIAL 2004-1: Moody's Hikes Class M-1 Debt Rating to B2
CBA COMMERCIAL 2005-1: Moody's Affirms C(sf) Ratings on 2 Tranches
CD 2017-CD6: DBRS Finalzies BB(low) Rating on Class G-RR Certs
CFCRE COMMERCIAL 2011-C1: Fitch Affirms Dsf Rating on Cl. E Certs
CFCRE COMMERCIAL 2011-C1: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Cl. D Certs

CGGS COMMERCIAL 2016-RND: Fitch Affirms BB- Rating on E-FX Certs
CIFC FUNDING 2014: S&P Assigns B-(sf) Rating on Class F-R2 Notes
COLT 2018-1: Fitch Assigns 'Bsf' Rating on Class B-2 Debt
COMM 2004-LNB4: Moody's Hikes Class B Debt Rating to Ba3
CPS AUTO 2015-A: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class E Notes

CPS AUTO 2018-A: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Class E Notes
CVP CLO 2017-2: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E Notes
DEEPHAVEN RESIDENTIAL 2018-1: S&P Gives (P)B Rating on B-2 Notes
EXETER AUTOMOBILE 2018-1: S&P Gives Prelim BB Rating on Cl. E Notes
FREMF 2017-K61: Fitch Affirms BB+sf Rating on Class C Certs

GALTON FUNDING 2018-1: Fitch to Rate Class B5 Certificates 'Bsf'
GE COMMERCIAL 2003-C1: Moody's Affirms C Ratings on 2 Tranches
GE COMMERCIAL 2005-C3: S&P Lowers Class J Certs Rating to 'D(sf)'
GE COMMERCIAL 2007-C1: DBRS Cuts Ratings on 2 Tranches to BB(low)
GERMAN AMERICAN 2012-LC4: Fitch Affirms B Rating on Cl. F Certs

GFCM LLC 2003-1: Moody's Hikes Class F Debt Rating to Ba1
GLS AUTO 2018-1: S&P Assigns Prelim BB(sf) Raing on Class C Notes
GOLDENTREE LOAN VII: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class F Notes
GRAMERCY REAL 2005-1: Moody's Hikes Ba3 Rating to Class G Debt
GRAMERCY REAL 2006-1: Moody's Hikes Class H Debt Rating to Caa3

GREAT LAKES 2015-1: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Class F-R Notes
GREENWICH CAPITAL 2004-GG1: Fitch Hikes Cl. H Debt Rating to CCsf
GREYWOLF CLO V: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class D-R Notes
GREYWOLF CLO V: S&P Assigns Prelim BB-(sf) Rating on Cl. D-R Notes
GS MORTGAGE 2014-GC26: DBRS Confirms Bsf Rating on 2 Tranches

H/2 ASSET 2014-1: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Class C Notes
HERTZ VEHICLE II: Fitch Assigns 'BBsf' Rating to Class D Notes
HIGHBRIDGE LOAN 4-2014: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- Rating on E-R Notes
IMPAC: Moody's Takes Action on $17MM Alt-A RMBS Issued in 2004
JP MORGAN 2004-CIBC10: S&P Hikes Class E Notes Rating to B+

JP MORGAN 2004-LN2: Moody's Lowers Class C Certs Rating to C
JP MORGAN 2006-CIBC14: Moody's Hikes Class A-J Debt Rating to B1
JP MORGAN 2006-CIBC15: Fitch Affirms CCC Rating on Class A-M Debt
JP MORGAN 2011-C3: Fitch Affirms 'B-sf' Rating on Class J Certs
JP MORGAN 2016-3: Moody's Hikes Rating on Class B-4 Debt From Ba2

JP MORGAN 2018-1: Moody's Assigns (P)B2 Rating to Class B-5 Debt
JP MORGAN 2018-BCON: S&P Assigns Prelim. B on Class F Certs
LCM 26: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on $555MM Class E Notes
MADISON PARK XXVII: S&P Assigns Prelim BB-(sf) Rating on D Notes
ML-CFC COMMERCIAL 2006-1: Fitch Affirms Dsf Rating on Cl. C Certs

ML-CFC COMMERCIAL 2007-6: Fitch Lowers Cl. AM Certs Rating to Bsf
MORGAN STANLEY 1999-RM1: Moody's Lowers Rating on N Certs to B2
MORGAN STANLEY 2007-IQ13: Fitch Hikes Class A-J Certs Rating to Bsf
MORGAN STANLEY 2007-TOP25: Moody's Lowers Cl. C Certs Rating to C
N-STAR REAL IX: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class A-1 Debt

NATIXIS 2018-285M: S&P Assigns Prelim B-(sf) Rating on Cl. F Certs
NELNET STUDENT 2008-3: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Cl. A-4 Debt
NEUBERGER BERMAN 27: S&P Assigns Prelim BB-(sf) Rating on E Notes
NEW RESIDENTIAL 2015-1: Moody's Hikes Cl. B-5 Notes Rating to Ba3
NEW RESIDENTIAL 2018-1: S&P Gives Prelim B(sf) Rating on B-5 Notes

OCTAGON INVESTMENT 35: S&P Gives Prelim. BB- Rating on D Notes
OCTAGON INVESTMENT XXII: S&P Assigns B-(sf) Rating on F-RR Notes
PALMER SQUARE 2014-1: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Cl. D-R2 Notes
RAIT TRUST 2016-FL6: DBRS Confirms B Rating on Class F Notes
RAIT TRUST 2017-FL8: DBRS Finalizes B(sf) Rating on Class F Debt

REALT 2015-1: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class G Certificates
RFC CDO 2006-1: Fitch Affirms 'CCsf' Rating on Class B Debt
SDART 2018-1: Fitch Assigns 'BBsf' Rating to Class E Notes
SHACKLETON CLO 2013-III: S&P Assigns B- Rating on Class F-R Notes
SOUND POINT II: S&P Assigns Prelim B-(sf) Rating on Cl. B3-R Notes

SOUND POINT V: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class F Notes
SOUND POINT XVIII: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Cl. D Notes
STACR 2018-DNA1: Fitch to Rate 12 Note Classes 'Bsf'
STEWART PARK: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class E-R Notes
TELOS CLO 2013-4: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Class E-R Notes

THARALDSON HOTEL 2018-THPT: S&P Gives Prelim B- Rating on F Notes
THL CREDIT 2014-2: Moody's Assigns B3(sf) Rating to Cl. F-R Notes
TOWD POINT 2017-6: DBRS Finalizes B(high) Rating on Cl. B2 Notes
UBS-BARCLAYS COMMERCIAL 2013-C6: Fitch Affirms B Rating on F Certs
UNITED AUTO 2018-1: S&P Assigns Prelim B(sf) Rating on F Notes

VERUS SECURITIZATION 2018-1: S&P Gives B+(sf) Rating on B-3 Certs
VIBRANT CLO VIII: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3 Rating to Cl. D Notes
WACHOVIA BANK 2004-C12: Fitch Affirms BB Rating on 2 Tranches
WACHOVIA BANK 2007-C30: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class B Certs
WAMU COMMERCIAL 2006-SL1: Fitch Hikes Cl. D Certs Rating to BBsf

WELLFLEET CLO 2017-3: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class D Notes
WELLS FARGO 2011-C4: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class G Certs
WELLS FARGO 2018-BXI: Fitch to Rate Class HRR Certs 'B-sf'
WESTLAKE AUTOMOBILE 2018-1: S&P Assigns B Rating on Class F Notes
WFRBS COMMERCIAL 2011-C3: Moody's Lowers Class E Debt Rating to B1

Z CAPITAL 2015-1: S&P Affirms B(sf) Rating on Class F Notes
[*] Moody's Hikes Ratings on $116MM of Alt-A Debt Issued 2004-2005
[*] Moody's Puts Ratings on 16 Bonds From 4 RMBS Deals on Review
[*] Moody's Takes Action on $195MM of RMBS Issued 2005-2007
[*] Moody's Takes Action on $309.5MM of Securities

[*] Moody's Takes Rating Actions on 15 NCSLT Securitizations
[*] S&P Cuts Ratings to D(sf) on 116 Classes From 71 US RMBS Deals
[*] S&P Lowers Ratings on Eight Classes From Three U.S. CMBS Deals
[*] S&P Lowers Ratings on Seven Classes From Two U.S. RMBS Deals
[*] S&P Puts Ratings on 29 Classes From 8 CLO Deals on Watch Pos.

[*] S&P Takes Various Action on 38 Classes From 10 U.S. RMBS Deals
[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 51 Classes From 12 US RMBS Deals
[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 55 Classes From 13 US RMBS Deals
[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 66 Classes From 12 US RMBS Deals

                            *********

AASET TRUST 2018-1: Fitch to Rate Class C Notes 'BBsf'
------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings expects to assign the following ratings and Outlooks
to the AASET 2018-1 Trust (AASET 2018-1) notes:

-- $351,689,000 class A asset-backed notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;

-- $58,615,000 class B asset-backed notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;

-- $31,972,000 class C asset-backed notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

The notes issued from AASET 2018-1 will be backed by lease payments
and disposition proceeds on a pool of 24 mid- to end-of-life
aircraft. Apollo Aviation Management Limited (AAML), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Apollo Aviation Holdings Limited (Apollo), will be
the servicer. Note proceeds will finance the purchase of the
aircraft from certain funds (SASOF funds) managed by affiliates of
Apollo. AASET 2018-1 is the second AASET transaction rated by Fitch
and will be the fifth aircraft ABS transaction to be sponsored and
serviced by Apollo since 2014. Fitch does not rate Apollo or AAML.

SASOF III, the primary seller of the assets to AASET 2017-1, will
retain a position as a beneficial holder of an E certificate,
consistent with similar investments made by funds managed by
affiliates of Apollo in prior AASET transactions. Therefore, Apollo
will have a vested interest in performance of the transaction
outside of merely collecting servicing fees due to the
European-style waterfall in SASOF III. Fitch views this positively
since Apollo has a significant interest in generating positive cash
flows through management of the assets over the life of the
transaction.

The aircraft in the pool will be transferred from SASOF III to the
aircraft owning entity (AOE) issuers during a delivery period
ending 270 days after closing of the transaction. However, there
are certain aircraft in the pool that are currently not owned by
SASOF III or its affiliates and may be acquired by the AOE issuers
from the third-party sellers after close. If aircraft in the pool
(or replacement aircraft) are not transferred to the AOE issuers
within 270 days of closing, the applicable amount attributable to
each aircraft not transferred will be used to prepay the notes
without premium, consistent with prior ASSET and other aircraft ABS
transactions.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. will act as trustee and operating bank and
Phoenix American Financial Services, Inc. will act as managing
agent.

KEY RATING DRIVERS
Stable Asset Quality: Despite the weighted average (WA) age of 14.1
years, the pool largely comprises high-quality A320 and B737 family
current-generation aircraft. However, the pool features an increase
in less marketable widebody aircraft relative to AASET 2017-1. The
WA remaining lease term is 4.1 years, and 51.9% of the pool is on
lease till at least 2022, a positive for future cash flow
generation.

Weak Lessee Credit: Most of the 16 lessees in the pool are either
unrated or speculative-grade credits, typical of aircraft ABS
transactions. Fitch assumed unrated lessees would perform
consistent with either a 'B' or 'CCC' Issuer Default Rating (IDR)
to accurately reflect the default risk in the pool. Lessee ratings
were further stressed during future recessions and once aircraft
reach Tier 3 classification.

Technological Risk Exists: The A320 and B737 current-generation
aircraft both face replacement programs over the next decade from
the A320neo and B737 MAX. The A330 and B777 families also face
future replacement and competition from the A330neo, B777X and A350
variants. New variants will pressure current aircraft values and
lease rates, but the long lead time for replacement and healthy
operator bases will help mitigate replacement risk.

Consistent Transaction Structure: Credit enhancement (CE) comprises
overcollateralization (OC), a liquidity facility and a cash
reserve. The initial loan to value (LTV) ratios for the class A, B
and C notes are 66.6%, 77.7% and 83.7%, respectively, based on the
lower of the median or mean (LMM) of the maintenance-adjusted base
value. These levels are consistent with AASET 2017-1.

Capable Servicing History and Experience: Fitch believes AAML has
the ability to collect lease payments, remarket and repossess
aircraft in an event of lessee default, and procure maintenance to
retain values and ensure stable performance. Fitch considers AAML
to be a capable servicer, evidenced by prior securitization
performance and its servicing experience of aviation assets and
Apollo's managed aviation funds.

Adequate Structural Protections: Each class of notes makes full
payment of interest and principal in the primary scenarios
commensurate with their recommended ratings after applying Fitch's
stressed asset and liability assumptions. Fitch also created
multiple alternative cash flows to evaluate the structure
sensitivity to different scenarios, detailed later in the report.

High Industry Cyclicality: Commercial aviation has been subject to
significant cyclicality due to macroeconomic and geopolitical
events. Downturns are typically marked by reduced aircraft
utilization rates, values and lease rates, as well as deteriorating
lessee credit quality. Fitch's analysis assumes multiple periods of
significant volatility over the life of the transaction.

RATING SENSITIVITIES
Due to the correlation between global economic conditions and the
airline industry, the ratings may be impacted by global
macro-economic or geopolitical factors over the remaining term of
the transaction. Therefore, Fitch evaluated various sensitivity
scenarios which could affect future cash flows from the pool and
recommended ratings for the notes.

Fitch performed a sensitivity analysis assuming a 25% decrease to
Fitch's lease rate factor curve to observe the impact of depressed
lease rates on the pool. This scenario highlights the effect of
increased competition in the aircraft leasing market, particularly
for mid to end-of-life aircraft over the past few years, and
stresses the pool to a higher degree by assuming lease rates well
below observed market rates. Under this scenario, the notes could
be subject to ratings downgrades of two to four notches.

Fitch evaluated a scenario in which all unrated airlines are
assumed to carry a 'CCC' rating. This scenario mimics a prolonged
recessionary environment in which airlines are susceptible to an
increased likelihood of default. This would, in turn, subject the
aircraft pool to more downtime and expenses as repossession and
remarketing events would increase. Under this scenario, the notes
show little sensitivity despite the increase in expenses due to
increased defaults and are still able to pay in full for each
respective rating scenario. Therefore, this scenario is unlikely to
result in any negative rating actions.

Fitch created a scenario in which the A330-200s in the pool
encounter a considerable amount of stress to their residual values.
Fitch removed outlier appraisal values for each A330-200 in the
pool and took the average of the lower two appraisals to determine
maintenance-adjusted base values for modeling. All the A330-200s
were assumed to be Tier 3 aircraft to stress recessionary value
declines, and Fitch placed a higher 25% haircut to residual
proceeds. Under this scenario the A330-200s are only granted
part-out value at the end of their useful lives, and the notes show
slight sensitivity that would likely result in downgrades of one to
two notches.


ACCESS TO LOANS 1998: Fitch Lowers Ratings on 9 Tranches to CCCsf
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded the following outstanding notes backed
by student loans originated under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP):

Access to Loans for Learning Student Loan Corp - 1998 Master Trust
IV

-- Series 2003-1 class A-8 to 'CCCsf' from 'B-sf'; RE 50%;
-- Series 2003-1 class A-10 to 'CCCsf' from 'B-sf'; RE 50%;
-- Series 2003-2 class A-11 to 'CCCsf' from 'B-sf'; RE 50%;
-- Series 2007 class A-14 to 'CCCsf' from 'B-sf'; RE 50%;
-- Series 2007 class A-15 to 'CCCsf' from 'B-sf'; RE 50%
-- Series 2007 class A-16 to 'CCCsf' from 'B-sf'; RE 50%;
-- Series 2007 class A-17 to 'CCCsf' from 'B-sf'; RE 50%;
-- Series 2007 class A-18 to 'CCCsf' from 'B-sf'; RE 50%;
-- Series 1998 class C-1 to 'CCCsf' from 'B-sf'; RE 50%.

Since the trust is under-collateralized and the notes are auction
rate notes paying interest at the maximum auction rate, reported
total trust parity has declined to 98.8% from its prior-year level
of 99.8%. The notes fail all Credit and Maturity stress scenarios,
leading to an implied rating of 'CCCsf' for all notes. Cash flow
modelling indicates a principal shortfall equal to about 50% of the
current total outstanding note balance in a base case, rising
interest rate scenario. In a flat interest rate scenario, about
20%-30% of the notes remain unpaid. Because there is no set order
under which the notes receive principal prior to maturity, this
makes default a possibility on any of the notes. Despite the long
horizon until maturity, Fitch believes the trust is unlikely to
recover from its current under-collateralization, and considers the
default of the notes to be possible.

The Recovery Estimate (RE) is 50% for all outstanding notes. Fitch
calculates REs for distressed structured finance securities of
'CCCsf' or lower.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

U.S. Sovereign Risk: The trust collateral comprises Federal Family
Education Loan Program (FFELP) loans, with guaranties provided by
eligible guarantors and reinsurance provided by the U.S. Department
of Education (ED) for at least 97% of principal and accrued
interest. The U.S. sovereign rating is currently 'AAA'/RE 50%.

Collateral Performance: Fitch assumes a base case default rate of
23.5% and a 70.5% default rate under the 'AAA' credit stress
scenario. The base case default assumption implies a constant
default rate of 3.2% (assuming a weighted average life of 7.3
years) consistent with a sustainable constant default rate utilized
in the maturity stresses. Fitch applies the standard default timing
curve in its credit stress cash flow analysis. The claim reject
rate is assumed to be 0.5% in the base case and 3% in the 'AAA'
case. The trailing 12 month (TTM) levels of deferment, forbearance,
and income-based repayment (prior to adjustment) are 5.1%, 10.8%,
and 17.0%, respectively, and are used as the starting point in cash
flow modelling. Fitch assumed a sustainable constant prepayment
rate (voluntary and involuntary) of 9%, slightly lower than the TTM
average of 9.4%. Subsequent declines or increases are modelled as
per criteria. The borrower benefit is assumed to be approximately
0.23%, based on information provided by the sponsor.

Basis and Interest Rate Risk: Basis risk for these transactions
arises from any rate and reset frequency mismatch between interest
rate indices for SAP and the securities. As of September 2017,
13.3% of the trust student loans are indexed to three-month
T-Bills, and the remainder is indexed to one-month LIBOR. The
senior and subordinate notes are indexed to one-month LIBOR or
SIFMA. Fitch applies its standard basis and interest rate stresses
to this transaction as per criteria.

Payment Structure: Credit enhancement (CE) is provided by excess
spread and subordination of the subordinate and junior-subordinate
notes. As of September 2017, Fitch effective senior, subordinate
and total parity ratios (which include principal, accrued interest
to be capitalized, the reserve, and cash accounts) are 106.71%
(6.3% CE), 100.31% (0.3% CE), and 97.8% (-2.3% CE) respectively.
Liquidity support is provided by a reserve account that is sized at
its floor of $1,000,000. Beginning with the next distribution date
(January 2018), transaction will not release cash until the notes
are paid in full.

Maturity Risk: Fitch's student loan ABS cash flow model indicates
that the notes are not paid in full on or prior to the legal final
maturity dates under any of Fitch's modeling scenarios.

Operational Capabilities: Day-to-day servicing is provided by
Navient and Great Lakes. Fitch believes both to be acceptable
servicers, due to their extensive track records of servicing FFELP
loans.


AIMCO CLO 2015-A: Moody's Assigns B3(sf) Rating to Class F-R Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to six classes of
CLO refinancing notes (the "Refinancing Notes") issued by AIMCO
CLO, Series 2015-A:

Moody's rating action is:

US$325,000,000 Class A-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2028 (the "Class A-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$60,000,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2028
(the "Class B-R Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

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

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

US$25,000,000 Class E-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2028 (the "Class E-R Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

US$6,500,000 Class F-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2028 (the "Class F-R Notes"), Assigned B3 (sf)

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

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The Issuer has issued the Refinancing Notes on January 16, 2018
(the "Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of all
classes of the secured notes (the "Refinanced Original Notes")
previously issued on December 4, 2015 (the "Original Closing
Date"). On the Refinancing Date, the Issuer used proceeds from the
issuance of the Refinancing Notes to redeem in full the Refinanced
Original Notes.

In addition to the issuance of the Refinancing Notes, a variety of
other changes to transaction features will occur in connection with
the refinancing. These include: extension of the non-call period;
changes to certain collateral quality tests; changes to the
overcollateralization test levels; changes to the interest
diversion test level; changes to the collateral quality matrix and
modifiers, 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 August 2017.

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

Performing par and principal proceeds balance: $500,000,000

Defaulted par: $0

Diversity Score: 75

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2800

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 7 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

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

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 20% (3360)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-R Notes: 0

Class B-R Notes: -2

Class C-R Notes: -3

Class D-R Notes: -1

Class E-R Notes: -1

Class F-R Notes: -5

Percentage Change in WARF -- decrease of 20% (2240)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-R Notes: 0

Class B-R Notes: +2

Class C-R Notes: +3

Class D-R Notes: +3

Class E-R Notes: +1

Class F-R Notes: +1


ALESCO PREFERRED VIII: Moody's Hikes Ratings on 2 Tranches to Ba3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the following
notes issued by Alesco Preferred Funding VIII, Ltd.:

US$110,000,000 Class A-1A First Priority Senior Secured Floating
Rate Notes due December 23, 2035 (current balance of $51,713,794),
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on December 29, 2015 Upgraded to
Aa3 (sf)

US$255,000,000 Class A-1B First Priority Delayed Draw Senior
Secured Floating Rate Notes due December 23, 2035 (current balance
of $119,881,978), Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on December 29,
2015 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

US$70,000,000 Class A-2 Second Priority Senior Secured Floating
Rate Notes due December 23, 2035, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously
on December 29, 2015 Upgraded to A3 (sf)

US$50,000,000 Class B-1 Deferrable Third Priority Secured Floating
Rate Notes due December 23, 2035 (current balance including
interest shortfall of $52,434,057), Upgraded to Ba3 (sf);
previously on December 29, 2015 Upgraded to B1 (sf)

US$5,000,000 Class B-2 Deferrable Third Priority Secured
Fixed/Floating Rate Notes due December 23, 2035 (current balance
including interest shortfall of $6,189,707), Upgraded to Ba3 (sf);
previously on December 29, 2015 Upgraded to B1 (sf)

US$78,500,000 Class C-1 Deferrable Fouth Priority Mezzanine Secured
Floating Rate Notes due December 23, 2035 (current balance
including interest shortfall of $84,174,016), Upgraded to Ca (sf);
previously on June 24, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf)

US$7,500,000 Class C-2 Deferrable Fouth Priority Mezzanine Secured
Fixed/Floating Rate Notes due December 23, 2035 (current balance
including interest shortfall of $8,367,024), Upgraded to Ca (sf);
previously on June 24, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf)

US$12,000,000 Class C-3 Deferrable Fouth Priority Mezzanine Secured
Fixed/Floating Rate Notes due December 23, 2035 (current balance
including interest shortfall of $15,181,085), Upgraded to Ca (sf);
previously on June 24, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf)

Alesco Preferred Funding VIII, Ltd., issued in August 2005, 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-1A and Class A-1B notes and an increase in the
transaction's over-collateralization ratios (OC) since January
2017.

The Class A-1A and Class A-1B notes have paid down by approximately
16.2% or $33.1 million since January 2017, using principal proceeds
from the redemption of the underlying assets and the diversion of
excess interest proceeds. Based on Moody's calculations, the OC
ratios for the Class A-1, Class A-2, Class B and Class C notes have
improved to 219.9%, 156.2%, 125.7% and 96.1%, respectively, from
January 2017 levels of 200.5%, 149.6%, 123.4% and 93.3%,
respectively. Moody's gave full par credit in its analysis to one
deferring asset with $10 million in par that meets certain
criteria. The Class A-1A and Class A-1B notes will continue to
benefit from the diversion of excess interest and the use of
proceeds from redemptions of any assets in the collateral pool.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: A number of
banks have resumed making interest payments on their TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant positive
impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios and the
ratings on the notes.

5) Exposure to non-publicly rated assets: The deal contains a large
number of securities whose default probability Moody's assesses
through credit scores derived using RiskCalc™ 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 672)

Class A-1A: 0

Class A-1B: 0

Class A-2: +1

Class B-1: +2

Class B-2: +2

Class C-1: +1

Class C-2: +1

Class C-3: +1

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 1556)

Class A-1A: -1

Class A-1B: -1

Class A-2: -2

Class B-1: -2

Class B-2: -2

Class C-1: -1

Class C-2: -1

Class C-3: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

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

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery rate,
are based on its methodology and could differ from the trustee's
reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the underlying
collateral pool has having a performing par (after treating
deferring securities as performing if they meet certain criteria)
of $377.4 million, defaulted/deferring par of $78.1 million, a
weighted average default probability of 11.42% (implying a WARF of
1083), and a weighted average recovery rate upon default of 10%.

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

The portfolio of this CDO contains mainly TruPS issued by small to
medium sized U.S. community banks 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.



ALLEGRO CLO III: S&P Affirms B(sf) Rating on Class F Notes
----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-R, B-1-R,
B-2-R, C-R, and D-R replacement notes from Allegro CLO III Ltd., a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) originally issued in 2015 that
is managed by AXA Investment Managers. S&P said, "We withdrew our
ratings on the original class A, B-1, B-2, C, and D notes following
payment in full on the Jan. 19, 2018, refinancing date.
At the same time, we affirmed our ratings on the class E and F
notes which were not included in the refinancing.

On the Jan. 19, 2018, refinancing date, the proceeds from the class
A-R, B-1-R, B-2-R, C-R, and D-R replacement note issuances were
used to redeem the original class A, B-1, B-2, C, and D notes as
outlined in the transaction document provisions. Therefore, S&P
withdrew its ratings on the original notes in line with their full
redemption, and it is assigning ratings to the replacement notes.

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

"In addition, our analysis considered the transaction's ability to
pay timely interest or ultimate principal, or both, to each of the
rated tranches.

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

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

  RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Allegro CLO III Ltd.
  Replacement class          Rating        Amount (mil $)
  A-R                        AAA (sf)               244.0
  B-1-R                      AA (sf)                 45.0
  B-2-R                      AA (sf)                 10.0
  C-R                        A (sf)                  28.0
  D-R                        BBB- (sf)               23.0

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  Allegro CLO III Ltd.
  Class          Rating        
  E              BB- (sf)
  F              B (sf)

  RATINGS WITHDRAWN

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

  NR--Not rated.


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

Moody's rating action is:

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

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

US$27,500,000 Class C Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2031 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$32,500,000 Class D Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2031 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$20,000,000 Class E Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2031 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Allegro CLO VI is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated senior secured
corporate loans. At least 90.0% of the portfolio must consist of
first lien senior secured loans, cash, and eligible investments,
and up to 10.0% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans
and unsecured loans. The portfolio is approximately 75% ramped as
of the closing date.

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

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

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

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

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

Par amount: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2922

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.50%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 49.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9.00 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

Factors That Would Lead to an Upgrade or 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 2922 to 3360)

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 2922 to 3799)

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


ALM LTD XIV: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- Rating on Class D-R2 Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to ALM XIV
Ltd./ALM XIV LLC's $1.364 billion floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
transaction backed primarily by broadly syndicated
speculative-grade senior secured term loans governed by collateral
quality tests. The transaction is the second refinancing of ALM XIV
Ltd. issued in July 2014, which S&P Global Ratings did not
initially rate. S&P said, "We expect that the management contract
will transfer from Apollo Credit Management (CLO) LLC to Redding
Ridge Asset Management LLC via assignment agreement. We also expect
that the name of the transaction will change to RR 3 Ltd./RR 3 LLC
on or before the closing date.

"The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 16,
2018. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings."

The preliminary ratings reflect:

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

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

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

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

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

  ALM XIV Ltd./ALM XIV LLC (Refinancing And Extension)
  Class                Rating          Amount
                                      (mil. $)
  A-1-R2               AAA (sf)        916.00
  A-2-R2               AA (sf)         155.00
  B-R2 (deferrable)    A (sf)          150.00
  C-R2 (deferrable)    BBB- (sf)        75.00
  D-R2 (deferrable)    BB- (sf)         68.00
  Preferred shares     NR              188.35

  NR--Not rated.


ANCHORAGE CAPITAL 5-R: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to Anchorage Capital CLO
5-R Ltd./Anchorage Capital CLO 5-R LLC's $499.60 million
floating-rate notes managed by Anchorage Capital Group LLC. This is
a refinancing of the Anchorage Capital CLO 5 Ltd. transaction that
closed in November 2014, which S&P did not rate.

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

The ratings reflect:

-- The diversified collateral pool;

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

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

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

  RATINGS ASSIGNED
  Anchorage Capital CLO 5-R Ltd./Anchorage Capital CLO 5-R LLC
  Class                            Rating         Amount (mil. $)
  X                                AAA (sf)                 1.200
  A                                AAA (sf)               288.200
  B                                AA (sf)                 64.500
  C                                A (sf)                  53.200
  D                                BBB- (sf)               33.600
  E                                BB- (sf)                20.300
  Subordinated notes               NR                      45.475

  NR--Not rated.


APIDOS CLO XVII: Moody's Lowers Class E Notes Rating to Caa1(sf)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the following
notes issued by Apidos CLO XVII:

US$67,500,000 Class A-2R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on December 1, 2016 Assigned
Aa2 (sf)

US$28,500,000 Class B-R Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on December 1, 2016
Assigned A2 (sf)

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

US$11,500,000 Class E Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on May 1, 2014 Assigned
B2 (sf)

In addition, Moody's also affirmed the ratings on the following
notes:

US$314,000,000 Class A-1R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on December 1, 2016 Assigned
Aaa (sf)

US$28,500,000 Class C Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on May 1, 2014 Assigned Baa3
(sf)

US$24,500,000 Class D Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2026, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on May 1, 2014 Assigned Ba3
(sf)

Apidos CLO XVII, issued in May 2014, is a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior secured
loans. The transaction's reinvestment period will end in April
2018.

RATINGS RATIONALE

The upgrade and affirmation actions reflect the benefit of the
limited period of time remaining before the end of the deal's
reinvestment period in April 2018, and the expectation that
deleveraging will commence shortly. On the other hand, the
downgrade action on the Class E notes reflects the specific risks
to the junior notes posed by par loss and credit deterioration
observed in the underlying CLO portfolio. Based on the trustee's
December 2017 report, the total collateral par balance is $493.4
million, or $6.6 million less than the $500 million initial par
amount targeted during the deal's ramp-up. Furthermore, the
trustee-reported weighted average spread (WAS) has been decreasing
and the current level of 3.24% is failing the covenant.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) Post-Reinvestment Period Trading: Subject to certain
requirements, the deal can reinvest certain proceeds after the end
of the reinvestment period, and as such the manager has the ability
to erode some of the collateral quality metrics to the covenant
levels. Such reinvestment could affect the transaction either
positively or negatively.

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

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

Moody's Adjusted WARF -- 20% (2163)

Class A-1R: 0

Class A-2R: +1

Class B-R: +3

Class C: +3

Class D: +1

Class E: +4

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3245)

Class A-1R: 0

Class A-2R: -1

Class B-R: -2

Class C: -1

Class D: -1

Class E: -2

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

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

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base case,
Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing par and
principal proceeds balance of $491.2 million, defaulted par of $5.6
million, a weighted average default probability of 20.29% (implying
a WARF of 2704), a weighted average recovery rate upon default of
48.97%, a diversity score of 76 and a weighted average spread of
3.28% (before accounting for LIBOR floors).

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


ARCAP 2003-1: Fitch Affirms C Ratings on 6 Tranches
---------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed six classes issued by ARCap 2003-1
Resecuritization, Inc. (ARCap 2003-1).

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations reflect the concentration and adverse selection of
the remaining bonds in the portfolio. The 'Csf' rating on the class
E through K notes indicates that default is considered inevitable.
These notes are reliant on underlying bonds in the portfolio that
have already experienced principal writedowns and carry distressed
ratings. Limited recoveries upon default are expected from these
underlying bonds. Further, the class F through K notes are
undercollateralized.

Portfolio Concentration and Adverse Selection: Only eight bonds
from four obligors remain. Currently, 69.9% of the portfolio has a
Fitch rating below investment grade, with 51.6% having a rating in
the 'CCC' category and below.

Since Fitch's last rating action in February 2017, 41.1% of the
underlying collateral has been upgraded by a weighted average of
1.6 notches and there has been no negative portfolio credit
migration. Over this period, the transaction has continued to
deleverage with $15.6 million in total paydown: the class D notes
have fully paid off and the class E notes have received $2.4
million in paydown.

ARCap 2003-1 is a static collateralized debt obligation (CDO) that
closed on Aug. 27, 2003. The current portfolio contains 100%
commercial mortgage-backed securities from the 1999 through 2003
vintages. As of the December 2017 distribution date, the portfolio
consists of the following underlying bonds:

-- BAFU 2001-3 M (7.3% of current portfolio; rated Bsf/Stable);
-- BAFU 2001-3 N (18.6%; Dsf);
-- CSFB 2003-C3 K (13.8%; Dsf);
-- FUNCM 1999-C2 L (6.1%; AAAsf/Stable);
-- FUNCM 1999-C2 M (19.1%; Dsf);
-- JPMCC 2002-CIB5 J (12.9%; AAAsf/Stable);
-- JPMCC 2002-CIB5 K (11.0%; Asf/Stable);
-- JPMCC 2002-CIB5 L (11.0%; BBsf/Stable).

This transaction was analyzed under the framework described in the
criteria reports, 'Global Structured Finance Rating Criteria' and
'Structured Finance CDOs Surveillance Rating Criteria'. Due to
portfolio concentration, the transaction was not analyzed within
the Portfolio Credit Model or cash flow model framework. The impact
of any structural features was also determined to be minimal in the
context of these outstanding distressed CDO ratings. A look-through
analysis of each of the remaining underlying bonds was performed to
determine the collateral coverage for the remaining CDO
liabilities.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Future upgrades are not expected due to portfolio concentration and
high percentage of underlying bonds with distressed ratings.
Classes are subject to further downgrades to 'Dsf' as the classes
are expected to default at legal maturity..

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $33.7 million class E notes at 'Csf';
-- $13 million class F notes at 'Csf';
-- $45 million class G notes at 'Csf';
-- $9 million class H notes at 'Csf';
-- $28 million class J notes at 'Csf';
-- $24 million class K notes at 'Csf'.

The class A, B, C and D notes have paid in full. Fitch does not
rate the class L or interest only class X notes.


ARES LTD XLVI: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to nine classes of
notes issued by Ares XLVI CLO Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

US$5,000,000 Class X Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2030 (the
"Class X Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$339,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2030 (the
"Class A-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$57,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2030 (the
"Class A-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$39,000,000 Class B-1 Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2030 (the
"Class B-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$12,000,000 Class B-2 Senior Fixed Rate Notes due 2030 (the
"Class B-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$10,263,158 Class C-1 Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2030 (the "Class C-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2
(sf)

US$28,736,842 Class C-2 Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2030 (the "Class C-2 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2
(sf)

US$38,500,000 Class D Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$30,500,000 Class E Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

The Class X Notes, the Class A-1 Notes, the Class A-2 Notes, the
Class B-1 Notes, the Class B-2 Notes, the Class C-1 Notes, the
Class C-2 Notes, the Class D Notes, 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 XLVI CLO is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 96.0% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans, and up to 4.0% of the portfolio
may consist of collateral obligations that are not senior secured
loans. The portfolio is approximately 65% ramped as of the closing
date.

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

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

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

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

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

Par amount: $600,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2944

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.30%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.5%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9 years.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

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

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2944 to 3386)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2 Notes: -1

Class B-1 Notes: -2

Class B-2 Notes: -2

Class C-1 Notes: -2

Class C-2 Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2944 to 3827)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2 Notes: -3

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


AVID AUTOMOBILE 2018-1: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- Rating on C Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Avid
Automobile Receivables Trust 2018-1's $114.04 million automobile
receivables-backed notes series 2018-1.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 24,
2018. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

-- The availability of approximately 34.7%, 26.8%, and 21.8% of
credit support for the class A, B, and C notes, respectively, based
on stressed cash flow scenarios (including excess spread). These
credit support levels provide coverage of approximately 2.3x, 1.8x,
and 1.4x S&P's 14.00%-15.00% expected cumulative net loss for the
class A, B, and C notes, respectively.

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

-- S&P said, "Our expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
scenario, all else being equal, the ratings on the class A and B
notes will not decline by more than two rating categories over a
one-year period (and over the life of the bonds). The class C notes
('BB- (sf)') will eventually default, having received 48% of their
principal. This is consistent with our rating stability criteria,
which indicates that we would not assign 'A (sf)' and 'BBB (sf)'
ratings if such ratings would fall by more than two categories in
one year or three categories over three years. Under our criteria,
the rated class C notes are allowed to default over a three-year
period."

-- The transaction's credit enhancement in the form of
subordinated notes; a nonamortizing reserve account;
overcollateralization that is 5.00% of initial receivables and is
expected to build to a target level of 9.00%; a cumulative net loss
trigger, which if violated causes the required
overcollateralization percentage to increase to 100%; and excess
spread.

-- S&P's view of the securitized pool of subprime auto loans,
which has a weighted average FICO score of 546 and weighted average
seasoning of approximately 13 months. The collateral pool includes
no loans with original maturity terms greater than 72 months.

-- S&P's view of the prefunding eligibility criteria and the
expected collateral composition of the final pool under these
criteria.

-- The loss performance of Avid Acceptance LLC's origination
static pools and managed portfolio; its deal-level collateral
characteristics and comparison with its subprime auto finance
company peers; and S&P's forward-looking view of the economy.

-- S&P's view of the transaction's payment and legal structures.

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED
  
  Avid Automobile Receivables Trust 2018-1  
  Class       Rating     Type        Interest      Amount
                                      rate(i)     (mil. $)
  A           A (sf)     Senior          Fixed     91.65
  B           BBB (sf)   Subordinate     Fixed     12.42
  C           BB- (sf)   Subordinate     Fixed      9.96

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


BANK 2018-BNK10: Fitch to Rate Class E Certificates 'BB-sf'
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has issued a presale report on BANK 2018-BNK10
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2018-BNK10
and expects to rate the transaction and assign Rating Outlooks as
follows:

-- $31,307,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $3,822,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $4,623,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $53,452,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $160,000,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $602,750,000 class A-5 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $855,954,000b class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $215,517,000b class X-B 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $103,937,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $55,025,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $56,555,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $62,668,000ab class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $27,512,000ab class X-E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $62,668,000a class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $27,512,000a class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable.

The following classes are not expected to be rated:

-- $19,871,000ab class X-F;
-- $19,871,000a class F;
-- $41,269,474ab class X-G;
-- $41,269,474a class G;
-- $64,357,446ac RR Interest.

(a) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144A.
(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 ratings are based on information provided by the issuer as of
Jan. 23, 2017.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 68 loans secured by 181
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
$1,287,148,920 as of the cut-off date. The loans were contributed
to the trust by Bank of America, National Association, Morgan
Stanley Mortgage Capital Holding LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association and National Cooperative Bank, National Association.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 67.7% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis of 87.7%, and asset summary reviews
on 100.0% of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Higher Fitch Leverage than Recent Transactions: The pool's leverage
is higher than recent comparable Fitch-rated multiborrower
transactions. The pool's Fitch LTV of 106.5% is higher than 2017
and 2016 averages of 101.6% and 105.2%, respectively. The pool's
Fitch DSCR of 1.37x is higher than the 2017 and 2016 averages of
1.26x and 1.16x, respectively. Excluding investment-grade credit
opinion and multifamily cooperative loans, the pool has a Fitch
DSCR and LTV of 1.16x and 114.9%, respectively.

Investment-Grade Credit Opinion Loan: There are two investment
grade credit opinion loans representing 10.5% of the transaction.
Apple Campus 3 (7.3% of the pool), has a credit opinion of
'BBB-sf*' on a stand-alone basis. Moffett Towers II - Building 2
(3.2% of the pool), has a credit opinion of 'BBB-sf*' on a
stand-alone basis.

Limited Amortization: There are 24 loans (53.6% of the pool) that
are full-term interest-only and 12 loans (21.0%) that are partial
interest-only. Based on the scheduled balance at maturity, the pool
will pay down by 7.4%, which is below both the 2017 average of 7.9%
and the 2016 average of 10.4%.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 10.9% below
the most recent year's net operating income (NOI) for properties
for which a full-year NOI was provided, excluding properties that
were stabilizing during this period. Unanticipated further declines
in property-level NCF could result in higher defaults and loss
severities on defaulted loans and in potential rating actions on
the certificates.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to the BANK
2018-BNK10 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.  


BEAR STEARNS 2003-TOP12: Moody's Affirms Caa1 Rating on X-1 Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on three classes
and upgraded the ratings on two classes in Bear Stearns Commercial
Mortgage Securities Trust 2003-TOP12, Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-TOP12:

Cl. K, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 9, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 9, 2017 Upgraded to Aaa
(sf)

Cl. M, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 9, 2017 Upgraded to
Aa2 (sf)

Cl. N, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Feb 9, 2017 Upgraded to
Ba1 (sf)

Cl. X-1, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017 Downgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The ratings on the P&I classes M and N were upgraded primarily due
to an increase in credit support since Moody's last review,
resulting from paydowns and amortization, as well as Moody's
expectation of additional increases in credit support resulting
from the payoff of loans approaching maturity that are well
positioned for refinance. The pool has paid down by 29% since
Moody's last review. In addition, loans constituting 67% of the
pool have either defeased or that have debt yields exceeding 12.0%
are scheduled to mature within the next nine months.

The rating on the IO class X-1 was affirmed based on the credit
quality of the referenced classes.

Moody's does not anticipate losses from the remaining collateral in
the current environment. However, over the remaining life of the
transaction, losses may emerge from macro stresses to the
environment and changes in collateral performance. Moody's ratings
reflect the potential for future losses under varying levels of
stress.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017. The methodologies used in rating Cl.
X-1 were "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance
Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June 2017 and "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the January 16th, 2018 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 98% to $19 million
from $1.16 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 15 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 19% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 41% of the pool. Four loans, constituting
58% of the pool, have defeased and are secured by US government
securities.

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

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

Ten loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $3 million (for an average loss severity
of 3%). No loans are currently in special servicing.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and partial year 2017 operating results for 82% of the pool
(excluding defeased loans). Moody's weighted average LTV for
non-defeased loans is 33%, compared to 32% at Moody's last review.
Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of
21% to the most recently available net operating income (NOI).
Moody's value reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of
9.5%.

Moody's actual and stressed DSCRs for non-defeased loans are 1.27X
and 8.11X, respectively, compared to 1.34X and 5.53X 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 non-defeased loans represent 32% of the pool balance.
The largest loan is the Cokesbury Court Loan ($3.5 million -- 18.7%
of the pool), which is secured by a 200-unit student housing
apartment property located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The property
is located adjacent to Oklahoma City University. As of June 2017,
the property was 82% leased. This loan is fully amortizing, having
amortized over 59% since securitization and matures in August 2023.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 35% and 2.87X, respectively,
compared to 40% and 2.5X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the 3105 Glendale-Milford Road Loan
($1.7 million -- 9.1% of the pool), which is secured by a single
tenant retail property leased to Walgreens and located in Evandale,
Ohio, approximately 16 miles northeast of downtown Cincinnati. The
loan had an original loan term of 20 years and amortizes based on a
22-year schedule. The loan has amortized over 48% and is scheduled
to mature in September 2023. Due to the single tenancy exposure,
Moody's value incorporates a lit-dark analysis. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 61% and 1.71X, respectively, compared to 65% and
1.59X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Auburn Landing Loan ($0.7 million --
4% of the pool), which is secured by a 13,053 SF retail strip
located in Auburn Hills, Michigan, 35 miles northwest of Detroit's
CBD. As of September 2017, the property was 100% leased. This loan
is fully amortizing, having amortized over 59% since securitization
and matures in August 2023. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 32%
and 3.62X, respectively, compared to 36% and 3.17X at the last
review.


BEAR STEARNS 2005-TOP18: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Class G Debt
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on six classes
in Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-TOP18,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-TOP18 as
follows:

Cl. E, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 27, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Jan 27, 2017 Upgraded to A2
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Jan 27, 2017 Upgraded to B1
(sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 27, 2017 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 27, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The ratings on the P&I classes G through J were affirmed because
the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 1.1% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 1.2% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.2% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 2.3% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

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

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the Janaury 16th, 2018 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 97% to $38 million
from $1.12 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 14 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 23% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 93% of the pool. One loan, constituting 4%
of the pool, has defeased and is secured by US government
securities.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 7, the same as at Moody's last review.

Three loans, constituting 26% 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.

Sixteen loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $25 million (for an average loss
severity of 12%). No loans are currently in special servicing.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 92% of the
pool, and partial year 2017 operating results for 77% of the pool
(excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's weighted
average conduit LTV is 67%, compared to 62% 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 33.4% to the most recently available net
operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 9.3%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.56X and 2.16X,
respectively, compared to 1.46X and 2.15X 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 56% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Finisar Portfolio Loan ($8.7 million -- 22.9%
of the pool), which is secured by two properties, an office
building in Sunnyvale, California and an industrial building in
Allen, Texas. The properties are 100% leased to the Finisar
Corporation through February 2020. Due to the single tenant risk,
Moody's valuation reflects a "lit/dark" analysis. The loan has
amortized 49% since securitization and matures in March 2020.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 32% and 3.19X, respectively,
compared to 34% and 3.00X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Summa Care Centre Loan ($8.3 million
-- 21.8% of the pool), which is secured by a 92,000 square feet
(SF) office building in downtown Akron, Ohio. The property was 98%
leased to Summa Health System through November 2017. Upon lease
expiration, Summa Health System only extended their lease to March
2018 due to their plan to move to another office project. The loan
has an anticipated repayment date (ARD) in March 2017 and was not
paid off at that time. The loan now has a final maturity date of
March 1st 2025. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 114% and 0.88X,
respectively, compared to 87% and 1.15X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Sheridan Shoppes Loan ($4.2 million
-- 10.9% of the pool), which is secured by a 25,000 SF unanchored
retail property in Davie, Florida. The strip center is shadow
anchored by Publix Super Market. The property has been 100% leased
since 2014. National tenants include JP Morgan Chase Bank, GameStop
and Cold Stone Creamery. The loan has amortized 21% since
securitization and matures in April 2020. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 82% and 1.22X, respectively, compared to 85% and 1.18X at
the last review.



BEAR STEARNS 2006-TOP22: Moody's Hikes Class F Debt Rating to Ba1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on five classes
and upgraded the ratings on three classes in Bear Stearns
Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-TOP22, Commercial
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-TOP22 as follows:

Cl. B, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Upgraded to
Aaa (sf)

Cl. D, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Upgraded to
A3 (sf)

Cl. E, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Upgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. F, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Upgraded to
Ba2 (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Upgraded to B1
(sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Affirmed Caa2
(sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The ratings on the P&I classes D through F were upgraded based
primarily on an increase in credit support resulting from loan
paydowns and amortization, as well as due to a significant increase
in defeasance. The pool has paid down by 12% since Moody's last
review. Defeasance increased to 38% of the current pool balance
from 19% at Moody's last review.

The ratings on the P&I classes G through J were affirmed because
the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 1.2% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 0.7% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 1.9% of the
original pooled balance, the same as at the last review.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The methodologies used in these ratings were "Approach to Rating US
and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017 and
"Moody's Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single
Borrower CMBS" published in July 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the January 12th, 2018 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 94% to $107 million
from $1.7 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 17 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 16% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 61% of the pool. Five loans, constituting
38% of the pool, have defeased and are secured by US government
securities.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 8, compared to 9 at Moody's last review.

Nine loans, constituting 49% 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.

Thirteen loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $32 million (for an average loss
severity of 47%). One loan, constituting 2% of the pool, is
currently in special servicing. The specially serviced loan is the
Country Inn & Suites By Carlson Scottsdale loan ($2.5 million --
2.3% of the pool), which is secured by a 163-room limited service
hotel located in northern Scottsdale, Arizona. Loan transferred to
special servicing in January 2016 due to Borrower's failure to
notify noteholder of potential defaults under the ground lease
related to property condition, an unauthorized change in property
manager and failure to renew the franchise agreement in accordance
with the loan documents. The Borrower (tenant) and Ground Owner
(landlord) are in litigation. The Ground Owner declared defaults
under the ground lease related to property condition issues.
Borrower continues to make the monthly payments which are based on
a 20 year amortization and will fully amortize the loan by its
January 2026 maturity. Borrower is also paying property taxes when
due. Trust counsel has sent demand enumerating the defaults under
the loan documents. Further, counsel is monitoring the litigation.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and partial year 2017 operating results for 92% of the pool
(excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's weighted
average conduit LTV is 77%, the same as at Moody's last review.
Moody's conduit component excludes loans with structured credit
assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and specially serviced and
troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a weighted
average haircut of 16.5% to the most recently available net
operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 9.6%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.37X and 1.54X,
respectively, compared to 1.35X and 1.43X 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 32% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Hopewell Crossing Shopping Center Loan ($16.6
million -- 16% of the pool), which is secured by a 109,000 sqaure
feet(SF) grocery anchored shopping center. The center is located
approximately ten miles southeast of Princeton in Pennington, New
Jersey. The property is anchored by a grocer tenant with a lease
through May 2025. As of September 2017, the property was 96%
occupied. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 76% and 1.29X,
respectively, compared to 77% and 1.27X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Webster Square Loan ($9.4 million --
9% of the pool), which is secured by a 230,000 SF anchored retail
center located eleven miles northeast of Rochester in Webster, New
York. Major tenants include a BJ's Wholesale and Dollar Tree. The
former second largest tenant, Kmart, which occupied approxiamtaley
38% of the net rentable area(NRA), vacated their space in November
2017. The borrower indicated that they are actively working on
leasing the former Kmart space. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
102% and 1.09X, respectively, compared to 74% and 1.5X at the last
review.

The third largest loan is the Metro North Retail Center Loan ($8.2
million -- 8% of the pool), which is secured by a 38,000 SF retail
center built in 2005 located in Woburn, Massachusetts, 13 miles
northwest of Boston CBD. As of December 2017, the property's
occupancy was 82%, compared to 87% as of December 2016 and 94% as
of December 2015. The largest tenant, Petco, occupies 41% of the
NRA with a lease through January 2028. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 89% and 1.12X, respectively, compared to 83% and 1.2X at
the last review.


BEAR STEARNS 2007-PWR15: Moody's Affirms C Ratings on 4 Tranches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on four classes
in Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2007-PWR15,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-PWR15:

Cl. A-J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 26, 2017 Affirmed C
(sf)

Cl. A-JFX, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 26, 2017 Affirmed C
(sf)

Cl. A-JFL, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 26, 2017 Affirmed C
(sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on the three P&I classes were affirmed because the
ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss plus realized
losses. Classes A-J, A-JFX and A-JFL have already experienced a 41%
realized loss as result of previously liquidated loans.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 53.6% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 25.7% at Moody's last review.
While the percentage base expected loss is higher than at last
review, the numeric base expected loss is significantly lower,
reflecting 84% paydown since last review. Moody's base expected
loss plus realized losses is now 18.2% of the original pooled
balance, compared to 17.8% at the last review. Moody's provides a
current list of base expected losses for conduit and fusion CMBS
transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017. The methodologies used in rating Cl.
X-1 were "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance
Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June 2017 and "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the January 11, 2018 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 97% to $91 million
from $2.8 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by nine mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 65% of the pool.

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

Three loans, constituting 87% 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-eight loans have been liquidated from the pool, contributing
to an aggregate realized loss of $461.6 million (for an average
loss severity of 67%). The only specially serviced loan is the
Infinity Building Loan ($2.02 million -- 2.2% of the pool), which
is secured by a 57,000 square foot (SF) industrial property built
in 1963 and renovated 1990, located in Hampton, Virginia. The loan
transferred to special servicing due to loan maturity and the
property was foreclosed on 10/31/2017. The property was 58% leased
as of July 2017. The servicer is evaluating the property to
determine a marketing strategy.

Moody's has also assumed a high default probability for one poorly
performing loan and has estimated an aggregate loss of $46.5
million (a 77% expected loss based on a 100% probability default)
from specially serviced and troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2017 operating results for 70% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 101%, unchanged from Moody's last
review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with structured
credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and specially serviced
and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a weighted
average haircut of 19.5% to the most recently available net
operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 9.0%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.29X and 1.19X,
respectively, compared to 1.35X and 1.02X 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 87% of the pool balance.
The largest loan is the 777 Scudders Mill Road -- Unit 1 Loan
($59.2 million -- 65.0% of the pool), which is secured by a 225,000
SF, five-story suburban office building located in Plainsboro, New
Jersey. The property is 100% leased to Bristol-Myers Squibb through
December 2018 however, the tenant has stated they will not be
renewing their lease. As per the loan documents, the excess cash is
being trapped and held by the servicer. Moody's considers this a
troubled asset.

The second largest loan is the Country Club Plaza Loan ($13.2
million -- 14.5% of the pool), which is secured by a
shadow-anchored, 80,000 SF retail property located in Country Club
Hills, Illinois. The collateral is part of a larger 500,000 SF
center that is shadow-anchored by a Walmart Super Center. The loan
was modified in April 2016 with a partial collateral release,
interest rate reduction, 24-month extension and the implementation
of a hard lock-box. As of June 2017, the property was 77% leased,
down from 79% leased at year-end 2016. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 117% and 0.81X, respectively, compared to 97% and 0.98X at
the last review.

The third largest loan is the Hagemeyer Headquarters Office
Building Loan ($7.0 million -- 7.7% of the pool), which is secured
by a 50,000 SF Class A office property located in Charleston, South
Carolina. The loan is on the watchlist due to a decline in
occupancy, which occurred when the sole tenant (100% of NRA)
exercised their termination option and subsequently re-leased 41%
of the NRA. The building remains 41% leased as of year-end 2016.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 139% and 0.76X, respectively,
compared to 141% and 0.75X at the last review.


BENCHMARK 2018-B1: Fitch to Rate Class F-RR Certs 'B-sf'
--------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has issued a presale report on Benchmark 2018-B1
Mortgage Trust commercial mortgage pass-through certificates,
series 2018-B1.

Fitch expects to rate the transaction and assign Rating Outlooks as
follows:

-- $18,703,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $157,629,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $49,272,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $40,449,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $175,000,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $347,112,000 class A-5 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $885,279,000b class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $97,114,000 class A-M 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $47,853,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $52,075,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $47,853,000ab class X-B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $60,520,000ab class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $25,334,000ab class X-E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $60,520,000a class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $25,334,000a class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $14,074,000ac class F-RR 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable;

The following classes are not expected to be rated:
-- $40,816,346ac class G-RR
-- $40,426,662ad class VRR

(a) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144A.
(b) Notional amount and interest-only.
(c) Horizontal credit risk retention interest.
(d) Vertical credit risk retention interest.

The expected ratings are based on information provided by the
issuer as of Jan. 16, 2018.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the
trust, primary assets of which are 49 loans secured by 173
commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of
$1,166,378,009 as of the cut-off date. The loans were contributed
to the trust by German American Capital Corporation, JPMorgan Chase
Bank, National Association, and Citi Real Estate Funding Inc.

Fitch received a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 74.8% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis of 89.9%, and asset summary reviews
of 100% of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Fitch Leverage in Line with Recent Transactions: The pool's
leverage is in line with recent comparable Fitch-rated
multiborrower transactions. The Fitch DSCR is 1.28x, which is
slightly better than the 2017 average of 1.26x. Fitch LTV is
103.2%, slightly worse than the 2017 average of 101.6%. Excluding
credit opinion loans, the pool's normalized Fitch DSCR and LTV were
also close, at 1.26x and 107.6%, respectively, compared to the 2017
averages of 1.21x and 107.2%.

Investment-Grade Credit Opinion Loans: Two loans, representing 9.2%
of the pool, have investment-grade credit opinions. The Woods (4.9%
of pool) has an investment-grade credit opinion of 'Asf*' on a
standalone basis. Worldwide Plaza (4.3% of pool) has an
investment-grade credit opinion of 'BBB+sf*' on a stand-alone
basis.

Weak Amortization: Seventeen loans (58.8% of pool) are full-term
interest-only and 18 loans (28.4% of pool) are partial
interest-only, compared to similar Fitch-rated transactions in
2017, which had an average full-term interest-only percentage of
46.1% and an average partial interest-only percentage of 28.7%. The
pool is scheduled to amortize by 5.9% of the initial pool balance
by maturity, which is lower than the 2017 and 2016 averages of 7.9%
and 10.4%, respectively.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's NCF was 13.8% below the most recent
year's NOI (for properties for which a full year NOI was provided,
excluding properties that were stabilizing during this period). The
following rating sensitivities describe how the ratings would react
to further NCF declines below Fitch's NCF. The implied rating
sensitivities are only indicative of some of the potential outcomes
and do not consider other risk factors to which the transaction is
exposed. Stressing additional risk factors may result in different
outcomes. Furthermore, the implied ratings, after the further NCF
stresses are applied, are more akin to what the ratings would be at
deal issuance had those further stressed NCFs been in place at that
time.


BLADE ENGINE: Fitch Lowers Ratings on 2 Tranches to Bsf
-------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings downgrades Blade Engine Securitization LTD as
follows:

-- Series A-1 to 'Bsf' from 'BBsf'; Outlook Negative
-- Series A-2 to 'Bsf' from 'BBsf'; Outlook Negative
-- Series B to 'CCsf' Recovery Estimate 15% from 'CCCsf.'

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The performance of the transaction continues to depend more on the
collections from a small number of engines that support widebody
aircraft, while demand for certain older technology engines remains
weak. The downgrade of the class A notes and the Negative Outlook
reflects the increasing LTV levels, driven by a portfolio of
engines with declining liquidity, which has in turn resulted in
engine sales proceeds below recent appraised values. The downgrade
and Negative Outlook also reflects the further potential for
decreased cash flow available to service the notes, and the results
of Fitch's cash flow analysis. Under this analysis, the class A
notes are unable to pass Fitch's primary modelling scenarios. While
cash flow from lease collections has increased slightly in the past
year, which has allowed for additional amortization of the class A
notes, a decline in cash flow collections as contemplated by
Fitch's modelling scenarios is likely to result in further negative
rating actions.

The downgrade of class B reflects the inability of cash flow to
service the notes, leading to continuous draws on the Junior Cash
Account. As the Junior Cash Account continues to be depleted, the
eventual default of class B is highly likely. Under Fitch's primary
cash flow scenarios, remaining cash flow available to service the
class is minimal, resulting only from sales proceeds.

Assumptions used in Fitch's cash flow modeling scenarios include,
but are not limited to, the following: Under 'BBsf' scenarios, new
lease terms of 54 and three months for long-term and short-term
leases during recessionary periods, and new lease terms of 66 and
six months for long-term and short-term leases during
non-recessionary periods, respectively; and residual values of 25%.
Under 'Bsf' scenarios, new lease terms of 60 and three months for
long-term and short-term leases during recessionary periods, and
new lease terms of 72 and six months for long-term and short-term
leases during non-recessionary periods, respectively; and residual
values of 50%.

Under both rating category scenarios, assumptions included a
short-term lease probability of 35%; a short-term lease extension
rate of 50%; lease rate factors of 0.85% and 1.40% for long-term
and short-term leases, respectively; phase 2 length of seven years
for aircraft that support current generation A320 and B737 aircraft
and five years for all others; phase 1, 2, and 3 depreciation of
0%, 5%, and 10%, respectively; phase 1, 2, and 3 recessionary value
declines of 5%, 10%, and 20%, respectively; net maintenance
collections of $0; first recession occurring after six months with
recessions lasting four years; and unrated lessee assumptions of
'B' which decline to 'CCC' during assumed recessions and once an
engine enters phase 3.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Due to the correlation between the global economic conditions and
the airline industry, the ratings may be impacted by the strength
of the macro-environment over the remaining term of the
transaction. Global economic scenarios that are inconsistent with
Fitch's expectations could lead to further negative rating actions.
For example, the occurrence of an extended global recession of
significantly greater severity than the last two experienced, and
the resulting strain on aircraft engine lease cash flow, could lead
to a downgrade of the notes.


BLUEMOUNTAIN FUJI III: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to BlueMountain Fuji U.S.
CLO III Ltd.'s $340 million broadly syndicated collateralized loan
obligation (CLO).

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

The ratings reflect:

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

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

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

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

  RATINGS ASSIGNED
  Blue Mountain Fuji U.S. CLO III Ltd./Blue Mountain Fuji U.S. CLO

  III LLC
  Class                   Rating                 Amount
                                                (mil. $)
  A-1                     AAA (sf)               240.00
  A-2                     NR                      28.00
  B                       AA (sf)                 32.00
  C                       A (sf)                  30.00
  D                       BBB- (sf)               22.00
  E                       BB- (sf)                16.00
  Subordinated notes      NR                      39.80

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


BOMBARDIER CAPITAL 1999-A: S&P Cuts Cl. A-3 Notes Rating to D(sf)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its rating to 'D (sf)' from 'CC (sf)' on
the class A-3 notes from Bombardier Capital Mortgage Securitization
Corp.'s Series 1999-A, an asset-backed securities transaction
backed by manufactured housing loans. S&P subsequently withdrew the
rating.

The downgrade reflects that this transaction did not make its full
principal payment on class A-3 on its final maturity date on Jan.
15, 2018.



BX TRUST 2017-CQHP: DBRS Finalizes B(high) on Class F Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. finalized its provisional ratings on all classes of
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2017-CQHP
issued by BX Trust 2017-CQHP as follows:

-- Class A at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-CP at A (high) (sf)
-- Class X-EXT at A (high) (sf)
-- Class B at AA (high) (sf)
-- Class C at A (high) (sf)
-- Class D at A (sf)
-- Class E at BBB (low) (sf)
-- Class F at B (high) (sf)

The trends are Stable.

All classes have been privately placed. Classes X-CP and X-EXT are
notional.

The subject portfolio is secured by four Club Quarters
brand-managed hotels totaling 1,228 keys located across four major
U.S. cities: San Francisco (346 keys; 39.4% of the allocated loan
amount); Chicago (429 keys; 26.4% of the allocated loan amount);
Boston, Massachusetts (178 keys; 18.2% of the allocated loan
amount); and Philadelphia (275 keys; 16.0% of the allocated loan
amount). DBRS considers all of the assets to be located in core
urban markets with an abundance of commercial and leisure demand
generators. The loan sponsor, Blackstone Real Estate Partners
VII-NQ L.P., purchased the portfolio in February 2016 from
Masterworks Development Corporation, an affiliate of Club Quarters,
for approximately $410.0 million ($333,876 per key). Including the
$3.7 million invested since purchase, the current reported cost
basis equates to approximately $413.7 million ($336,889 per key)
— well in excess of the subject loan amount. The $273.7 million
subject mortgage loan, along with $61.3 million of mezzanine debt
and $8.1 million of sponsor equity, refinanced $336.1 million in
existing debt and paid closing costs.

The subject properties are considered to be of Average property
quality and have been adequately maintained over the years, with
approximately $18.9 million ($15,415 per key) invested across the
portfolio between 2010 and 2016; however, the properties' interiors
are somewhat dated and would benefit from a refresh over the next
few years, which seems to be on the sponsor's wish list.
Approximately $3.7 million ($3,013 per key) is budgeted for capital
improvements in 2017, and further renovations are planned over the
near term.

All four properties are managed by Club Quarters Management
Company, LLC, which also acts as the franchise under which the
hotels operate, with management agreements scheduled to expire in
February 2041. Club Quarters operates 17 hotel properties located
in the city centers of major markets across the United States and
London, with a focus on a high-occupancy, high-margin business
model. The franchise drives corporate negotiated-rate business
through memberships with corporate clients that guarantee a minimum
number of stays at each location annually in exchange for advanced
rates that are agreed on at the beginning of every calendar year.
In general, the portfolio's guest rooms are relatively small, with
roughly 75.0% of keys no greater than 250 square feet, and
amenities are limited to a modestly sized fitness center, club room
space and workstations. There are food and beverage outlets on
premises, all of which are leased out to and operated by third
parties. Overall, the portfolio represents a relatively lean
operation, which enables Club Quarters to offer rates at a discount
to market, achieve occupancy levels that are well above market and
generate above-average operating margins because of staffing
efficiencies and the ability to plan for the year ahead.

As with the overall hotel market, average daily rate (ADR) and
occupancy levels at the subject properties have been posting strong
gains over the past few years, but in more recent periods, they
have been increasing at a declining rate and have turned negative,
with the overall portfolio declining from peak YE2016 ADR and
revenue per available room (RevPAR) levels as at the trailing 12
months (T-12) ended August 31, 2017. DBRS capped occupancies at
levels below recent historicals to account for new supply coming on
line over the near term in each market, as well as the fact that
the current environment could represent a very late phase in the
lodging cycle. The occupancy caps vary by property and market and
in each instance are below each hotel's five-year historical
average. As a whole, the portfolio's T-12 ended August 2017 RevPAR
represented a decrease of -1.7% over the YE2016 level. Such
increase represents a decline from recent year-over-year increases
of 7.7% as at YE2015 and 7.5% as at YE2016. The resulting DBRS
portfolio RevPAR of $143.80 is approximately -4.9% below the T-12
ended August 2017 level, -6.5% below the YE2016 level and -6.3%
below the borrower's budget. Notably, the portfolio has been able
to achieve and maintain above-average net cash flow (NCF) margins
over the years, averaging 46.1% between 2008 and the most recent
T-12, with a low of 39.7% in 2009 and a high of 50.9% in 2016. The
DBRS NCF margin of 43.9% is on the lower end of this range, with
minimal downside based on the last cycle, which was very severe.
Given such high and sustainable NCF margins across a variety of
RevPAR environments, the portfolio is somewhat insulated from cash
flow volatility in the face of declining revenues.

LW Hospitality Advisors LLC determined the as-is individual value
of the portfolio to be $422.5 million ($344,055 per key) using cap
rates ranging from 7.1% to 8.6%. The DBRS concluded value of $284.9
million ($232,002 per key) represents a significant discount to
both the as-is individual and the bulk-sale appraised values of
32.6% and 35.9%, respectively, and is also well below the sponsor's
total cost basis of $413.7 million. The resulting DBRS
loan-to-value ratio of 96.1% is indicative of high-leverage
financing; however, the DBRS value is based on a reversionary cap
rate of 10.35%, which represents a significant stress over current
prevailing market cap rates. Furthermore, the loan's DBRS Debt
Yield and DBRS Term Debt Service Coverage Ratio of 10.8% and 2.50
times, respectively, are moderate considering the portfolio is
primarily securitized by urban limited-service hotels with high NCF
margins.

Classes X-CP and X-EXT are interest-only (IO) certificates that
reference multiple rated tranches. The IO rating mirrors the
lowest-rated reference tranche adjusted upward by one notch if
senior in the waterfall.


CALIFORNIA COUNTY TSA: S&P Affirms CCC Rating on 2006A/B Bonds
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings affirmed its ratings on one current interest
turbo bond and one turbo capital appreciation bond from California
County Tobacco Securitization Agency (Gold Country Settlement
Funding Corp.)'s series 2006. The two turbo bonds mature in 2033
and 2046, respectively, and were originally issued in 2006.

The rating actions reflect S&P's view of the transaction's
performance under a series of stressed cash flow scenarios,
including:

-- A cigarette volume decline test that assesses if the
transaction can withstand annual declines in cigarette shipments;

-- Payment disruptions by the largest of the participating
manufacturers, by market share, at various points over the
transaction's term to reflect a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing; and

-- A liquidity stress test to account for settlement amount
disputes by participating manufacturers, as a result of changes to
their market share, which has generally shifted to nonparticipating
manufacturers.

S&P affirmed its ratings on two classes that, in its view, reflect
the likelihood of making timely interest and principal payments
under all three stress scenarios commensurate with the current
ratings.

Capital appreciation bonds generally capitalize interest until all
senior notes have been paid in full and therefore tend to be the
riskiest.

S&P said, "Our analysis also reflects developments within the
tobacco industry. We view the U.S. tobacco industry as having a
stable rating outlook based on the high brand equity and pricing
power of the top three manufacturers' conventional cigarette
brands. In our view, this should help offset ongoing cigarette
volume declines and allow for sustained cash flows." However,
changing regulations and ongoing litigation risk are constraining
factors the industry faces.

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  California County Tobacco Securitization Agency (Gold Country
  Settlement Funding Corp.) Series 2006
  Class   CUSIP       Maturity         Rating
  2006A   13016NDC5   June 1, 2046     CCC (sf)
  2006B   13016NDB7   June 1, 2033     CCC (sf)


CANYON CAPITAL 2014-1: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating to E-R Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to eight
classes of CLO refinancing notes (the "Refinancing Notes") to be
issued by Canyon Capital CLO 2014-1, Ltd. (the "Issuer"):

Moody's rating action is:

US$5,000,000 Class X Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2031
(the "Class X Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$248,000,000 Class A-1A-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class A-1A-R Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$16,000,000 Class A-1B-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class A-1B-R Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$44,000,000 Class A-2-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class A-2-R Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

US$20,000,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes Due 2031 (the "Class B-R Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

US$24,000,000 Class C-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes Due 2031 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

US$16,000,000 Class D-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes Due 2031 (the "Class D-R Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

US$8,000,000 Class E-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes Due 2031 (the "Class E-R Notes"), Assigned (P)B3 (sf)

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

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The Issuer intends to issue the Refinancing Notes on January 30,
2018 (the "Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of
the Class A-1-R secured notes previously issued on January 30, 2017
and the Class A-2, B, C, D, and E secured notes previously issued
on April 30, 2014 (the "Original Closing Date") (collectively, the
"Refinanced Notes"). On the Refinancing Date, the Issuer used
proceeds from the issuance of the Refinancing Notes to redeem in
full the Refinanced Notes.

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

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

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

Performing par and principal proceeds balance: $400,000,000

Defaulted par: $0

Diversity Score: 50

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2660

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.25%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.9%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

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

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2660 to 3059)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-1A-R Notes: 0

Class A-1B-R Notes: -1

Class A-2-R Notes: -2

Class B-R Notes: -2

Class C-R Notes: -1

Class D-R Notes: 0

Class E-R Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2660 to 3458)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-1A-R Notes: -1

Class A-1B-R Notes: -3

Class A-2-R Notes: -4

Class B-R Notes: -4

Class C-R Notes: -2

Class D-R Notes: -1

Class E-R Notes: -1


CBA COMMERCIAL 2004-1: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Ratings on 3 Tranches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed all classes of CBA Commercial Assets,
LLC series 2004-1.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are due to the relatively stable performance of
the pool according to the information provided to Fitch. As of the
December 2017 distribution date, three loans representing 9.3% of
the pool are delinquent, with no loans in special servicing. At
Fitch's last rating action, 16.6% of the underlying loans were
delinquent, with two loans (3.9%) in special servicing.

Concentration: The transaction's balance has been reduced by 91.7%
to $8.4 million from $102 million at issuance and $16.7 million at
Fitch's last rating action. The transaction is collateralized by 32
small balance commercial loans secured by multifamily, retail,
office, industrial, and mixed use properties. Of the remaining
loans, 80.7% are collateralized by multifamily properties and 28.7%
are collateralized by properties located in California.

Small Balance Pool: The loans are smaller than typical CMBS loans
with an average loan size of $263,999 and historically have had
higher loss severities than CMBS conduit loans. Fitch does not
receive operating performance on the loans, as the loans were not
subject to typical CMBS reporting requirements.

Lack of Detailed Reporting: Per the Dec. 26, 2017 trustee report,
the pool has experienced 10.1% in realized losses to date. Due to
the lack of financial information reported on the remaining loans,
ratings were capped at 'Bsf'. Fitch's analysis is based on
historical performance statistics from a representative sample of
similar small balance transactions. Fitch assumed a 30% default
probability for the remaining performing loans, and a loss severity
of 80% for all loans. As a result, Fitch modeled losses of 29.2% on
the remaining pool.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlooks on classes A-1 through A-3 are Stable due to
sufficient credit enhancement and continued paydown. The ratings of
classes A-1 through A-3 are capped based on the poor historical
performance of small balance loans, the lack of financial
information reported on the loans, as well as the small class sizes
which provides limited loss protection to the rated classes. Should
delinquencies and/or losses increase, downgrades may be warranted
in the future.

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $201.3 thousand class A-1 at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $88 thousand class A-2 at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $47.5 thousand class A-3 at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $2.9 million class M-1 at 'Csf'; RE 10%;
-- $3.6 million class M-2 at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $1.6 million class M-3 at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.
-- $0 class M-5 at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

Classes M-4, M-6, M-7, and M-8 are not rated by Fitch. Fitch had
previously withdrawn the rating of the interest-only class I/O.


CBA COMMERCIAL 2004-1: Moody's Hikes Class M-1 Debt Rating to B2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on three classes
and upgraded the ratings on four classes in CBA Commercial Assets,
Small Balance Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series
2004-1 as follows:

Cl. A-1, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Mar 2, 2017 Affirmed
Aa3 (sf)

Cl. A-2, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Mar 2, 2017 Affirmed
Aa3 (sf)

Cl. A-3, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Mar 2, 2017 Affirmed
Aa3 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Mar 2, 2017 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. M-2, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 2, 2017 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 2, 2017 Affirmed C
(sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on the P&I classes A-1, A-2, A-3 and M-1 were upgraded
based primarily on an increase in credit support resulting from
loan paydowns and amortization. The deal has paid down 34% since
Moody's last review.

The ratings on the P&I classes M-2 and M-3 were affirmed because
the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss plus realized
losses.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 16.5% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 20.4% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 11.4% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 12.6% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Approach to
Rating US and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017.
The methodology used in rating Cl. IO was "Moody's Approach to
Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published
in June 2017 and "Approach to Rating US and Canadian Conduit/Fusion
CMBS" published in July 2017.

Moody's analysis incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since 59.5% of the pool was
identified by Moody's as troubled loans. In this approach, Moody's
determines a probability of default for each 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 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 December 26, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 91.7% to $8.4
million from $102.0 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 32 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 8.2% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 52.7% 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 24, compared to 30 at Moody's last review.

Fifty-one loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $10.3 million (for an average loss
severity of 66.7%). Moody's has assumed a high default probability
for 16 poorly performing loans, constituting 59.5% of the pool, and
has estimated an aggregate loss of $1.2 million (a 23.5% expected
loss based on a 60% probability default) from these troubled
loans.

Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 97%, compared to 96% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 10% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.6%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.08X and 1.21X,
respectively, compared to 1.13X and 1.21X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.


CBA COMMERCIAL 2005-1: Moody's Affirms C(sf) Ratings on 2 Tranches
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on three classes
in CBA Commercial Assets, Small Balance Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-1 as follows:

Cl. A, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Feb 9, 2017 Affirmed Caa1
(sf)

Cl. M-1, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Feb 9, 2017 Affirmed C
(sf)

Cl. X-2, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017 Downgraded to C
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on the two P&I classes were affirmed because the
ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss plus realized
losses.

The rating on the IO class, X-2 was affirmed based on the credit
quality of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 15.4% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 17.4% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 14.7% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 15.2% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Approach to
Rating US and Canadian Conduit/Fusion CMBS" published in July 2017.
The methodology used in rating Cl. X-2 was "Moody's Approach to
Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published
in June 2017 and "Approach to Rating US and Canadian Conduit/Fusion
CMBS" published in July 2017.

Moody's analysis incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since 2.1% of the pool is in
special servicing and Moody's has identified additional troubled
loans representing 65.6% 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 December 26, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 90.4% to $20.6
million from $214.9 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 76 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 9.2% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 35% 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 40, compared to 47 at Moody's last review.

One hundred and twenty one loans have been liquidated from the
pool, resulting in an aggregate realized loss of $28.4 million (for
an average loss severity of 71.9%). Two loans, constituting 2.1% of
the pool, are currently in special servicing. Moody's estimates an
aggregate $98,671 loss for the specially serviced loans (22.5%
expected loss on average). Moody's has also assumed a high default
probability for 46 poorly performing loans, constituting 65.6% of
the pool, and has estimated an aggregate loss of $2.9 million (a
21.7% expected loss based on a 60.5% probability default) from
these troubled loans.

Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 84%, compared to 102% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 9% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 10.4%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.31X and 1.58X,
respectively, compared to 1.18X and 1.30X 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.


CD 2017-CD6: DBRS Finalzies BB(low) Rating on Class G-RR Certs
--------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. finalized its provisional ratings on the following
classes of Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2017-CD6 to be issued by CD 2017-CD6 Mortgage Trust:

-- Class A-1 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-2 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-3 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-SB at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-4 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-5 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-M at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-A at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-B at AAA (sf)
-- Class B at AA (high) (sf)
-- Class C at A (high) (sf)
-- Class X-D at A (high) (sf)
-- Class D at A (sf)
-- Class E-RR at BBB (sf)
-- Class F-RR at BB (high) (sf)
-- Class G-RR at BB (low (sf)

All trends are Stable.

Classes X-B, X-D, D, E-RR, F-RR and G-RR have been privately
placed. The Class X-A, X-B, and X-D balances are notional. Classes
X-A, X-B and X-D are interest-only (IO) certificates that reference
a single rated tranche or multiple rated tranches. The IO rating
mirrors the lowest-rated reference tranche adjusted upward by one
notch if senior in the waterfall.

The collateral consists of 58 fixed-rate loans secured by 125
commercial and multifamily properties. The transaction is a
sequential-pay pass-through structure. The conduit pool was
analyzed to determine the ratings, reflecting the long-term
probability of loan default within the term and its liquidity at
maturity. Trust assets contributed from three loans, representing
9.0% of the pool, are shadow-rated investment grade by DBRS.
Proceeds for the shadow-rated loans are floored at their respective
ratings within the pool. When the combined 9.0% of the pool has no
proceeds assigned below the rating floor, the resulting pool
subordination is diluted or reduced below that rated floor. When
the cut-off loan balances were measured against the DBRS Stabilized
Net Cash Flow (NCF) and their respective actual constants, three
loans, representing 4.5% of the total pool, had a DBRS Term Debt
Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) below 1.15 times (x), a threshold
indicative of a higher likelihood of mid-term default.
Additionally, to assess refinance risk given the current
low-interest-rate environment, DBRS applied its refinance constants
to the balloon amounts. This resulted in 23 loans, representing
44.2% of the pool, having refinance DSCRs below 1.00x, and 14
loans, representing 30.4% of the pool, having refinance DSCRs below
0.90x. Burbank Office Portfolio and Colorado Center, which
represent 6.6% of the transaction balance and are two of the pool's
loans with a DBRS Refinance (Refi) DSCR below 0.90x, are
shadow-rated investment grade by DBRS and have a large piece of
subordinate mortgage debt outside the trust. Based on A-note
balances only, the deal's weighted-average (WA) DBRS Refi DSCR
improves to 1.11x, and the concentration of loans with DBRS Refi
DSCRs below 1.00x and 0.90x reduces to 37.5% and 23.8%,
respectively.

Eleven of the largest 26 loans, representing 36.4% of the DBRS
sample, have favorable property quality. One loan (Moffett Place
Building 4), representing 3.1% of the sample, was considered to be
of Excellent property quality; four loans (Burbank Office
Portfolio, Homewood Suites Savannah, 337 Lafayette Street and
Harrison Luxury Apartments), representing 15.8% of the sample, in
aggregate, received an Above Average property quality; and six
additional loans, representing 17.5% of the sample, in aggregate,
received Average (+) property quality. Additionally, no loans
received Below Average or Poor property-quality grades.
Higher-quality properties are more likely to retain existing
tenants/guests and more easily attract new tenants/guests,
resulting in more stable performance. Furthermore, three loans,
Burbank Office Portfolio, Moffett Place Building 4 and Colorado
Center, representing a combined 9.0% of the pool, exhibit credit
characteristics consistent with investment-grade shadow ratings.
Burbank Office Portfolio exhibits credit characteristics consistent
with a BBB shadow rating, Moffett Place Building 4 exhibits credit
characteristics consistent with an A (low) shadow rating and
Colorado Center exhibits credit characteristics consistent with a
AAA shadow rating. Lastly, term default risk is moderate, as
indicated by the relatively strong DBRS Term DSCR of 1.76x. In
addition, 29 loans, representing 65.8% of the pool, have a DBRS
Term DSCR in excess of 1.50x. Even when excluding the three
investment-grade shadow-rated loans, the deal exhibits a favorable
DBRS Term DSCR of 1.73x.

While the transaction office concentration is 41.0%, 9.0% of the
transaction balance and 21.9% of the office concentration are
shadow-rated investment grade by DBRS. Fifteen loans, representing
34.2% of the pool, including six of the largest 15 loans, are
structured with full-term IO payments. An additional 20 loans
comprising 29.5% of the pool have partial IO periods ranging from
seven months to 57 months. As a result, the transaction's scheduled
amortization by maturity is only 10.8%, which is generally below
other recent conduit securitizations.

The DBRS Term DSCR is calculated using the amortizing debt service
obligation, and the DBRS Refi DSCR is calculated considering the
balloon balance and lack of amortization when determining refinance
risk. DBRS determines probability of default based on the lower of
term or refinance DSCRs; therefore, loans that lack amortization
are treated more punitively. Five of the full-term IO loans,
representing 32.1% of the full-IO concentration in the transaction,
are located in urban markets. Additionally, two of these loans
(Burbank Office Portfolio and Colorado Center) are shadow-rated
investment grade by DBRS. The transaction also has 11 loans,
representing 15.8% of the transaction balance, secured by
properties that are either fully or primarily leased to a single
tenant. This includes two of the largest 15 loans, Costco JFK and
Moffett Place B4. Loans secured by properties occupied by single
tenants have been found to suffer higher loss severities in an
event of default. As a result, DBRS applied a penalty for
single-tenant properties that resulted in higher loan-level credit
enhancement.

Google LLC (Google) has fully executed leases for six office towers
in the larger Moffett Place office campus, including the subject
building, and views the entire campus as mission critical given
that the tenant has outgrown its global headquarters in Mountain
View, California. Google is also projected to contribute anywhere
from $250 per square foot (psf) to $300 psf toward tenant
improvements at each of the six office buildings, including the
subject.

Furthermore, the majority of the loans, including Moffett Place
Building 4, have been structured with cash flow sweeps prior to
tenant expiry. Costco Wholesale Corporation is an investment-grade
tenant that leases the land through September 30, 2032, and is
currently generating sales in excess of $1,000 psf.

There are eight loans, totaling 18.1% of the pool, secured by
hotels, which are vulnerable to having high NCF volatility because
of their relatively short-term leases compared with other
commercial properties, which can cause the NCF to quickly
deteriorate in a declining market. Four of the largest 15 loans are
secured by either hospitality or self-storage properties. Such
loans exhibit a weighted-average (WA) DBRS Debt Yield and DBRS Exit
Debt Yield of 11.0% and 12.9%, respectively, which compare
favorably with the overall deal. Additionally, the vast majority,
or 93.4%, of such loans are located in established urban or
suburban markets that benefit from increased liquidity and more
stable performance. The transaction's WA DBRS Refi DSCR is 1.07x,
indicating higher refinance risk on an overall pool level. In
addition, 23 loans, representing 44.2% of the pool, have DBRS Refi
DSCRs below 1.00x, including four of the top ten loans and five of
the top 15 loans. Fourteen of these loans, comprising 30.4% of the
pool, have DBRS Refi DSCRs less than 0.90x, including three of the
top ten loans and four of the top 15 loans. These credit metrics
are based on whole-loan balances. Two of the pool's loans with a
DBRS Refi DSCR below 0.90x, Burbank Office Portfolio and Colorado
Center, which represent 6.6% of the transaction balance and are two
of the pool's loans with a DBRS Refi DSCR below 0.90x, are
shadow-rated investment grade by DBRS and have a large piece of
subordinate mortgage debt outside the trust. Based on A-note
balances only, the deal's WA DBRS Refi DSCR improves to 1.11x, and
the concentration of loans with DBRS Refi DSCRs below 1.00x and
0.90x reduces to 37.5% and 23.8%, respectively. The pool's DBRS
Refi DSCRs for these loans are based on a WA stressed refinance
constant of 9.82%, which implies an interest rate of 9.19%,
amortizing on a 30-year schedule. This represents a significant
stress of 4.89% over the WA contractual interest rate of the loans
in the pool.

The DBRS sample included 30 of the 58 loans in the pool. Site
inspections were performed on 57 of the 125 properties in the
portfolio (61.9% of the pool by allocated loan balance). DBRS
conducted meetings with the on-site property managers, leasing
agents or representatives of the borrowing entities for 63.1% of
the pool. A cash flow review as well as a cash flow stability and
structural review were completed on 30 of the 58 loans,
representing 77.3% of the pool by loan balance. The DBRS sample had
an average NCF variance of -11.0% from the issuer's NCF and ranged
between -31.2% (Capitol Center) and +3.1% (FedEx Ground - Durham).


CFCRE COMMERCIAL 2011-C1: Fitch Affirms Dsf Rating on Cl. E Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings upgrades one class and affirms seven classes of CFCRE
Commercial Mortgage Trust 2011-C1 commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Upgrade Limited by Loan Concentration: The rating upgrade reflects
the increase in credit enhancement as the pool has de-levered over
the past year from paydown and amortization, in addition to three
loans that defeased (19.5%). However, additional rating upgrades
have been limited as the pool has increasingly become concentrated
with only 19 loans remaining. Fitch performed additional
sensitivity and stress scenarios on the Fitch loans of concern
(FLOCs), and the ratings reflect this additional analysis.
Additionally, eight of the 16 non-defeased loans have operating
incomes below issuance levels. Two loans (2.9%) did not pay off at
their scheduled maturity date of January 2018.

Fitch Loans of Concern: Fitch has designated two loans (15.4% of
current pool) as FLOCs, both of which are top five loans. The FLOCs
are an underperforming loan backed by a multifamily property (7.7%)
located in Fayetteville, NC and the fifth largest loan, which is
secured by a retail center (7.7%) in Irving, TX that lost its
anchor tenant.

Recent Performance: Overall pool performance has remained
relatively stable since Fitch's last rating action. As of the
January 2018 distribution date, the pool's aggregate principal
balance had paid down by 67.4% to $207 million from $634.5 million
at issuance. There were no specially serviced loans or delinquent
loans as of the January 2018 remittance. In total, three loans are
defeased (19.5%).

Amortizing Loans with High Coupons: All the remaining loans are in
amortization periods, and the weighted average remaining term is 37
months. The weighted average coupon (WAC) of the remaining pool is
6.154%, ranging between 5.688% and 6.843%.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Rating Outlooks for classes A-4 through C reflect the
overall stable pool performance of the remaining loans and expected
continued paydown. The Positive Rating Outlook on class D indicates
a future upgrade is possible as the transaction continues to
amortize and loans perform. Future upgrades may be limited due to
the concentrated nature of the remaining pool. Approximately 97.1%
of the pool is scheduled to mature in 2021. If loans transfer to
special servicing or loss expectations increase, downgrades are
possible.

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 upgraded the following class:
-- $19 million class C to 'AAsf' from 'Asf', Outlook Stable.

Fitch affirmed the following classes:

-- $135.9 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- Interest-only class X-A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $16.7 million class B at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $14.3 million class D at 'BBBsf', Outlook revised to Positive
    from Stable;
-- $21.2 million class E at 'Dsf', RE 80%;
-- $0 million class F at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 million class G at 'Dsf', RE 0%.

Classes A-1, A-2 and A-3 have paid in full. Fitch does not rate the
class NR or interest-only class X-B certificates.


CFCRE COMMERCIAL 2011-C1: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on Cl. D Certs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on seven classes
in CFCRE Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2011-C1 as follows:

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 13, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Jan 13, 2017 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Jan 13, 2017 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan 13, 2017 Downgraded to
Ba1 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Jan 13, 2017 Downgraded to
Ca (sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 13, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on four P&I classes, Classes A-4, B, C and D, were
affirmed because the transaction's key metrics, including Moody's
loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage
ratio (DSCR) and the transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are
within acceptable ranges.

The rating on the P&I class, Class E, was affirmed because the
ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss plus realized
losses.

The ratings on the IO classes, Classes X-A and X-B, were affirmed
based on the credit quality of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 1.9% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 17.4% at Moody's last review
(The Hudson Valley Mall Loan paid down at a loss since last
review). Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 7%
of the original pooled balance, compared to 7.6% at the last
review. Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for
conduit and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

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

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the December 15, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 65.9% to $216.4
million from $634.5 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 20 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 11% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 63% of the pool. Three loans, constituting
18.7% of the pool, have defeased and are secured by US government
securities.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 13, the same as at Moody's last review.

Three loans, constituting 10.2% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

One loan has been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $40.6 million (for an average loss
severity of 80.4%). There are currently no loans in special
servicing.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2017 operating results for 80% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 86.8%, compared to 84.6% at Moody's
last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 15.2% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.38%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.35X and 1.19X,
respectively, compared to 1.43X and 1.23X 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 26.4% of the pool balance.
The largest loan is the Santa Fe Retail Portfolio Loan ($23.7
million -- 11% of the pool), which is secured by a seven property
portfolio located in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The portfolio consists
of six retail and one office building totaling 189,000 square feet
(SF). The office component is 12,500 SF and comprises 6% of the
allocated balance. The majority of the retail tenants are galleries
or art related. As of June 2017, the portfolio was 96% leased,
compared to 95% leased as of June 2016. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 96.1% and 1.07X, respectively, compared to 97.3% and 1.06X
at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Walker Center Loan ($17.4 million --
8% of the pool), which is secured by a 154,000 SF office building
located in the central business district of Salt Lake City, Utah.
As per the September 2017 rent roll, the property was 86% leased,
compared to 88% leased as of June 2016. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 89.8% and 1.17X, respectively, compared to 89.5% and 1.18X
at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Heights at McArthur Park Loan ($16
million -- 7.4% of the pool), which is secured by a 216-unit
garden-style apartment complex located near Fort Bragg and Pope Air
Force Base in Fayetteville, North Carolina. As per the November
2017 rent roll the property was 92% leased, compared to 87% leased
as of June 2016, and 80% leased as of February 2016. The net
operating income (NOI) dropped in 2015 and 2016 due in part to
lower occupancy. The loan remains on the watchlist as the DSCR is
below the 1.10X threshold. Due to the low DSCR, Moody's has
identified this loan as a troubled loan.


CGGS COMMERCIAL 2016-RND: Fitch Affirms BB- Rating on E-FX Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed five classes of CGGS Commercial Mortgage
Trust 2016-RND pass through certificates, series 2016-RND.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Stable Performance: The Pool A loan remains current as of the
January 2018 remittance with property level performance in line
with issuance expectations. The $434 million Pool B loan was paid
in full on May 15, 2017 resulting in the payoff of the A-FL through
D-FL certificates.

Transaction Paydown: Four properties were released from Pool A in
2017 (two assets were sold through tenant purchase options and two
of the assets were released from the collateral and refinanced in
separate transactions). The principal paydown to the trust was
approximately $147 million (13.2%) from these releases.

High Quality Assets: The loan is collateralized by high-quality lab
office properties located in highly desirable and in-fill life
science submarkets. At issuance, Pool A received a weighted average
(WA) Fitch property quality grade of 'A-/B+', and over half (as a
percentage of NOI) of the properties were built since 2000.

Pool Diversity: Pool A is collateralized by the fee (24) and
leasehold (three) interests in 27 (4.1 million sf) properties
located across three states and four distinct markets (Cambridge,
San Francisco, San Diego and Seattle).

Institutional Sponsorship: The sponsor of the loans is Blackstone
Real Estate Partners VIII, which is owned by affiliates of the
Blackstone Group, L.P. (Blackstone; 'A+/F1').

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlooks remain Stable for the FX classes due to stable
performance of Pool A collateral since issuance. Fitch does not
foresee positive or negative ratings migration unless a material
economic or asset level event changes the underlying transaction's
portfolio-level metrics.

Fitch affirms the following ratings:

-- $527.4 million class A-FX certificates at 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;

-- $116.5 million class B-FX certificates at 'AA-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;

-- $67.7 million class C-FX certificates at 'A-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;

-- $105.9 million class D-FX certificates at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;

-- $150.1 million class E-FX certificates at 'BB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable.

Fitch does not rate the P-FX and P-FL classes, which have been
added to the capital structure. Fitch has withdrawn its expected
ratings on the class X-FX-CP, X-FX-NCP, X-FL-CP, and X-FL-NCP
certificates as the capital structure no longer includes these
classes. The A-FL, B-FL, C-FL and D-FL certificates have been paid
in full.


CIFC FUNDING 2014: S&P Assigns B-(sf) Rating on Class F-R2 Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class X, A-1-R2,
B-R2, C-R2, D-R2, E-R2, and F-R2 replacement notes from CIFC
Funding 2014 Ltd., a collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
originally issued in 2014 that is managed by CIFC VS Management
LLC. S&P withdrew its rating on the original class A-R notes
following payment in full on the Jan. 18, 2018, refinancing date.

On the Jan. 18, 2018, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
issuance of the replacement notes redeemed the original notes.
Therefore, S&P withdrew its rating on the original notes in line
with their full redemption and assigned ratings to the replacement
notes.

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

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

  RATINGS ASSIGNED

  CIFC Funding 2014 Ltd./CIFC Funding 2014 LLC
  Replacement class         Rating      Amount (mil. $)
  X                         AAA (sf)               6.00
  A-1-R2                    AAA (sf)             369.50
  A-2-R2                    NR                    23.00
  B-R2                      AA (sf)               66.50
  C-R2 (deferrable)         A (sf)                35.50
  D-R2 (deferrable)         BBB- (sf)             31.50
  E-R2 (deferrable)         BB- (sf)              22.50
  F-R2 (deferrable)         B- (sf)               11.80

  RATING WITHDRAWN
                             Rating
  Original class       To              From
  A-R                  NR              AAA (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


COLT 2018-1: Fitch Assigns 'Bsf' Rating on Class B-2 Debt
---------------------------------------------------------
Fitch rates COLT 2018-1 Mortgage Loan Trust (COLT 2018-1) as
follows:

-- $264,599,000 class A-1 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $30,692,000 class A-2 certificates 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $34,304,000 class A-3 certificates 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $22,869,000 class M-1 certificates 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $20,461,000 class B-1 certificates 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $14,243,000 class B-2 certificates 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch will not be rating the following certificates:

-- $14,042,768 class B-3 certificates.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Non-prime Credit Quality (Concern): The pool has a weighted average
model credit score of 700 and a weighted average (WA) combined loan
to value ratio (CLTV) of 80%. While all of the loans were
underwritten to a full documentation program, roughly 41% of the
pool consists of borrowers with prior credit events and 55% had a
debt to income (DTI) ratio of over 43%. Investor properties and
loans to foreign nationals account for 4% of the pool. Fitch
applied default penalties to account for these attributes and loss
severity was adjusted to reflect the increased risk of ATR
challenges.

Operational and Data Quality (Positive): Caliber has one of the
most established Non-QM programs in the sector. Fitch views the
visibility into the origination programs as a strength relative to
Non-QM transactions with a high number of originators. Fitch
reviewed Caliber and Hudson's origination and acquisition platforms
and found them to have sound underwriting and operational control
environments, reflecting industry improvements following the
financial crisis that are expected to reduce risk related to
misrepresentation and data quality. All loans in the mortgage pool
were reviewed by a third-party due diligence firm and the results
indicated strong underwriting and property valuation controls.

Full Documentation Loans (Positive): All loans in the mortgage pool
were underwritten to the comprehensive Appendix Q documentation
standards defined by ATR. While a due diligence review identified
roughly 20% of loans as having minor variations to Appendix Q,
Fitch views those differences as immaterial and all loans as having
full income documentation.


Alignment of Interests (Positive): The transaction benefits from an
alignment of interests between the issuer and investors. LSRMF
Acquisitions I, LLC (LSRMF), as sponsor and securitizer, or an
affiliate, will retain a horizontal interest in the transaction
equal to not less than 5% of the aggregate fair market value of all
certificates in the transaction. As part of its focus on investing
in residential mortgage credit, as of the closing date, LSRMF or an
affiliate will retain the class B-3 and X certificates, which
represent more than 5.00% of the fair market value of the
transaction. Lastly, the representations and warranties are
provided by Caliber, which is owned by LSRMF affiliates and,
therefore aligns the interest of the investors with those of LSRMF
to maintain high-quality origination standards and sound
performance, as Caliber will be obligated to repurchase loans due
to rep breaches.

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

R&W Framework (Concern): As originator, Caliber will be providing
loan-level representations and warranties to the trust. While the
reps for this transaction are substantively consistent with those
listed in Fitch's published criteria and provide a solid alignment
of interest, Fitch added approximately 375 bps to the projected
defaults at the 'AAAsf' rating category to reflect the
non-investment-grade counterparty risk of the provider and the lack
of an automatic review of defaulted loans. The lack of an automatic
review is mitigated by the ability of holders of 25% of the total
outstanding aggregate class balance to initiate a review.

Servicing and Master Servicer (Positive): Servicing will be
performed on 100% of the loans by Caliber. Fitch rates Caliber
'RPS2-'/Outlook Negative due to its fast-growing portfolio and
regulatory scrutiny. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), rated
'RMS1'/Outlook Stable, will act as master servicer and securities
administrator. Advances required but not paid by Caliber will be
paid by Wells Fargo.

Performance Triggers (Mixed): Credit enhancement, delinquency and
loan loss triggers convert principal distribution to a straight
sequential payment priority in the event of poor asset performance.
Similar to the prior transaction the Delinquency Trigger is based
only on the current month and not on a rolling six-month average.

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 MVDs at the national level. The
analysis assumes MVDs of 10%, 20% and 30%, in addition to the
model-projected 7.9%. 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'.


COMM 2004-LNB4: Moody's Hikes Class B Debt Rating to Ba3
--------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service upgraded one class and affirmed two
classes of COMM 2004-LNB4 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2004-LNB4 as follows:

Cl. B, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jan 20, 2017 Upgraded to
B2 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 20, 2017 Affirmed C (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 B was upgraded based primarily on an
increase in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and
amortization. The deal has paid down 14% since Moody's last
review.

The rating on the P&I Class C was affirmed because the ratings is
consistent with Moody's expected loss.

The rating on the IO Class, Class X-C, was affirmed based on the
credit performance of its reference classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 0.6% of the
current balance compared to 6.6% at last review. Moody's base plus
realized loss totals 9.9% compared to 10.2% at last review. Moody's
provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit and
fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

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

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the January 16, 2018 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 99% to $13.2 million
from $1.2 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 10 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
2% to 24% of the pool. One loan, constituting 15% of the pool, has
defeased and is secured by US government securities.

Four loans, constituting 41% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

There are currently no loans in special servicing. Twenty-two loans
have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an aggregate
realized loss of $120.7 million (for an average loss severity of
53%).

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and partial year 2017 operating results for 51% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 69%, compared to 84% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 15% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.9%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.06X and 1.77X,
respectively, compared to 0.96X and 1.53X, at 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 49% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Eagle Valley Marketplace Loan ($3.2 million --
24% of the pool), which is secured by two cross-collateralized and
cross-defaulted strip centers totaling approximately 31,000 square
feet (SF). The properties are located in Woodbury, Minnesota,
approximately 20 miles East of Minneapolis, Minnesota. As of
September 2017, Eagle Valley I is 100% leased (up from 91% leased
at last review) while Eagle Valley II is 78% leased (up from 72%
leased at last review). Eagle Valley II is currently on the
watchlist due to low DSCR. The loans have amortized 33% since
securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 80% and 1.42X,
respectively, compared to 103% and 1.10X at the last review.

The second largest loan is the Inver Grove Marketplace Loan ($1.96
million -- 14.8% of the pool), which is secured by a 21,200 SF
strip retail center in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota approximately
10 miles south of St. Paul, Minnesota. The property is currently
89% leased as of September 2017, compared to 82% at last review.
The loan is currently on the watchlist due to low DSCR. The loan
has amortized 33% since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 100% and 1.13X, respectively, compared to 135% and 0.84X
at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Bank of America Loan ($1.4 million --
10.4% of the pool), which is secured by a Bank of America bank
branch in the Brentwood neighborhood of Washington, DC. Performance
has been stable and this fully amortizing loan has paid down 43%
since securitization. Moody's accounted for single-tenant risk
exposure through a lit/dark blend value approach. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 71% and 1.38X, respectively, compared to 78% and
1.24X at the last review.


CPS AUTO 2015-A: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded thirteen and affirmed ten
securities from CPS Auto Receivables Trusts issued between 2013 and
2015. The transactions are serviced by Consumer Portfolio Services,
Inc.

Complete rating actions are as follow:

Issuer: CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2013-B

Class A Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class B Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Class C Notes, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Upgraded to A3 (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Issuer: CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2013-C

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Class E Notes, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017 Affirmed
B2 (sf)

Issuer: CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2013-D

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Affirmed B2 (sf)

Issuer: CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2014-A

Class C Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Class E Notes, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Affirmed B2 (sf)

Issuer: CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2014-D

Class B Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class C Notes, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Affirmed Ba3 (sf)

Class E Notes, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017 Affirmed
B2 (sf)

Issuer: CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2015-A

Class A Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class B Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Affirmed Aaa (sf)

Class C Notes, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Class D Notes, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017
Affirmed Ba3 (sf)

Class E Notes, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Aug 1, 2017 Affirmed
B2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The upgrades are based on the build-up of credit enhancement due to
non-declining reserve accounts, overcollateralization and the
sequential pay structure of the transactions issued after the
2013-B transaction. The 2013-B transaction has a pro-rata credit
enhancement structure, in which bonds are due to receive target
payments. Weak deal performance has been offset in part by the
build-up of credit enhancement for this transaction. The lifetime
cumulative net loss (CNL) expectations remain unchanged for all
outstanding transactions and range between 18.00% and 20.00%.

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

Issuer: CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2013-B

Lifetime CNL expectation - 19.00%; prior expectation (July 2017) --
19.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 16.94%

Aaa (sf) level - 38.00%

Pool factor -- 11.00%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class A Notes 43.34%, Class B Notes
34.34%, Class C Notes 31.23%, Class D Notes 27.90%, Class E Notes
27.45%

Excess Spread per annum -- Approximately 14.9%

Issuer: CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2013-C

Lifetime CNL expectation - 20.00%; prior expectation (July 2017) --
20.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation - 20.32%

Aaa (sf) level - 40.00%

Pool factor -- 13.58%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 72.64%, Class D Notes
35.83%, Class E Notes 15.58%

Excess Spread per annum -- Approximately 11.1%

Issuer: CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2013-D

Lifetime CNL expectation - 19.00%; prior expectation (July 2017) --
19.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation - 18.03%

Aaa (sf) level - 40.00%

Pool factor -- 15.41%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 68.45%, Class D Notes
36.00%, Class E Notes 18.13%

Excess Spread per annum -- Approximately 11.8%

Issuer: CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2014-A

Lifetime CNL expectation - 18.00%; prior expectation (July 2017) --
18.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 17.17%

Aaa (sf) level - 40.00%

Pool factor -- 19.15%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class C Notes 57.16%, Class D Notes
31.05%, Class E Notes 16.7%

Excess Spread per annum -- Approximately 12.9%

Issuer: CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2014-D

Lifetime CNL expectation - 19.00%; prior expectation (July 2017) --
19.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 17.92%

Aaa (sf) level - 42.00%

Pool factor -- 31.39%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class B Notes 67.12%, Class C Notes
33.68%, Class D Notes 19.34%, Class E Notes 8.98%

Excess Spread per annum -- Approximately 12.4%

Issuer: CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2015-A

Lifetime CNL expectation - 18.00%; prior expectation (July 2017) --
18.00%

Lifetime Remaining CNL expectation -- 18.59%

Aaa (sf) level - 42.00%

Pool factor -- 37.59%

Total Hard credit enhancement - Class A Notes 96.45%, Class B Notes
56.54%, Class C Notes 28.60%, Class D Notes 16.64%, Class E Notes
7.98%

Excess Spread per annum -- Approximately 12.8%

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 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 vehicles securing an obligor's
promise of payment. Transaction performance also depends greatly on
the US job market and the market for used vehicles. Other reasons
for better-than-expected performance include changes to servicing
practices that enhance collections or refinancing opportunities
that result in prepayments.

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 vehicles securing an obligor's promise of
payment. Transaction performance also depends greatly on the US job
market and the market for used vehicles. Other reasons for
worse-than-expected performance include poor servicing, error on
the part of transaction parties, inadequate transaction governance
and fraud.


CPS AUTO 2018-A: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to CPS Auto Receivables
Trust 2018-A's $190 million asset-backed notes.

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

The ratings reflect S&P's view of:

-- The availability of approximately 57.62%, 49.14%, 40.44%,
31.70%, and 25.57% of credit support for the class A, B, C, D, and
E notes, respectively, based on stressed cash flow scenarios
(including excess spread). These credit support levels provide
coverage of approximately 3.10x, 2.60x, 2.10x, 1.60x, and 1.23x our
18.00-19.00% expected cumulative net loss range for the class A, B,
C, D and E notes, respectively. Additionally, credit enhancement
including excess spread for classes A, B, C, D, and E covers
breakeven cumulative gross losses of approximately 93%, 79%, 67%,
53%, and 43%, respectively.

-- S&P's expectation that, under a moderate stress scenario of
1.60x its expected net loss level and all else equal, the ratings
on the class A, B, and C notes would remain within one rating
category while they are outstanding, and the rating on the class D
notes would not decline by more than two rating categories within
its life. The rating on the class E notes would remain within two
rating categories during the first year, but the class would
eventually default under the 'BBB' stress scenario after receiving
34%-57% of its principal. These rating migrations are consistent
with S&P's credit stability criteria.

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

-- The timely interest and principal payments made to the rated
notes under our stressed cash flow modeling scenarios, which we
believe are appropriate for the assigned ratings.

-- The transaction's payment and credit enhancement structure,
which includes a non-curable performance trigger.

  RATINGS ASSIGNED
  CPS Auto Receivables Trust 2018-A
  Class   Rating      Type           Interest          Amount
                                     rate (%)        (mil. $)
  A       AAA (sf)    Senior         2.16               88.47
  B       AA (sf)     Subordinate    2.77               31.46
  C       A (sf)      Subordinate    3.05               26.91
  D       BBB (sf)    Subordinate    3.66               23.13
  E       BB- (sf)    Subordinate    5.17               20.04


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

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

The ratings reflect S&P's view of:

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

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

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

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

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

  NR--Not rated.


DEEPHAVEN RESIDENTIAL 2018-1: S&P Gives (P)B Rating on B-2 Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Deephaven
Residential Mortgage Trust 2018-1's $305.4 million mortgage
pass-through notes.

The note issuance is a residential mortgage-backed securities
(RMBS) transaction first-lien, fixed- and adjustable-rate, and
interest-only residential mortgage loans secured by single-family
residences, planned-unit developments, two- to four-family
residences, and condominiums.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 23,
2018. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

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

-- The pool's collateral composition;
-- The credit enhancement provided for this transaction;
-- The transaction's associated structural mechanics;
-- The transaction's representation and warranty framework; and
-- The mortgage aggregator.

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED
  Deephaven Residential Mortgage Trust 2018-1
  Class       Rating(i)         Amount ($)
  A-1         AAA (sf)         197,711,000
  A-2         AA (sf)           21,266,000
  A-3         A (sf)            35,905,000
  M-1         BBB (sf)          20,804,000
  B-1         BB (sf)           16,797,000
  B-2         B (sf)            12,944,000
  B-3         NR                 2,774,499
  XS          NR                  Notional(ii)
  A-IO-S      NR                  Notional(ii)
  R           NR                       N/A

(i)The collateral and structural information in this report
reflects the term sheet. The preliminary ratings address ultimate
principal and interest payments, but interest can be deferred on
the classes.
(ii)Notional amount equals the loans' aggregate stated principal
balance. N/A--Not applicable.
NR--Not rated.


EXETER AUTOMOBILE 2018-1: S&P Gives Prelim BB Rating on Cl. E Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Exeter
Automobile Receivables Trust 2018-1's Exeter Automobile Receivables
Trust 2018-1.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 18,
2018. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

-- The availability of approximately 59.9%, 52.3%, 43.5, 33.8%,
and 28.3% credit support for the class A, B, C, D, and E notes,
respectively, based on stressed cash flow scenarios (including
excess spread), which provide coverage of approximately 2.90x,
2.50x, 2.05x, 1.55x, and 1.27x our 20.00%-21.00% expected
cumulative net loss range. These break-even scenarios withstand
cumulative gross losses of approximately 92.2%, 80.5%, 69.6%,
54.0%, and 45.2%, respectively.

-- The timely interest and principal payments that we believe will
be made to the preliminary rated notes under stressed cash flow
modeling scenarios that S&P believes are appropriate for the
assigned preliminary ratings.

-- The expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress scenario
(1.55x S&P's expected loss level), all else being equal, S&P's
ratings on the class A notes will not be lowered and the ratings on
the class B and C notes will remain within one rating category of
the assigned preliminary 'AA (sf) ' and 'A (sf) ' ratings,
respectively, for the deal's life; the class D and E notes will
remain within two rating categories of the assigned preliminary
'BBB (sf)' and 'BB(sf) ' ratings, respectively, for the deal's life
with respect to class D, but the class E notes will eventually
default under the 'BBB' stress scenario. These rating movements are
within the limits specified by S&P's credit stability criteria.

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

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

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Exeter Automobile Receivables Trust 2018-1
   
  Class       Rating        Type            Interest     Amount
                                            rate     (mil. $)(i)
  A           AAA (sf)      Senior          Fixed        261.64
  B           AA (sf)       Subordinate     Fixed         86.24
  C           A (sf)        Subordinate     Fixed         81.02
  D           BBB (sf)      Subordinate     Fixed         92.06
  E           BB (sf)       Subordinate     Fixed         29.04

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



FREMF 2017-K61: Fitch Affirms BB+sf Rating on Class C Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed eight classes of FREMF 2017-K61
Multifamily Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates and five classes of
Freddie Mac Structured Pass-Through Certificates, K-061.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Stable Performance: Overall performance remains stable with no
material changes to pool metrics since issuance. No loans have
transferred to special servicing since issuance. As of the December
2017 distribution date, all loans are current and the pool's
aggregate balance has been reduced by 0.2% to $1.258 billion from
$1.261 million at issuance. Eight loans (10.3% of pool) are on the
servicer's watchlist, but only one (1.9%) was considered a Fitch
Loan of Concern.

Fitch Loans of Concern: The Greenbrier Apartment Homes loan (1.9%
of pool), which is secured by a 526-unit multifamily property
located in Columbia, SC, was designated as a Fitch Loan of Concern
due to low net cash flow debt service coverage ratio (NCF DSCR).
For the first half of 2017, the NCF DSCR was 0.85x, down from 1.30x
underwritten at issuance. Occupancy as of August 2017 was 78%,
compared to 87% at issuance. Servicer commentary indicated the
occupancy decline is expected to be short-term as the borrower,
which purchased the property during fourth quarter 2016, is
aggressively cleaning up the property in order to market to higher
quality tenants. Fitch's inquiry to the servicer for a recent rent
roll and more up-to-date financials remain outstanding.

Multi-Family Concentration: 100% of the pool is backed by
multifamily properties. Two loans (2.4% of pool) are secured by
student housing properties, six loans (7.8%) are secured by
assisted/independent living properties and eight loans (3.8%) are
secured by manufactured housing properties. In addition, two loans
(2.1%) are secured by co-operative properties.

Pool and Loan Concentration: The top 10 loans comprise 41.9% of the
pool, which is higher than the Fitch-rated Freddie Mac 10-year 2016
and 2015 averages of 37.3% and 33.2%, respectively. The largest
loan, The Breakers, which is secured by a multifamily property in
Denver, CO, comprises 11.1% of the pool.

Limited Amortization: Based on the loans' scheduled maturity
balances, the pool is expected to amortize 10.8% during the term.
Seven loans (12.2% of pool) are full-term, interest-only and 47
loans (74.7%) have a partial-term, interest-only component.

Hurricane Exposure: Nine properties (13.4% of pool) are located in
areas impacted by Hurricane Irma. According to the master
servicer's most recent significant insurance event (SIE) reporting
and recent servicer watchlist commentary, the Carlton Arms of Ocala
property (4.3%) in Ocala, FL, the Briarcrest at Winter Haven
property (1.8%) in Winter Haven, FL and the Windward Apartments
property (0.2%) in Orlando, FL sustained minor damages. The other
six Florida properties are still awaiting borrower response on any
potential damage. Hurricane Harvey exposure is limited to three
properties (2.5%), which all sustained minor damages.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

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

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:

FREMF 2017-K61 Multifamily Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
-- $126.3 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $882.7 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $72.5 million class A-M at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $50.4 million class B at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $31.5 million class C at 'BB+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Interest-only class X1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Interest-only class XAM at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Interest-only class X2-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch does not rate the class D, X2-B and X3 certificates.

Freddie Mac Structured Pass-Through Certificates, Series K-061
-- $126.3 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $882.7 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $72.5 million class A-M at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Interest-only class X1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Interest-only class XAM at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch does not rate the interest-only class X3 certificates.


GALTON FUNDING 2018-1: Fitch to Rate Class B5 Certificates 'Bsf'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings expects to rate Galton Funding Mortgage Trust 2018-1
(GFMT 2018-1) as follows:

-- $282,834,000 class A11 exchangeable certificates 'AA+sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $282,834,000 class AX11 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $282,834,000 class A12 exchangeable certificates 'AA+sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $282,834,000 class AX12 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $282,834,000 class A13 exchangeable certificates 'AA+sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $282,834,000 class AX13 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $253,521,000 class A21 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $253,521,000 class AX21 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $253,521,000 class A22 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $253,521,000 class AX22 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $253,521,000 class A23 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $253,521,000 class AX23 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $29,313,000 class A31 exchangeable certificates 'AA+sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $29,313,000 class AX31 notional certificates 'AA+sf'; Outlook

    Stable;
-- $29,313,000 class A32 exchangeable certificates 'AA+sf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $29,313,000 class AX32 notional certificates 'AA+sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $29,313,000 class A33 certificates 'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $29,313,000 class AX33 notional certificates 'AA+sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $202,816,000 class A41 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $202,816,000 class AX41 notional certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook

    Stable;
-- $202,816,000 class A42 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $202,816,000 class AX42 notional certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook

    Stable;
-- $202,816,000 class A43 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $202,816,000 class AX43 notional certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook

    Stable;
-- $50,705,000 class A51 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $50,705,000 class AX51 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $50,705,000 class A52 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $50,705,000 class AX52 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $50,705,000 class A53 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $50,705,000 class AX53 notional exchangeable certificates
    'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $38,028,000 class A61 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $38,028,000 class AX61 notional certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $38,028,000 class A62 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $38,028,000 class AX62 notional certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $38,028,000 class A63 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $38,028,000 class AX63 notional certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $12,677,000 class A71 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $12,677,000 class AX71 notional certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $12,677,000 class A72 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $12,677,000 class AX72 notional certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $12,677,000 class A73 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $12,677,000 class AX73 notional certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $9,823,000 class B1 certificates 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $9,823,000 class BX1 notional certificates 'AA-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $7,130,000 class B2 certificates 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $7,130,000 class BX2 notional certificates 'A-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $7,288,000 class B3 certificates 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $7,288,000 class BX3 notional certificates 'BBB-sf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $4,436,000 class B4 certificates 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $2,535,000 class B5 certificates 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;

Fitch will not be rating the following certificates:

-- $2,855,649 class B6 certificates.

KEY RATING DRIVERS
High-Quality Mortgage Pool (Positive): The pool consists of 30-year
fixed-rate and adjustable-rate fully amortizing loans to borrowers
with strong credit profiles, relatively low leverage and large
liquid reserves. The loans are seasoned an average of eight
months.

The pool has a weighted average (WA) original FICO score of 754,
high average balance of $749,000 and a low sustainable
loan-to-value (sLTV) ratio of 69.7%. However, the pool also
contains a meaningful amount of investor properties (27%),
non-qualified mortgage (non-QM) or higher-priced qualified mortgage
(HPQM) loans (50%), interest-only (IO) loans (23%) and non-full
documentation loans (12%). Fitch's loss expectations reflect the
higher default risk associated with these attributes as well as
loss severity adjustments for potential ability-to-repay (ATR)
challenges.

Galton as Aggregator (Neutral): Galton Capital (Galton) is a
residential mortgage team within Mariner Investment Group, LLC
(MIG), an SEC registered investment adviser formed in 1992. Founded
in 2007, Galton's initial investments were focused in RMBS. Galton
began acquiring loans in 2015 and issued its first RMBS transaction
in 2017. Fitch conducted a full review of Galton's aggregation
processes and believes that Galton meets industry standards needed
to aggregate mortgages for RMBS. In addition to the satisfactory
operational assessment, a due diligence review was completed on
100% of the pool.

High California Concentration (Negative): Approximately 78% of the
pool is located in California, which is significantly higher than
recent Fitch-rated transactions. In addition, the metropolitan
statistical area (MSA) concentration is high, as the top three MSAs
account for 56.5% of the pool. The largest MSA concentration is in
the Los Angeles MSA (27.1%) followed by the San Francisco MSA
(21.2%) and the San Diego MSA (8.2%). As a result, a geographic
concentration penalty of 1.13 was applied.

Tier 3 Representation and Warranty Framework (Negative): Fitch
considers the transaction's representation, warranty and
enforcement (RW&E) mechanism framework to be consistent with Tier 3
quality. As a result of the Tier 3 RW&E framework and the unrated
counterparty supporting the repurchase obligations of the RW&E
providers, the pool received a PD penalty of 234 basis points at
the 'AAAsf' level (addressed in further detail in the presale
report).

Third-Party Due Diligence Results (Mixed): A loan-level due
diligence review was conducted on 100% of the pool in accordance
with Fitch's criteria and focused on credit, compliance and
property valuation. 25% of the loans received an 'A' grade, and the
remainders were graded 'B' (70%) and 'C' (4%). A majority of the
loans that were graded 'B' and 'C' were related to TRID issues that
were corrected with subsequent or post-close documentation. 17
loans received an increase to loss severity (LS) expectations due
to TRID-related errors.

Servicing Advancing (Neutral): The servicing administrator (Galton
Mortgage Loan Seller LLC) is obligated to make advances of
delinquent principal and interest on mortgage loans for the first
120 days of delinquency (at which point they become stop-advance
mortgage loans) to the extent such advances are deemed recoverable,
and Mr. Cooper, formerly known as Nationstar Mortgage LLC, (as
master servicer) will make required advances not paid by the
servicing administrator. In the event that both the servicing
administrator and master servicer fail to make required advances,
the securities administrator, Citibank, N.A. (rated A+/F1) will be
required to advance.

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

CE Floor (Positive): To mitigate tail risk, which arises as the
pool seasons and fewer loans are outstanding, a subordination floor
of 2.50% of the original balance will be maintained for the
certificates. Additionally, there is no early stepdown test that
might allow principal prepayments to subordinate bondholders
earlier than the five-year lockout schedule.

Extraordinary Expense Treatment (Neutral): The trust provides for
expenses, including indemnification amounts and costs of
arbitration, to be paid by the net WA coupon of the loans, which
does not affect the contractual interest due on the certificates.
Furthermore, the expenses to be paid from the trust are capped at
$275,000 per annum, which can be carried over each year, subject to
the cap until paid in full. Expenses associated with engaging and
compensating a breach reviewer will be subject to an annual cap of
$100,000, unless any expenses in excess of the $100,000 cap are
approved by 25% or more of the aggregate voting interests of the
certificates.

Recent Natural Disasters (Neutral): Approximately 71% of the loans
are located in areas that the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) has designated for federal assistance during the past 12
months, related to Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma and the
California Wildfires. For all loans in the pool located in such
areas, either (i) the loan was originated after the disaster date,
(ii) the borrower made at least three payments following the
disaster date, (iii) the borrower was contacted and confirmed that
there was no material property damage, or (iv) an inspection was
ordered and no material damage was visible.

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 MVDs at the national level. The
analysis assumes MVDs of 10%, 20% and 30%, in addition to the
model-projected 7.6%. 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'.


GE COMMERCIAL 2003-C1: Moody's Affirms C Ratings on 2 Tranches
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on two classes
in GE Commercial Mortgage Corporation 2003-C1, Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-C1, as follows:

Cl. N, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Feb 7, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-1, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Feb 7, 2017 Affirmed C
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating on the Class N was affirmed because the rating is
consistent with Moody's expected loss plus realized losses.

The rating on the IO class X-1 was affirmed because of the credit
quality of the referenced class.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 72.8% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 84.7% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 3.0% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 3.2% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017. The methodologies used in rating Cl.
X-1 were "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance
Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June 2017 and "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017.

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

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the 10 January, 2018 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 99.6% to $5.1
million from $1.19 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by one mortgage loan.

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 one, the same as at Moody's last review.

Twenty one loans have been liquidated from the pool at a loss, or
contributing to an aggregate realized loss of $32.5 million (for an
average loss severity of 22%). One loan, constituting 100% of the
pool, is currently in special servicing. The largest specially
serviced loan is the Shoppes at Audubon ($5.1 million -- 100% of
the pool), which is secured by a 46,252 SF, Class B, retail center
located in Naples, Florida, approximately 40 miles south of Fort
Meyers. The loan was transferred to the special servicer in June
2011 for imminent default and the lender took title to the property
in October 2012. The property was 80% leased as of the November
2017 rent roll, the same as at last review. The vacancy is
primarily concentrated in the 9,200 SF (20% of NRA) junior anchor
box. The junior anchor box has continued to generate some LOIs,
however the property is not currently on the market.

Moody's estimates an aggregate $3.7 million loss for the specially
serviced loan (73% expected loss on average).

As of the 10 January, 2018 remittance statement cumulative interest
shortfalls were $2.1 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.


GE COMMERCIAL 2005-C3: S&P Lowers Class J Certs Rating to 'D(sf)'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its rating on the class J commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates from GE Commercial Mortgage
Corp.'s series 2005-C3, a U.S. commercial mortgage-backed
securities (CMBS) transaction. The downgrade to 'D (sf)' from 'CCC-
(sf)' reflects principal losses impacting the class, as detailed on
the Jan. 10, 2018, trustee remittance report.

The reported principal loss on class J totaled $5.0 million, which
is a 41.8% loss of its $11.9 million beginning balance, as detailed
in the January 2018 trustee remittance report. This was caused from
the liquidation of the remaining two specially serviced assets
($15.2 million, 100%). Consequently, class K (not rated by S&P
Global Ratings) experienced a 100% loss of its $3.3 million
beginning balance. This resulted in a total loss of $8.3 million to
the trust.


GE COMMERCIAL 2007-C1: DBRS Cuts Ratings on 2 Tranches to BB(low)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. downgraded the ratings on the Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-C1 issued by GE Commercial
Mortgage Corporation, Series 2007-C1 as follows:

-- Class A-M to BB (low) (sf) from BB (sf)
-- Class A-MFX to BB (low) (sf) from BB (sf)

Additionally, the trends on both classes have been changed to
Negative from Stable.

The rating downgrades and trend changes reflect the increased risk
and uncertainty to the remaining collateral in the transaction as
only 13 of the original 197 loans remain in the transaction, with
11 loans, representing 58.2% of the current pool balance, in
special servicing and the largest loan, representing 28.8% of the
current pool balance, on the servicer's watchlist. Since issuance,
there has been collateral reduction of 78.9% as result of
successful loan repayments, scheduled amortization, realized losses
from liquidated loans and proceeds recovered from liquidated loans.
The transaction is concentrated as the largest four loans represent
88.3% of the current pool balance. This concentration is
problematic for the transaction as a whole, as the three largest
loans, representing 75.3% of the current pool balance, each exhibit
material performance issues. The largest two loans in the pool are
summarized below.

The largest loan in the transaction, 666 Fifth Avenue, is secured
by a Class B 1.4 million square foot (sf) office tower in
Manhattan, New York. The property has been on the servicer's
watchlist since it was modified in December 2011, with modification
terms including a bifurcated whole loan of a $1.1 billion A-note, a
$115.0 million B-note and a two-year maturity extension to February
2019. The trust component consists of a $225.4 million A-note and
$23.6 million B-note. The A-note interest rate increases over time
back to the original rate of 6.3%, while the B-note accrues
interest.

Property performance has continued to decline year over year as
occupancy continues to decline and the contractual debt service on
the A-note continues to increase. According to the July 2017 rent
roll, the property was 70% occupied, down from 79% in June 2016. As
a result, the Q2 2017 debt service coverage ratio on the A-note was
0.53 times (x), down from 0.66x at YE2016 and 0.72x at YE2015.
Reportedly, the property continues to suffer from dated floorplans
and low ceilings, which is exacerbated by a lack of available funds
from the sponsor, Kushner Companies, needed to retenant the
vacancies. According to multiple news outlets, the sponsor is
saddled with hundreds of millions of dollars of debt and has not
had success in persuading domestic or foreign investors to invest
in the property. Vornado Realty Trust (Vornado) does own a 49.5%
stake in the property, which it purchased in 2011 for $80.0 million
and the assumption of half of the outstanding debt. While Vornado
is not willing to invest in the property until a larger strategy
for the subject is developed; if the firm does become the sole
owner of the property, its resources of available capital and
experience in the Manhattan office market may lead to a positive
outcome over time. According to CoStar, there are 21 office
properties greater than 1.0 million sf in the Plaza District
submarket. Current availability and asking gross average rental
rates are 10.5% and $96.23 per square foot (psf). As the subject is
currently operating well below both metrics, there is potential
upside assuming major investment is made in the property.

The Skyline Portfolio loan (23.5% of the current pool balance) is
secured by a portfolio of Class A and Class B office properties in
Falls Church, Virginia, totaling over 2.6 million sf. The $678.0
million whole loan initially transferred to special servicing in
April 2012 due to payment default after occupancy decreased as a
result of the Department of Defense and its subcontractor tenants
vacating the property. The loan was modified in November 2013 with
trust modification terms, including an A-note of $105.0 million, a
B-note of $98.4 million and a five-year maturity extension to
February 2022; however, the sponsor, Vornado, gave back the title
to the portfolio in December 2016 after the modified loan defaulted
in April 2016.

According to CoStar, the portfolio has a current occupancy rate of
53.1%, which has remained relatively unchanged over the past year.
Asking rental rates range from $28.00 psf gross to $32.00 psf
gross. The One Skyline Tower remains 100% occupied by government
service administration tenants and is reportedly up for sale;
however, there are no known offers at this time. Vacancy in the
submarket remains high at 36.1% with an average asking gross rental
rate of $30.48 psf.

The portfolio was last valued at $201.0 million in November 2016,
indicative of a whole-loan loan-to-value ratio of 337.3%. The
portfolio is currently real estate owned and the special servicer
is currently evaluating resolution strategies. Given the low
valuation of the portfolio and the amount of vacant space across
the portfolio, the resolution timeline is expected to be prolonged.
DBRS expects the trust to experience a significant loss with the
resolution of the loan.


GERMAN AMERICAN 2012-LC4: Fitch Affirms B Rating on Cl. F Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed all classes of German American Capital
Corp.'s COMM 2012-LC4 commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates. Fitch has also revised the Rating Outlooks on classes
D through E to Negative from Stable.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Sufficient Credit Enhancement Relative to Pool Performance: Per the
December 2017 remittance report, the transaction has paid down
19.4% to $758.3 million from $941.3 million at issuance, and one
loan (6.7%) is defeased. As a result, credit enhancement (CE) to
the senior classes has increased.

One loan (0.7%) is currently in special servicing. Nine loans
(25.4%) are on the master servicer's watchlist. Fitch has
identified five loans (20.4%) as Fitch loans of concern, including
the 3rd and 10th largest loans in the transaction: Puerto Rico
Retail Portfolio (7.0%) and the Susquehanna Valley Mall (3.4%).

Additional Sensitivity Analysis: Fitch has applied an additional
sensitivity analysis which assumed losses on the Puerto Rico Retail
Portfolio due to major hurricane Maria damage to the properties and
to the Susquehanna Valley Mall as a result of a loss of anchor
tenants. JC Penney vacated in November 2015 after its lease
expiration and Sears, a non-collateral anchor, closed in March
2017. As of September 2017, the collateral was 68.3% occupied,
compared to 93.7% at issuance.
High Retail Concentration: The transaction has high concentration
of retail properties (55.8%) with eight of the top 15 loans secured
by retail properties with exposure to retailers Sears, JC Penney,
Macy's and ToysRUs.

Hurricane/California Wildfire Exposure: Three loans (9.4%) are on
the master servicer's significant insurance event report as they
are located within the Houston MSA, in areas affected by Hurricane
Harvey. Of the three, the servicer reported damages to the Hartman
Portfolio (6%) and Northcross & Victoria (0.9%) and are awaiting a
response on the GRM Portfolio (0.8%). One loan, Puerto Rico Retail
Portfolio (7%) is also listed on the significant insurance event
report for major damages sustained due to Hurricane Maria. One
loan, Brea Shopping Center (5%) located in Brea, CA is on the
significant insurance event report for exposure to areas affected
by the California wildfires; however, no update has been provided
as to whether or not the property sustained any damage.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Negative Outlook for classes D through F indicate that future
downgrades to the classes are possible if the Puerto Rico Retail
portfolio and the Susquehanna Valley Mall's performance further
deteriorates or the loans default, or if there are delays in
receipt of insurance proceeds or amounts are lower than expected
for the Puerto Rico portfolio. Ratings Outlooks for classes A-3,
A-4 and A-M remain Stable due to sufficient CE and continued
amortization. Upgrades are not expected, but may occur with
improved pool performance and additional paydown or defeasance.
Downgrades are possible should overall pool performance decline.

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

-- $59.4 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $416.5 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $93 million class A-M at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- Interest-Only class X-A at 'AAA', Outlook Stable;
-- $44.7 million class B at 'AAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $32.9 million class C at 'Asf', Outlook Stable;
-- $52.9 million class D at 'BBB-sf', Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $15.3 million class E at 'BBsf', Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $11.8 million class F at 'Bsf', Outlook Negative.

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


GFCM LLC 2003-1: Moody's Hikes Class F Debt Rating to Ba1
---------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on three classes
and affirmed the ratings on six classes in GFCM LLC, Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-1 as follows:

Cl. A-5, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 18, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 18, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 18, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 18, 2017 Upgraded to
Aaa (sf)

Cl. E, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Jan 18, 2017 Upgraded to
A1 (sf)

Cl. F, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan 18, 2017 Upgraded to
Ba2 (sf)

Cl. G, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 18, 2017 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 18, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017 Downgraded to B3
(sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on the P&I classes E, F and G were upgraded based
primarily on an increase in credit support resulting from loan
paydowns and amortization. The deal has paid down 18% since Moody's
last review.

The ratings on P&I classes A5, B, C and D were affirmed because the
transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value (LTV)
ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) and the
transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within acceptable
ranges.

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

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 1.3% of the
current balance, compared to 1.5% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 0.5% of the original
pooled balance, compared to 0.6% at the last review. Moody's
provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit and
fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

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

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the January 12th, 2018 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 87% to $105.4
million from $822.7 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 53 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 17% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 59% 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 17, compared to 21 at Moody's last review

Twelve loans, constituting 17% 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.

Six loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $2.9 million (for an average loss
severity of 9.5%). There are no loans currently in special
servicing.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 37%, compared to 42%
at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans
with structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 14.7% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.7%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.8X and 4.33X,
respectively, compared to 1.94X and 4.07X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 32% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Gateway Plaza I & II Loan ($18.2 million --
17.2% of the pool), which consists of two cross-collateralized and
cross-defaulted loans secured by a 339,310 square foot (SF) power
center located in Patchogue (Suffolk County), New York. The retail
center is anchored by Bob's Furniture Store, Best Buy, Marshall's.
King Kullen Supermarket, an anchor tenant which occupied 15% of the
Net Rentable Area (NRA), vacated its space upon lease expiration in
2014. Dick's sporting goods replaced King Cullen and commenced
their lease in September 2014. The property was 99% leased as of
December 2016, compared to 100% leased as of December 2015. The
loan has a 25-year amortization schedule with balloon payment in
2023. It has amortized 36% since securitization. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 38% and 2.65X, respectively, compared to 48% and
2.09X at the last review.

The second largest exposure is the Eastover Ridge Apartments and
Brunswick Avenue Medical Office Loans ($8.9 million -- 8.5% of the
pool), which is consists of two cross-collateralized and
cross-defaulted loans secured by a 208-unit apartment complex
(Eastover Ridge Apartments) and a 16,000 SF medical office building
(Brunswick Office) located in Charlotte, North Carolina. The loans
mature in 2027 and is fully amortizing on a 300-month schedule.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 59% and 1.75X respectively,
compared to 70% and 1.48X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Cortland Ridge Apartments Loan ($6.5
million -- 6.1% of the pool), which is secured by 144-unit
multifamily property in Orem, Utah approximately nine miles
northwest of Provo. The property was 97% leased as of March 2017
compared to 88% as of December 2015. The loan is expected to fully
amortize by May 2033 and has amortized 30%. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 97% and 1X, respectively, compared to 109% and
0.9X at the last review.


GLS AUTO 2018-1: S&P Assigns Prelim BB(sf) Raing on Class C Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to GLS Auto
Receivables Trust 2018-1's $266.45 million automobile
receivables-backed notes series 2018-1.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 25,
2018. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

-- The availability of approximately 41.70%, 33.37%, and 28.25% of
credit support (as of preliminary pricing) for the class A, B, and
C notes, respectively, based on stressed cash flow scenarios
(including excess spread). These credit support levels provide
coverage of approximately 1.90x, 1.50x, and 1.25x S&P's
21.00%-22.00% expected cumulative net loss for the class A, B, and
C notes, respectively.

-- S&P said, "The expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
scenario (1.50x our expected loss level), all else being equal, our
rating on the class A notes will remain within one rating category
of the assigned preliminary 'A (sf)' rating, and our rating on the
class B notes will remain within two rating categories of the
assigned preliminary 'BBB (sf)' rating." The class C notes will
remain within two rating categories of the assigned preliminary 'BB
(sf)' rating during the first year but will eventually default
under the 'BBB' stress scenario. These rating movements are within
the limits specified by our credit stability criteria.

-- S&P's analysis of over four years of origination static pool
data and performance data on Global Lending Services' three Rule
144A securitizations.

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

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

-- The timely interest and principal payments made to the notes
under our stressed cash flow modeling scenarios, which S&P believes
are appropriate for the assigned preliminary ratings.

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

  GLS Auto Receivables Trust 2018-1  
  Class       Rating      Type          Interest     Amount
                                        rate(i)     (mil. $)
  A           A (sf)      Senior          Fixed      206.91
  B           BBB (sf)    Subordinate     Fixed       34.98
  C           BB (sf)     Subordinate     Fixed       24.56

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


GOLDENTREE LOAN VII: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class F Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the following
notes issued by GoldenTree Loan Opportunities VII, Limited:

US$78,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2025,
Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on February 22, 2017 Upgraded to
Aa1 (sf)

US$7,000,000 Class C-1 Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2025, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on February 22, 2017
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

US$30,000,000 Class C-2 Mezzanine Deferrable Fixed Rate Notes due
2025, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on February 22, 2017
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

US$45,500,000 Class D Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2025, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on February 22, 2017 Upgraded
to Baa2 (sf)

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

US$400,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2025
(current outstanding balance of $346,939,420), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on February 22, 2017 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

US$32,000,000 Class E Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2025, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on February 22, 2017 Affirmed
Ba2 (sf)

US$15,000,000 Class F Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2025, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on February 22, 2017 Affirmed B2
(sf)

GoldenTree Loan Opportunities VII, Limited, issued in May 2013, is
a collateralized loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a
portfolio of senior secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment
period ended in April 2017.

RATINGS RATIONALE

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's
over-collateralization (OC) ratios since February 2017. The Class A
notes have been paid down by approximately 13.3% or $53.1 million
since that time. Based on the trustee's December 2017 report, the
OC ratios for the Class A/B and Class C notes are reported at
139.09% and 127.95%, respectively, versus February 2017 levels of
136.95% and 127.11%,respectively. Additionally, based on the
trustee's December 2017 report, the CLO holds approximately $101.4
million in principal proceeds, some of which can be used to further
pay down the senior notes on the next payment date.

The deal has benefited from an improvement in the credit quality of
the portfolio since February 2017. Based on the trustee's December
2017 report, the weighted average rating factor (WARF) is currently
2696 compared to 3077 in February 2017.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) Post-Reinvestment Period Trading: Subject to certain
requirements, the deal can reinvest certain proceeds after the end
of the reinvestment period, and as such the manager has the ability
to erode some of the collateral quality metrics to the covenant
levels. Such reinvestment could affect the transaction either
positively or negatively.

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

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

Moody's Adjusted WARF -- 20% (2176)

Class A: 0

Class B: 0

Class C-1: +1

Class C-2: +1

Class D: +3

Class E: +1

Class F: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3264)

Class A: 0

Class B: 0

Class C-1: -3

Class C-2: -3

Class D: -2


GRAMERCY REAL 2005-1: Moody's Hikes Ba3 Rating to Class G Debt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on the following
notes issued by Gramercy Real Estate CDO 2005-1, Ltd.:

Cl. G, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Feb 24, 2017 Upgraded to
B2 (sf)

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

Cl. H, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Feb 24, 2017 Upgraded to
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Feb 24, 2017 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Feb 24, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

The Class G, Class H, Class J, and Class K Notes are referred to
herein as the "Rated Notes".

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's has upgraded the rating of one class of notes due to its
becoming the senior most bond and receiving additional principal
payment from failing of certain par value combining with improved
weighted average rating factor (WARF), which more than offset the
deterioration in weighted average recovery rate (WARR). Moody's has
also affirmed the ratings of three classes of notes because key
transaction metrics are commensurate with the existing ratings and
the increase implied losses from last review did not result in any
downgrades to any outstanding class of notes. The rating action is
the result of Moody's on-going surveillance of commercial real
estate collateralized debt obligation and collateralized loan
obligation (CRE CDO CLO) transactions.

Gramercy Real Estate CDO 2005-1, Ltd. is a currently static cash
transaction (reinvestment period ended in July 2010) backed by a
portfolio of: commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) (100.0%
of collateral pool balance); primarily AM and AJ bonds issued in
2007. As of the November 30, 2017 trustee report, the aggregate
note balance of the transaction, including preferred shares, has
decreased to $257.1 million from $1.0 billion at issuance. The
reduction in bond balances is due to i) previous partial junior
notes cancellation to the class E, class F, class G, and class H
notes and ii) principal pay-down directed to the senior most
outstanding classes of notes resulting in full amortization of the
Class A-1, A-2, B, C, D, E, and F notes. The pay-down was the
result of a combination of regular amortization, resolution and
sales of defaulted collateral, and the failing of certain par value
tests. Currently, the transaction has implied
under-collateralization of $201.2 million, compared to $179.5
million at last review, primarily due to implied losses on the
collateral.

In general, holding all key parameters static, junior note
cancellations results in slightly higher expected losses and longer
weighted average lives on the senior notes, while producing
slightly lower expected losses on the mezzanine and junior notes.
However, this does not cause, in and of itself, a downgrade or
upgrade of any outstanding classes of notes.

The collateral pool contains one CMBS asset totaling $26.7 million
(49.5% of the collateral pool balance) listed as defaulted
securities as of the November 30, 2017 trustee report. There have
been over 20.1% of implied losses on the underlying collateral to
date since securitization and Moody's does expect moderate/high
severity of losses on the defaulted security.

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 3504,
compared to 4449 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated reference obligations and the assessments of the
non-Moody's rated reference obligations follow: Aaa-Aa3 and 1.6%
compared to 5.6% at last review; A1-A3 and 28.5% compared to 18.1%
at last review; Baa1-Baa3 and 0.0% compared to 0.4% at last review;
Ba1-Ba3 and 20.4% compared to 8.0% at last review; B1-B3 and 0.0%
compared to 1.1% at last review; and Caa1-Ca/C and 49.5% compared
to 66.8% at last review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 0.7 years, the same as at last review. The
WAL is based on assumptions about extensions of the remaining
underlying CBMS look-through loan collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 6.1%, compared to 8.1% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 0.0%, compared to 19.3% at last review.
The low MAC is due to high credit risk collateral concentrated in a
few collateral names after four pieces of collateral were paid off
since last review.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for the Rated Notes,
although a change in one key parameter assumption could be offset
by a change in one or more of the other key parameter assumptions.
The Rated Notes are particularly sensitive to changes in the
recovery rates of the underlying collateral and credit assessments.
Holding all other key parameters static, reducing the recovery
rates of the 100% of the collateral pool to 0.0% would result in an
average modeled rating movement on the Rated Notes of zero notches
downward (e.g., one notch down implies a ratings movement of Baa3
to Ba1). Increasing the recovery rate of 100% of the collateral
pool by +10.0% would result in an average modeled rating movement
on the Rated Notes of zero to one notch upward (e.g., one notch up
implies a ratings movement of Baa3 to Baa2).

The primary sources of uncertainty in Moody's assumptions are the
extent of growth in the current macroeconomic environment.
Commercial real estate property values continue to improve
modestly, along with a rise in investment activity and
stabilization in core property type performance. Limited new
construction and moderate job growth have aided this improvement.


GRAMERCY REAL 2006-1: Moody's Hikes Class H Debt Rating to Caa3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the following
notes issued by Gramercy Real Estate CDO 2006-1, Ltd.:

Cl. G, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Mar 9, 2017 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. H, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 9, 2017 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

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

Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 9, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 9, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

The Class G, Class H, Class J, and Class K Notes are referred to
herein as the "Rated Notes".

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's has upgraded the ratings of two classes of notes due to
higher than anticipated recoveries on high credit risk collateral
resulting in material amortization of senior classes of notes,
which more than offset the deterioration in weighted average rating
factor (WARF). Moody's has also affirmed the ratings of two classes
because key transaction metrics are commensurate with the existing
ratings and the increase implied losses from last review did not
result in any downgrades to any outstanding class of notes. The
rating action is the result of Moody's on-going surveillance of
commercial real estate collateralized debt obligation and
collateralized loan obligation (CRE CDO CLO) transactions.

Gramercy Real Estate CDO 2006-1 Ltd. is a currently static cash
transaction (reinvestment period ended in July 2011) backed by a
portfolio of: i) commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS)
(89.7% of the pool balance); primarily AM and AJ bonds issued in
2007; and ii) CRE CDO notes (10.3%). As of the November 30, 2017
trustee report, the aggregate note balance of the transaction,
including preferred shares, has decreased to $129.1 million from
$1.0 billion at issuance. The reduction in bond balances is due to
i) previous partial junior notes cancellation to the class C, class
D, class E, class F, and class G notes and ii) principal pay-down
directed to the senior most outstanding class of notes resulting in
full amortization of the Class A-1, A-2, B, C, D, E, and F notes.
The pay-down was the result of a combination of regular
amortization, resolution and sales of defaulted collateral, and the
failing of certain par value tests. Currently, the transaction has
implied under-collateralization of $103.1 million, compared to
$101.9 million at last review, primarily due to implied losses on
the collateral.

In general, holding all key parameters static, junior note
cancellations results in slightly higher expected losses and longer
weighted average lives on the senior notes, while producing
slightly lower expected losses on the mezzanine and junior notes.
However, this does not cause, in and of itself, a downgrade or
upgrade of any outstanding classes of notes.

The collateral pool contains one CMBS asset totaling $12.0 million
(46.6% of the collateral pool balance) listed as defaulted
securities as of the November 30, 2017 trustee report. There have
been over 10.3% of implied losses on the underlying collateral to
date since securitization and Moody's does expect moderate/high
severity of losses on the defaulted security.

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 4832,
compared to 4178 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated reference obligations and the assessments of the
non-Moody's rated reference obligations follow: A1-A3 and 0.0%
compared to 4.9% at last review; Baa1-Baa3 and 10.3% compared to
2.1% at last review; Ba1-Ba3 and 0.0% compared to 9.8% at last
review; B1-B3 and 27.4% compared to 13.6% at last review; and
Caa1-Ca/C and 62.3% compared to 69.6% at last review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 0.8 years, compared to 0.7 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions of the
remaining underlying CBMS look-through loan collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 2.7%, compared to 2.9% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 54.2%, compared to 25.3% at last review.
The high MAC is due to reduction of collateral names after four
pieces of collateral were paid off since last review.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for the Rated Notes,
although a change in one key parameter assumption could be offset
by a change in one or more of the other key parameter assumptions.
The Rated Notes are particularly sensitive to changes in the
recovery rates of the underlying collateral and credit assessments.
Holding all other key parameters static, reducing the recovery
rates of the 100% of the collateral pool to 0.0% would result in an
average modeled rating movement on the Rated Notes of zero to one
notch downward (e.g., one notch down implies a ratings movement of
Baa3 to Ba1). Increasing the recovery rate of 100% of the
collateral pool by +10.0% would result in an average modeled rating
movement on the Rated Notes of zero to ten notches upward (e.g.,
one notch up implies a ratings movement of Baa3 to Baa2).

The primary sources of uncertainty in Moody's assumptions are the
extent of growth in the current macroeconomic environment.
Commercial real estate property values continue to improve
modestly, along with a rise in investment activity and
stabilization in core property type performance. Limited new
construction and moderate job growth have aided this improvement.


GREAT LAKES 2015-1: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Class F-R Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to seven classes of
CLO refinancing notes (the "Refinancing Notes") issued by Great
Lakes CLO 2015-1, Ltd.:

Moody's rating action is:

US$3,700,000 Class X Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2030 (the
"Class X Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$193,300,000 Class A-R Senior Floating Rate Notes due 2030 (the
"Class A-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$41,100,000 Class B-R Floating Rate Notes due 2030 (the "Class
B-R Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$28,100,000 Class C-R Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes
due 2030 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$23,000,000 Class D-R Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes
due 2030 (the "Class D-R Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$26,600,000 Class E-R Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes
due 2030 (the "Class E-R Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

US$9,800,000 Class F-R Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class F-R Notes"), Assigned B3 (sf)

The Issuer is a managed cash flow collateralized loan obligation
(CLO). The issued notes are collateralized primarily by a portfolio
of small and medium enterprise loans.

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The Issuer has issued the Refinancing Notes on January 16, 2018
(the "Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of all
classes of the secured notes (the "Refinanced Original Notes")
previously issued on July 30, 2015 (the "Original Closing Date").
On the Refinancing Date, the Issuer used proceeds from the issuance
of the Refinancing Notes to redeem in full the Refinanced Original
Notes. On the Original Closing Date, the Issuer also issued one
class of subordinated notes that will remain outstanding.

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

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

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

Performing par and principal proceeds balance: $350,000,000

Defaulted par: $0

Diversity Score: 35

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 3798

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 4.70%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 50.0%

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
August 2017.

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

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

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

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 3798 to 4368)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-R Notes: 0

Class B-R Notes: -1

Class C-R Notes: -1

Class D-R Notes: -1

Class E-R Notes: 0

Class F-R Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 3798 to 4937)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-R Notes: 0

Class B-R Notes: -2

Class C-R Notes: -3

Class D-R Notes: -1

Class E-R Notes: -1

Class F-R Notes: -2


GREENWICH CAPITAL 2004-GG1: Fitch Hikes Cl. H Debt Rating to CCsf
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded one class and affirmed eight classes of
Greenwich Capital Commercial Funding Corp. Commercial Mortgage
Trust 2004-GG1.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Concentrated Pool with Adverse Selection: The pool is highly
concentrated with only five of the original 127 loans remaining.
The largest loan represents 99% of the current pool balance, thus
the ratings are heavily reliant on recoveries from this asset.

Due to the reliance on recoveries of the largest loan, Fitch capped
the ratings of class F and G. Class F is reliant on recovery of
only $18.87 per square foot, and G would need to recover $53.21 per
square foot from the largest loan. The upgrade to class H is due to
the improved performance of this loan since Fitch's prior rating
action.

Largest Loan: 400 West Market Street (formerly known as Aegon
Center) is a 35-story, 633,650 square foot (sf) multi-tenant office
tower in the Louisville, KY central business district. The loan had
previously transferred to special servicing in March 2012 due to
the vacancy of the largest tenant, Aegon (previously 33% of the net
rentable area [NRA]), which vacated at its lease expiration in
December 2012. The loan was modified and returned to the master
servicer in November 2013. Terms of the modification included a
bifurcation of the loan into a senior ($82 million) and junior
($21.8 million) component), plus a reduced interest rate and
extension of the loan maturity by 60 months to April 2019. The loan
remains current under the modified terms. As of September 2017,
occupancy reported at 78% with a YTD Net Operating Income (NOI)
debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) of 1.46x.

As of the January 2018 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced to $104.1 million from $2.60
billion at issuance. Fitch modelled losses of 27% of the remaining
pool; expected losses on the original pool balance total 4%
including $77.1 million (2.96% of the original pool balance) in
realized losses to date. Cumulative interest shortfalls in the
amount of $15.2 million are currently affecting classes H through
P.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The ratings on classes F and G have Stable Outlooks due to
sufficient credit enhancement relative to expected losses. Upgrades
are not likely. Further downgrades on the distressed classes are
possible as losses are realized.

Fitch has upgraded the following class:

-- $39 million class H to 'CCsf' from 'Csf'; RE 100%.

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:

-- $15.4 million class F at 'Asf''; Outlook Stable.
-- $26 million class G at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $6.5 million class J at 'Csf'; RE 60%;
-- $13 million class K at 'Csf'; RE 0%.
-- $4.1 million 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%.


GREYWOLF CLO V: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on Class D-R Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-1-R, A-2-R,
B-R, C-R, and D-R replacement notes, as well as to the new class X
notes, from Greywolf CLO V Ltd., a collateralized loan obligation
(CLO) originally issued on April 29, 2015, which is managed by
Greywolf Loan Management L.P. (Series 2017-A), a subsidiary of
Greywolf Capital Management L.P. S&P withdrew its ratings on the
original class A-1, A-2, B, C, and D notes following payment in
full on the Jan. 25, 2018, refinancing date.

On the Jan. 25, 2018, refinancing date, the proceeds from the class
A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, and D-R replacement note issuances were
used to redeem the original class A-1, A-2, B, C, and D notes as
outlined in the transaction document provisions. Therefore, S&P
withdrew its ratings on the original notes in line with their full
redemption, and it is assigning ratings to the replacement notes.

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

-- Increase the rated par amount and target initial par amount to
$649.00 million and $700.00 million, respectively, from $598.90
million and $650.00 million, respectively.

-- Extend the reinvestment period to Jan. 25, 2023, from April 25,
2019.

-- Extend the non-call period to Jan. 25, 2020, from April 25,
2017.

-- Extend the weighted average life test to Jan. 25, 2027, from
April 25, 2023.

-- Extend the legal final maturity date on the rated and
subordinated notes to Jan. 25, 2031, from April 25, 2027.

-- Issue additional class X senior secured floating-rate notes,
which are paid down using interest proceeds in equal quarterly
installments of $350,000 beginning with the April 2018 payment date
and ending on the July 2020 payment date.

-- Rename the original subordinated notes to subordinated notes
(class B) and will assign a different CUSIP to this class of notes.
An additional class of subordinated notes, subordinated notes
(class A), were issued also. Subordinated notes (class B) may be
exchanged for subordinated notes (class A), and subordinated notes
(class A) may be exchanged for subordinated notes (class B), in
each case according to the transaction documents. This will
increase the total combined subordinated notes balance to
approximately $63.90 million from $59.90 million.

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

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

-- Incorporate the recovery rate methodology and updated industry
classifications outlined in our August 2016 CLO criteria update.

S&P's analysis also took into account a revision to the
subordinated management fee payable as compensation to the
collateral manager, which is in line with the amended and restated
collateral management agreement.

REPLACEMENT AND ORIGINAL NOTE ISSUANCES

  Replacement Notes(i)
  Class                Amount    Interest                          

                     (mil. $)    rate (%)        
  X                      3.50    LIBOR + 0.65
  A-1-R                420.00    LIBOR + 1.16
  A-2-R                105.00    LIBOR + 1.68
  B-R                   50.50    LIBOR + 2.00
  C-R                   42.00    LIBOR + 3.00
  D-R                   28.00    LIBOR + 5.85
  Subordinated notes A   0.00    N/A
  Subordinated notes B  63.90    N/A

(i)On the first refinancing date, the original subordinated notes
were renamed as subordinated notes (class B). In addition, an
additional class of subordinated notes, subordinated notes (class
A), were issued.

Original Notes

  Class                Amount    Interest                          
              
                      (mil. $)    rate (%)
  A-1                  421.50    LIBOR + 1.60
  A-2                   73.60    LIBOR + 2.40
  B                     42.75    LIBOR + 3.35
  C                     34.95    LIBOR + 3.80
  D                     26.10    LIBOR + 5.70
  Subordinated notes    59.90    N/A
       
S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow
analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction as reflected in
the trustee report, to estimate future performance. In line with
our criteria, our cash flow scenarios applied forward-looking
assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of defaults, and
recoveries upon default, under various interest rate and
macroeconomic scenarios. In addition, our analysis considered the
transaction's ability to pay timely interest or ultimate principal,
or both, to each of the rated tranches.

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

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

  RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Greywolf CLO V Ltd.
  Replacement class         Rating        Amount (mil $)
  X                         AAA (sf)                3.50
  A-1-R                     AAA (sf)              420.00
  A-2-R                     AA (sf)               105.00
  B-R                       A (sf)                 50.50
  C-R                       BBB- (sf)              42.00
  D-R                       BB- (sf)               28.00
  Subordinated notes A      NR                      0.00
  Subordinated notes B      NR                     63.90

  RATINGS WITHDRAWN

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

  NR--Not rated.


GREYWOLF CLO V: S&P Assigns Prelim BB-(sf) Rating on Cl. D-R Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to the class
A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, and D-R replacement notes, as well as to
the new class X notes, from Greywolf CLO V Ltd., a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) originally issued on April 29, 2015, that is
managed by Greywolf Loan Management L.P. (Series 2017-A), a
subsidiary of Greywolf Capital Management L.P.

The replacement notes will be issued via a proposed supplemental
indenture.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 23,
2018. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

On the Jan. 25, 2018, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
issuance of the replacement notes are expected to redeem the
original notes. At that time, S&P anticipates withdrawing the
ratings on the original notes and assigning ratings to the
replacement notes. However, if the refinancing doesn't occur, S&P
may affirm the ratings on the original notes and withdraw its
preliminary ratings on the replacement notes.

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

-- Increase the rated par amount and target initial par amount to
$649.00 million and $700.00 million, respectively, from $598.90
million and $650.00 million, respectively.

-- Extend the reinvestment period to Jan. 25, 2023, from April 25,
2019.

-- Extend the non-call period to Jan. 25, 2020, from April 25,
2017.

-- Extend the weighted average life test to Jan. 25, 2027, from
April 25, 2023.

-- Extend the legal final maturity date on the rated and
subordinated notes to Jan. 25, 2031, from April 25, 2027.

-- Issue additional class X senior secured floating-rate notes,
which are expected to be paid down using interest proceeds in equal
quarterly installments of $350,000 beginning with the April 2018
payment date and ending on the July 2020 payment date.

-- Rename the original subordinated notes to subordinated notes
(class B) and will assign a different CUSIP to this class of notes.
In addition, an additional class of subordinated notes,
subordinated notes (class A), will be issued. Subordinated notes
(class B) may be exchanged for subordinated notes (class A), and
subordinated notes (class A) may be exchanged for subordinated
notes (class B), in each case according to the transaction
documents. This will increase the total combined subordinated notes
balance to approximately $63.90 million from $59.90 million.

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

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

-- Incorporate the recovery rate methodology and updated industry
classifications outlined in S&P's August 2016 CLO criteria update.


S&P's analysis also took into account a revision to the
subordinated management fee payable as compensation to the
collateral manager, in line with proposed amended and restated
collateral management agreement.

  REPLACEMENT AND ORIGINAL NOTE ISSUANCES

  Replacement Notes(i)
  Class                Amount    Interest                          

                     (mil. $)    rate (%)       
  X                      3.50    LIBOR + 0.65
  A-1-R                420.00    LIBOR + 1.16
  A-2-R                105.00    LIBOR + 1.68
  B-R                   50.50    LIBOR + 2.00
  C-R                   42.00    LIBOR + 3.00
  D-R                   28.00    LIBOR + 5.85
  Subordinated notes A   0.00    N/A
  Subordinated notes B  63.90    N/A

(i)On the first refinancing date, the original subordinated notes
will be renamed to subordinated notes (class B). In addition, an
additional class of subordinated notes, subordinated notes (class
A), will be issued.
Original Notes
  Class                Amount    Interest                          
      
                      (mil. $)    rate (%)
  A-1                  421.50    LIBOR + 1.60
  A-2                   73.60    LIBOR + 2.40
  B                     42.75    LIBOR + 3.35
  C                     34.95    LIBOR + 3.80
  D                     26.10    LIBOR + 5.70
  Subordinated notes    59.90    N/A
       
S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow
analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction as reflected in
the trustee report, to estimate future performance (see table). 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

  Greywolf CLO V Ltd.
  Replacement class         Rating      Amount (mil. $)
  X                         AAA (sf)               3.50
  A-1-R                     AAA (sf)             420.00    
  A-2-R                     AA (sf)              105.00    
  B-R                       A (sf)                50.50    
  C-R                       BBB- (sf)             42.00    
  D-R                       BB- (sf)              28.00    
  Subordinated notes A      NR                     0.00
  Subordinated notes B      NR                    63.90   


GS MORTGAGE 2014-GC26: DBRS Confirms Bsf Rating on 2 Tranches
-------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS Limited confirmed the Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2014-GC26, issued by GS Mortgage Securities
Trust 2014-GC26 as follows:

-- Class A-1 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-2 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-3 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-4 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-5 at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-AB at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-S at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-A at AAA (sf)
-- Class X-B at AA (high) (sf)
-- Class B at AA (sf)
-- Class C at A (sf)
-- Class PEZ at A (sf)
-- Class D at BBB (low) (sf)
-- Class X-C at BB (sf)
-- Class E at BB (low) (sf)
-- Class F at B (sf)
-- Class X-D at B (sf)

All trends are Stable.

The rating confirmations reflect the overall stable performance of
the transaction. At issuance, the collateral consisted of 92
fixed-rate loans secured by 133 commercial properties. As of the
November 2017 remittance, all 69 loans remained in the pool with an
aggregate principal balance of $1.23 billion, representing a
collateral reduction of 1.9% since issuance due to scheduled loan
amortization. There are currently 11 loans (23.8% of the pool) with
remaining interest-only (IO) periods, ranging from 12 to 24 months,
while 11 loans (17.4% of the pool) are structured with full IO
terms. One loan (0.6% of the pool) is secured by collateral that
has been fully defeased. To date, 87 loans (96.1% of the pool) have
reported partial-year 2017 financials, while 88 loans (97.5% of the
pool) have reported YE2016 financials. Based on the most recent
year-end financial reporting, the transaction has a
weighted-average (WA) debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) and WA
Debt Yield of 1.58 times (x) and 9.2%, respectively, compared with
the DBRS WA Term DSCR and WA Debt Yield of 1.44x and 8.5%,
respectively.

The pool is concentrated by property type, as 38 loans,
representing 41.1% of the pool, are secured by retail properties
(including one regional mall; 7.2% of the pool), while 15 loans
(29.9% of the pool) are secured by office properties. By loan size,
the pool is relatively diverse, as the Top 15 loans only represent
49.7% of the pool. Based on the most recent cash flows available,
the Top 15 loans reported a WA DSCR of 1.31x, compared with the WA
DBRS Term DSCR of 1.48x, reflective of an 8.5% net cash flow (NCF)
decline from the DBRS issuance figures. Excluding the 5599 San
Felipe loan (Prospectus ID#3, 6.5% of the pool) from this analysis,
as the largest tenant at the property (representing 72.0% of the
net rentable area) received 12 months of rental abatement, the Top
15 loans had a WA DSCR of 1.57x, compared with the DBRS Term DSCR
of 1.46x, representing a WA NCF growth of 12.7% over the DBRS
issuance figures.

As of the November 2017 remittance, there is one loan (1.9% of the
pool) in special servicing and 13 loans (13.6% of the pool) on the
servicer's watchlist. The 129-131 Green Street loan (Prospectus
ID#13) was transferred to special servicing in December 2016 for
imminent default as a result of an uncooperative borrower, who
failed to implement cash management and a cash trap. The servicer
states that a demand for compliance with the loan documents was
made to the borrower, and since then, counsel has been engaged. Two
of the loans (1.7% of the pool) on the servicer's watchlist are
secured by limited-service hotel properties located in heavily
oil-reliant economies; both have been flagged for
performance-related reasons. Two other loans (6.8% of the pool)
were also flagged for performance declines; however, both
properties have larger tenants who had extended rental abatement
periods, artificially depressing both loans' cash flows. The
remaining loans on the watchlist were flagged as a result of either
increased vacancy/near-term tenant rollover (five loans; 2.6% of
the pool) or because of deferred maintenance (three loans; 2.3% of
the pool).

Classes X-A, X-B, X-C and X-D are interest-only (IO) certificates
that reference a single rated tranche or multiple rated tranches.
The IO rating mirrors the lowest-rated reference tranche adjusted
upward by one notch if senior in the waterfall.


H/2 ASSET 2014-1: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on Class C Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on the following
notes issued by H/2 Asset Funding 2014-1, Ltd. ("H/2 Asset Funding
2014-1"):

Cl. A-FL, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-FX, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed Baa3
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

H/2 Asset Funding 2014-1, Ltd. is a managed cash transaction; the
re-investment period ending in March 2018. The transaction's
eligible assets include: i) single asset/single borrower commercial
real estate(CMBS) rake bonds; ii) senior corporate bonds, and iii)
real estate bank loans. As of the December 13, 2017 trustee report,
the aggregate note balance of the transaction, including income
notes, is $515.9 million, the same as that at issuance. The
transaction is 84% invested in assets with a cumulative par balance
of $432.1; with $82.1 in the assets proceeds account.

No assets are defaulted as of the trustee's December 13, 2017
report.

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO CLO
pool. Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it
does not rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of
2350, same as that at last review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 6.0 years, as compared to 7.0 years at
last review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on
the underlying look-through loan exposures.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 34.7%, same as that at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 14.1%, compared to 12.8% at last review

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for some of the Rated
Notes, although a change in one key parameter assumption could be
offset by a change in one or more of the other key parameter
assumptions. The Rated Notes are particularly sensitive to changes
in the ratings of the underlying collateral and credit assessments.
Holding all other parameters constant, notching down approximately
30% of the collateral pool by -1 notch would result in an average
modeled rating movement on the Rated Notes of zero to two notches
downward (e.g., one notch down implies a ratings movement of Baa3
to Ba1). Notching down approximately 30% of the collateral pool by
-2notches would result in an average modeled rating movement on the
Rated Notes of zero to two notches downward (e.g., two notches down
implies a ratings movement of Baa3 to Ba2).

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


HERTZ VEHICLE II: Fitch Assigns 'BBsf' Rating to Class D Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following ratings and Outlooks to
the series 2018-1 ABS notes issued by Hertz Vehicle Financing II LP
(HVF II):

HVF II, Series 2018-1
-- $764,020,000 class A notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $179,900,000 class B notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $56,080,000 class C notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $58,200,000 class D notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $67,635,000 class RR notes 'NRsf'.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Diverse Vehicle Fleet: HVF II is deemed diverse under Fitch's
criteria due to the high degree of OEM, model, segment and
geographic diversification in Hertz and Dollar Thrifty's rental
fleets. Concentration limits, based on a number of characteristics,
are present to help mitigate the risk of individual OEM
bankruptcies or failure to honor repurchase agreement obligations.

Fluctuating Fleet Performance: Hertz's fleet depreciation has been
volatile since 2014 for risk vehicles and remains elevated due to
weaker residual values, particularly for compact cars. Despite
this, vehicle disposition losses have been minimal. Fitch has taken
recent performance into account and adjusted the risk depreciation
assumption higher to 2.0%.

OEM Financial Stability: OEMs with PV concentrations in HVF II have
all improved their financial position in recent years and are well
positioned to meet repurchase agreement obligations. Fitch affirmed
the Issuer Default Rating (IDR) of Nissan, the largest OEM in HVF
II, at 'BBB+' in October 2017 and upgraded GM's IDR (the
second-largest OEM) to 'BBB' in June 2017.

Enhancement Versus Expected Losses: Credit enhancement (CE) is
dynamic and based on the fleet mix, with maximum and minimum
required levels. Each series' levels cover or are well within range
of Fitch's maximum and minimum expected loss levels. Fitch's
expected losses for risk vehicles have increased due to the
adjustment to the risk vehicle depreciation assumptions.

Structural Features Mitigate Risk: Vehicle market value/disposition
proceeds tests, amortization triggers and events of default all
mitigate risks stemming from ongoing vehicle value volatility and
weakness, ensuring parity between asset values and ongoing market
conditions, resulting in low historical fleet disposition losses
and stable depreciation rates.

Adequate Fleet Servicer and Fleet Management: Hertz is deemed an
adequate servicer and administrator, as evidenced by its historical
fleet management and securitization performance to date. Automotive
Solutions, Inc. (Fiserv) is the backup disposition agent, while
Lord Securities Corporation (Lord Securities) is the backup
administrator.

Legal Structure Integrity: The legal structure of the transaction
provides that a bankruptcy of Hertz would not impair the timeliness
of payments on the securities.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch's rating sensitivity analysis focuses on two scenarios
involving potentially extreme market disruptions that would force
the agency to redefine its stress assumptions. The first examines
the effect of moving Fitch's bankruptcy/liquidation timing scenario
to eight months at 'AAAsf' with subsequent increases to each rating
level. The second considers the effect of moving the disposition
stresses to the higher end of the range at each rating level for a
diverse fleet. For example, the 'AAAsf' stress level would move
from 24% to 28%. Finally, the last example shows the impact of both
stresses on the structure. The purpose of these stresses is to
demonstrate the potential rating impact on a transaction if one or
a combination of these scenarios occurs.

Fitch determined ratings by applying expected loss levels for
various rating scenarios until the proposed CE exceeded the
expected losses from the sensitivity. Expected loss levels outlined
in the tables below are representative of expected levels at the
requested ratings. For all sensitivity scenarios, the notes show
little sensitivity to the class A notes under each of the scenarios
with potential downgrades only occurring under the combined stress
scenario. One-notch to one-level downgrades would occur to the
subordinate notes under each scenario with greater sensitivity to
the disposition stress scenario. Under the combined scenario, the
subordinate notes would be placed under greater stress and could
experience multiple-level downgrades.


HIGHBRIDGE LOAN 4-2014: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- Rating on E-R Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to the class X,
A1-R, A2-R, B-R, C-R, D-R, and E-R replacement notes from
Highbridge Loan Management 4-2014 Ltd., a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) originally issued in August 2014 that is managed
by HPS Investment Partners CLO (US) LLC. The replacement notes will
be issued via a proposed supplemental indenture. On the refinancing
date, it is anticipated that the issuer's legal name will change to
HPS Loan Management 4-2014 Ltd., and the co-issuer's legal name
will change to HPS Loan Management 4-2014 LLC.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's opinion that the credit
support available is commensurate with the associated rating
levels. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

On the Jan. 29, 2018, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
issuance of the replacement notes are expected to redeem the
original class A-1, A-2a, A-2b, B, C, D, and E notes. At that time,
S&P anticipates withdrawing the ratings on the original notes and
assigning ratings to the replacement notes. However, if the
refinancing doesn't occur, S&P may affirm the ratings on the
original notes and withdraw its preliminary ratings on the
replacement notes.

REPLACEMENT AND ORIGINAL NOTE ISSUANCES

  Replacement Notes
  Class               Notional    Interest                         
   
                      (mil. $)    rate (%)
  X                      5.300    LIBOR + 0.70
  A1-R                 313.500    LIBOR + 1.07
  A2-R                 101.750    LIBOR + 1.45
  B-R                   30.250    LIBOR + 1.90
  C-R                   34.375    LIBOR + 2.65
  D-R                   19.250    LIBOR + 5.70
  E-R                    9.625    LIBOR + 9.00
  Subordinated notes    55.000    N/A

  Original Notes
  Class              Notional    Interest                          
             
                     (mil. $)    rate (%)
  A-1                  310.00    LIBOR + 1.44
  A-2a                  32.00    LIBOR + 2.05
  A-2b                  30.00    4.26
  B                     38.00    LIBOR + 3.00
  C                     27.50    LIBOR + 3.65
  D                     22.00    LIBOR + 4.90
  E                      9.50    LIBOR + 5.35
  Subordinated notes    44.50    N/A

  N/A--Not applicable.

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

"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

  Highbridge Loan Management 4-2014 Ltd.
  Replacement class         Rating      Amount (mil. $)
  X                         AAA (sf)              5.300
  A1-R                      AAA (sf)            313.500
  A2-R                      AA (sf)             101.750
  B-R                       A (sf)               30.250
  C-R                       BBB- (sf)            34.375
  D-R                       BB- (sf)             19.250
  E-R                       B- (sf)               9.625


IMPAC: Moody's Takes Action on $17MM Alt-A RMBS Issued in 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of nine tranches
from three transactions backed by Alt-A mortgage loans, issued by
Impac in 2004.

Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: Impac CMB Trust Series 2004-6 Collateralized Asset-Backed
Bonds, Series 2004-6

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013 Confirmed
at B1 (sf)

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013 Confirmed
at B3 (sf)

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013 Confirmed
at Caa2 (sf)

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Mar 30, 2011
Downgraded to Ca (sf)

Cl. M-5, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 30, 2011
Downgraded to C (sf)

Cl. M-6, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Mar 30, 2011 Downgraded
to C (sf)

Issuer: Impac CMB Trust Series 2004-7 Collateralized Asset-Backed
Bonds, Series 2004-7

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Mar 18, 2016 Upgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. M-5, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Mar 18, 2016 Upgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: Impac CMB Trust Series 2004-9 Collateralized Asset-Backed
Bonds, Series 2004-9

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Mar 30, 2011 Downgraded
to C (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions reflect the recent performance of the underlying
pools and Moody's updated loss expectations on those pools. The
rating upgrades are primarily due to improvement of credit
enhancement available to the bonds.

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

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

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate fell to 4.1% in December 2017 from 4.7% in
December 2016. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of
3.5% to 4.5% for the 2018 year. Deviations from this central
scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector. House prices
are another key driver of US RMBS performance. Moody's expects
house prices to continue to rise in 2018. Lower increases than
Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating actions.
Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent
on servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicing
transfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact the
performance of these transactions.


JP MORGAN 2004-CIBC10: S&P Hikes Class E Notes Rating to B+
-----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised its ratings on the class D commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates from JPMorgan Chase Commercial
Mortgage Securities Corp.'s series 2004-CIBC10, a U.S. commercial
mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction. At the same time,
S&P affirmed its ratings on three other classes from the same
transaction.

S&P said, "For the affirmations and upgrade, our expectation of
credit enhancement was in line with the affirmed or raised rating
levels. The upgrade on class D also reflects the timely interest
payments to the class over the past 18 months. As of our last
review in March 2017, class D had received timely interest payments
for only seven months.

"While available credit enhancement levels suggest further positive
rating movements on class D, and positive rating movement on
classes C and E, our analysis also considered the significant
single-tenant exposure at properties securing several large loans
remaining in the transaction, including 65-75 Lower Welden Street
($15.6 million, 15.2%), Universal Technical Institute ($9.2
million, 9.0%), Foss Manufacturing ($8.4 million, 8.2%), Dick's
Sporting Goods-Greenwood ($2.7 million, 2.6%), and Federal
Express-Buffalo ($2.4 million, 2.3%). The significant single-tenant
exposure may limit the refinancing ability of the mortgage loans
securing these properties in the event the tenants vacate the
properties at or prior to lease expiration."

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Jan. 12, 2018, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool balance was $102.7 million, which is 5.2% of the pool balance
at issuance. The pool currently includes 22 loans and one real
estate-owned (REO) asset, down from 199 loans at issuance. One
asset ($2.3 million, 2.2%) is with the special servicer, two ($2.1
million, 2.0%) are defeased, and seven ($28.1 million, 27.3%) are
on the master servicer's watchlist.

S&P calculated a 1.35x S&P Global Ratings' weighted average debt
service coverage (DSC) and 49.0% S&P Global Ratings' weighted
average loan-to-value (LTV) ratio using a 7.89% S&P Global Ratings'
weighted average capitalization rate. The DSC, LTV, and
capitalization rate calculations exclude the specially serviced
asset and two defeased loans.

The top 10 nondefeased loans have an aggregate outstanding pool
trust balance of $84.0 million (81.8%). Adjusting the
servicer-reported numbers, S&P calculated an S&P Global Ratings'
weighted average DSC and LTV of 1.37x and 50.2%, respectively, for
the top 10 nondefeased loans.

To date, the transaction has experienced $149.2 million in
principal losses, or 7.6% of the original pool trust balance. S&P
expects losses to reach approximately 7.7% of the original pool
trust balance in the near term, based on losses incurred to date
and additional losses S&P expects upon the eventual resolution of
the specially serviced asset.

CREDIT CONSIDERATIONS

As of the Jan. 12, 2018, trustee remittance report, one asset in
the pool was with the special servicer, LNR Partners LLC.

The 100 South Shore Drive asset ($2.3 million, 2.2%) has a total
reported exposure of $2.6 million. The asset is a 42,758-sq.-ft.
office property in East Haven, Conn. The loan was transferred to
the special servicer on Oct. 1, 2014, because of maturity default
and became REO in August 2017. The reported occupancy as of Dec.
31, 2016, was 32.2%. S&P expects a significant loss (60% or
greater) upon this loan's eventual resolution.

RATINGS LIST

  JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.
  Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2004-CIBC10
                                        Rating                     
              
  Class        Identifier       To              From             
  B            46625YDG5        AA+ (sf)        AA+ (sf)
  C            46625YDH3        A+ (sf)         A+ (sf)          
  D            46625YDJ9        BBB+ (sf)       BB+ (sf)
  E            46625YDK6        B+ (sf)         B+ (sf)


JP MORGAN 2004-LN2: Moody's Lowers Class C Certs Rating to C
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings on three
classes and affirmed the ratings on four classes in J.P. Morgan
Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-LN2

Cl. A-1A, Downgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017
Downgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Cl. B, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. C, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Downgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Downgraded to C
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on the P&I classes, A-1A, B, and C, were downgraded due
to the anticipated timing of losses of loans in special servicing.

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

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 52.1% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 50.6% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 12.4% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 12.6% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017. The methodologies used in rating Cl.
X-1 were "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance
Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June 2017 and "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the December 15, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 90% to $124.7
million from $1.25 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 20 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 48% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 84% of the pool. Five loans, constituting
12% of the pool, have defeased and are secured by US government
securities.

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

Four loans, constituting 11% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Twenty-seven loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $89.0 million (for an average loss
severity of 60%). Two loans, constituting 54% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced loan
is the Chesapeake Square ($59.9 million -- 48.1% of the pool),
which is secured by an 800,000 square foot (SF) single-level
regional mall located just south of Norfolk, Virginia (collateral
for the loan is 530,158 SF). The mall is anchored by Target, J.C.
Penney, and Burlington Coat Factory (Target is not part of the
collateral). The mall has lost two anchor tenants in Macy's and
Sears since early 2015. However, the mall signed a tenant, Hickory
Farms, in the former Sears space to a short-term lease. The loan
initially transferred to special servicing in 2014 due to imminent
monetary default and a modification was executed in June 2014. The
loan subsequently transferred back to the master servicer in
October 2014. However, the loan returned to special servicing in
July 2015 due to imminent default. The loan became REO in April
2016. As of November 2017 total mall and inline occupancy was 77%
and 75% respectively, compared to 61% and 76% in December 2016.
Moody's expects a large loss on this loan.

The second largest specially serviced loan is the Dayton Portfolio
($7.5 million -- 6.0% of the pool), which was originally secured by
seven industrial properties located in Huber Heights and Moraine,
Ohio. The loan transferred to special servicing in November 2013
due to imminent monetary default. All the properties became real
estate owned ("REO") in October 2014. Since 2015, six of the seven
properties have been sold. One property, 5749 Executive Boulevard,
in Huber Heights remains unsold. The servicer has used sale
proceeds to pay down the loan. Moody's expects a large loss on this
loan.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and partial year 2017 operating results for 100% of the pool
(excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's weighted
average conduit LTV is 90%, compared to 66% 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 27% to the most recently available net operating
income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 10.0%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.21X and 1.46X,
respectively, compared to 1.53X and 1.95X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 20% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Ball Corporation Loan ($10.3 million -- 8.2% of
the pool), which is secured by a 496,200 SF industrial building
located in Baldwinsville, New York. As of January 2017, the
property was fully leased by PaperWorks Industries, Inc. (Moody's
senior secured rating -- Ca; stable outlook) through 2032. The loan
is on the watch-list due to a cash management trigger event
occurring. Due to the single-tenant exposure, Moody's valuation
incorporated a lit/dark analysis. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
149% and 0.7X, respectively.

The second largest loan is the T-Mobile Loan ($8.1 million -- 6.5%
of the pool), which is secured by a 77,484 SF suburban office
building located in Meridian, Idaho. The building is 100% leased to
T-Moblie USA, Inc. (Moody's senior unsecured rating -- Ba2; stable
outlook) through June 2019. Due to the single-tenant exposure,
Moody's valuation incorporated a lit/dark analysis. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 108% and 0.95X, respectively.

The third largest loan is The Pointe Apartments Loan ($6.6 million
-- 5.3% of the pool), which is secured by a 238 unit multifamily
property located in El Paso, Texas. As of September 2017, the
property was 91% leased. Performance dropped slightly in 2016 due
to higher expenses while revenue stayed flat. The loan has
amortized 20% since securitization and matures in July of 2019.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 64% and 1.51X, respectively,
compared to 56% and 1.62X at the last review.


JP MORGAN 2006-CIBC14: Moody's Hikes Class A-J Debt Rating to B1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on one class and
affirmed the ratings on two classes in J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial
Mortgage Securities Corp. Series 2006-CIBC14:

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

Cl. B, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 11, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating on the P&I class, A-J, was upgraded based primarily on
an increase in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and
amortization. The deal has paid down 51% since Moody's last
review.

The rating on the P&I class, B, was affirmed because the ratings
are consistent with Moody's expected loss.

The rating on the IO class, X-1, was affirmed based on the credit
of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 11.4% of the
current balance, compared to 11.5% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 11.8% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 12.2% at the last review.
Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit
and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

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

Moody's analysis incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since 62% 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
and the recovery as a pay down of principal to the most senior
class.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the December 12, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 98% to $45.5 million
from $2.75 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by six mortgage loans ranging in size from 6% to 36%
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 4, compared to 7 at Moody's last review.

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

Sixty-one loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $313 million (for an average loss
severity of 41%). Three loans, constituting 62% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced loan
is the Green Bay Plaza Loan ($16.2 million -- 35.6% of the pool),
which is secured by a 235,000 SF shopping center located in Green
Bay, WI. The loan transferred to special servicing on 2/21/14 due
to imminent default. The property has seen recent leasing momentum,
with a national tenant taking a 20,000 SF space.

The second largest specially serviced loan is the Wyckford Commons
Apartments Loan ($7.0 million -- 15.5% of the pool), which is
secured by a 248 unit apartment complex located in Indianapolis,
IN, roughly 8 miles west of the Central Business District. The loan
transferred to special servicing on 12/5/13 due to payment default
and became REO in August of 2016. As of November 2017, the property
was 90% leased compared to 77% leased in September 2016.

The remaining specially serviced loan is secured by an industrial
property. Moody's estimates an aggregate $10.4 million loss for the
specially serviced loans (37% expected loss on average).

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2017 operating results for 50% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans).

The top performing conduit loans represent 29% of the pool balance.
The largest loan is the MetoKote -- US Portfolio Loan ($10.7
million -- 23.6% of the pool), which is secured by five industrial
properties totaling 624,010 SF in Ohio, Illinois and Tennessee. The
properties are 100% leased to MetoKote through May 2025. The loan
is fully amortizing and due to the single tenant concentration,
Moody's value is based on a lit/dark analysis. The loan matures in
June 2025. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 36% and 2.82X,
respectively, compared to 48% and 2.1X at last review.

The second largest loan is the Attic Plus Self Storage Portfolio
Loan ($2.5 million -- 5.5% of the pool), which is secured by six
self-facilities with a total of 2,032 units across the state of
Alabama. The facilities were built between 1993 and 1999 and
renovated in 2004. As of year-end 2016, the property was 98% leased
compared to 99% at year-end 2015. The loan is fully amortizing and
has paid down 72% since securitization. The loan matures in
December 2020. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 24% and 4X,
respectively, compared to 33% and 3.04X at the last review.


JP MORGAN 2006-CIBC15: Fitch Affirms CCC Rating on Class A-M Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 15 distressed classes of JP Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2006-CIBC15 (JPM 2006-CIBC15).  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Concentrated Pool/Adverse Selection: The pool is very concentrated
with only 17 loans or REO assets remaining. Nearly half the
portfolio is real estate owned (REO) or specially serviced at
48.6%. The largest loan in the pool, the Scottsdale Plaza Resort
(23.8% of the pool), has been designated a Fitch Loan of Concern.
Due to the concentrated nature of the pool, Fitch performed a
sensitivity analysis, which grouped the remaining loans/REO assets
based on loan structural features, collateral quality and
performance and ranked them by their perceived likelihood of
repayment. The ratings reflect this sensitivity analysis.

Since the last rating action in February 2017; the pool has paid
down by $18 million from the resolution of one REO asset and
scheduled amortization; realized losses over the period were $13.4
million.

As of the December 2017 Remittance Report, the total pool has been
reduced 88.5% to $243.5 million from $2.1 billion at issuance. The
transaction is slightly undercollateralized by $3.7 million.
Interest shortfalls are currently impacting classes A-J and below.
There is one defeased loan (12.2% of the pool), which matures in
July 2018. Fitch modelled losses of 19.9% of the original pool
balance including realized losses to date.

Largest Loan in the Pool; Fitch Loan of Concern: The Scottsdale
Plaza Resort is secured by a 404-key hotel located immediately
north of downtown Scottsdale, AZ. The property was originally built
in 1973 and expanded to its current size in 1985. The property
features 30,000 sf of meeting space, five outdoor swimming pools,
two restaurants, two lounges, five tennis courts, a business
center, a spa, and a gym.

Recent performance has seen some improvement with the servicer
reported YE 2016 NOI DSCR at 1.78x compared with YE 2015 DSCR at
0.60x. Prior to 2016, the property had not generated breakeven cash
flow since at least 2009. Per the TTM June 2017 STR report, the
property reported increased occupancy, ADR, and RevPAR of 59.9%,
$150, and $90, respectively, compared with 56.8%, $141, and $80,
respectively, as of TTM August 2016. RevPAR penetration has also
improved with TTM June 2017 at 81.2% compared with 72.9% as of TTM
August 2016.

The loan was previously in specially servicing due to imminent
maturity default in 2016. A loan modification, which provided a two
year extension and option for a third year, in exchange for, among
other conditions, a $4 million equity contribution from the
borrower to fund renovations, additional guarantors, and a
completion guaranty, was executed in April 2016. The renovations
were scheduled to be completed in December 2017. The loan matures
in June 2018 with the one-year extension remaining.

REO/Specially Serviced: 48.6% of the pool is currently in specially
servicing, with nearly all assets now REO. The largest specially
serviced loan is FPG Portfolio I (10.1% of the pool), a three
property industrial portfolio located in SC, NC, and TX. The
Irving, TX located property is REO while the other two properties
are going through the foreclosure process. The loan, which was
originally secured by 12 industrial/office properties, was
previously modified in 2011 into an A-B note structure. The loan
continued to have performance issues and re-transferred to special
servicing in 2016 due to maturity default. No recovery is
anticipated on the B-note.

The next largest asset in special serviced is the REO
Marriott-Jackson (9.8% of the pool), a 378-room full service hotel
located in Jackson, MS. The loan transferred in 2016 due to a
maturity default with the loan becoming REO in March 2017. The
property has been undergoing a roof replacement over the last
several months. The June 2017 operating statement reported negative
debt service coverage.

Single Tenant Properties: Five performing loans (15.3% of the pool)
are secured by properties leased to single tenants. All loans are
amortizing with two fully amortizing (4.4%).

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The 'CCCsf' rating on class A-M could be subject to upgrade should
the transaction receive stronger than expected recoveries on the
specially serviced assets. Downgrade to the class is also possible
should estimated recoveries on the specially serviced loans
continue to decline.

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $130.9 million class A-M at 'CCCsf'; RE 100%.
-- $112.6 million class A-J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class B at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class C at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class D at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class E at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class F at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class G at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class H at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

Classes A-1 through A-4 have paid in full. Fitch does not rate the
class NR certificates. Fitch previously withdrew the ratings on the
interest-only class X-1 and X-2 certificates.


JP MORGAN 2011-C3: Fitch Affirms 'B-sf' Rating on Class J Certs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 10 classes of J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust (JPMCC) commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates, series 2011-C3.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Highly Concentrated Pool; Adverse Selection: The pool has become
increasingly concentrated with only 24 of the original 45 loans
remaining. The largest loan comprises 22.4% of the pool, while the
top five, 10 and 15 loans account for 60.2%, 83.5% and 92.3% of the
pool, respectively. As of the December 2017 distribution date, the
pool's aggregate principal balance had paid down by 41.7% to $870.6
million from $1.5 billion at issuance. One loan (5.5% of the pool)
was reportedly paid off post the December 2017 distribution date,
and one loan is currently defeased (1.2% of the pool).

Upgrades Not Warranted: Despite the increasing credit enhancement
to the investment-grade classes, ratings were not upgraded due to
the highly concentrated pool by loan size and property type and
adverse selection.

Property Type Concentration: Retail properties comprise 58.3% of
the pool, including three of the top five loans in the pool and
eight of the top 15 loans.

Fitch Loans of Concern: There are no loans currently in special
servicing. However, three loans, IAC Portfolio, Sangertown Square
and Turnpike Mall, have been flagged as Fitch Loans of Concern
(FLOCs). They comprise 19.2% of the total pool and are all in the
top 15. The IAC Portfolio (10.9% of deal balance), which is secured
by seven retail centers, suffered a decline in occupancy primarily
due to the departure of three anchors. The servicer reported no
tenant prospects, as of December 2017. Sangertown Square (6.7% of
deal balance) suffered a large decrease in expense reimbursements
with the departure of its largest anchor, Sears, in July 2015. The
replacement tenant, Boscov's, does not pay any expense
reimbursements. Turnpike Mall (1.6% of deal balance) experienced a
significant decrease in occupancy with the departure of anchor
tenant Sears (37.3% of NRA) in October 2017. TJ Maxx (12.8% of NRA)
is also expected to vacate this month.

Maturity Concentration: The current pool's loan maturity schedule
is: 6.5% (2018), 22.2% (2020) and 65.7% (2021).

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Negative Rating Outlooks assigned to classes G, H and J reflect
concerns surrounding the three FLOCs (19.2% of the pool) and the
pool's high retail concentration of 58.3%, including three of the
top five loans in the pool and eight of the top 15 loans. Fitch's
analysis included an additional stress on the Holyoke Mall loan,
which comprises 22.4% of the transaction collateral. Rating
downgrades to these classes may occur should performance continue
to decline. Rating Outlooks for the senior classes remain Stable
due to the stable performance of the majority of the remaining pool
and continued expected amortization. Rating upgrades may occur with
improved pool performance and additional paydown or defeasance.

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

-- $137.5 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $485.4 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $623.0 million class X-A* at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $41.1 million class B at 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $52.3 million class C at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $35.5 million class D at 'BBB+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $41.1 million class E at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $9.3 million class G at 'BBsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $16.8 million class H at 'Bsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $3.7 million class J at 'B-sf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable.

*Notional amount and interest-only.

The class A-1, A2 and A-3FL certificates have paid in full. Fitch
does not rate the class F, X-B, and NR certificates.


JP MORGAN 2016-3: Moody's Hikes Rating on Class B-4 Debt From Ba2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of seven
tranches issued by J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2016-3 (JPMMT 2016-3)
transaction, a prime jumbo RMBS transaction. This transaction is
backed by two pools of prime quality, fixed rate, first-lien
mortgage loans, originated by various originators. The loans in
this transaction have comparatively high weighted average seasoning
(38 months) and strong borrower characteristics, with high weighted
average original FICO score of 772 and low weighted average
amortized loan-to-value ratio of 64.4% as of November 2017. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. is the master servicer and U.S. Bank Trust
National Association is the trustee.

The complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2016-3

Cl. 1-A-M, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 30, 2016
Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-M, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 30, 2016
Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. A-M, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 30, 2016
Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. B-1, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Sep 30, 2016
Definitive Rating Assigned Aa3 (sf)

Cl. B-2, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Sep 30, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

Cl. B-3, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Sep 30, 2016 Definitive
Rating Assigned Baa2 (sf)

Cl. B-4, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Sep 30, 2016
Definitive Rating Assigned Ba2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating upgrades are primarily due to an increase in credit
enhancement (CE) available to the bonds and a decrease in Moody's
projected pool losses (see link below), which reflect the recent
strong performance of the underlying pools with minimal serious
delinquencies till date. Higher than expected voluntary prepayment
rates since issuance have contributed to increases in percentage
credit enhancement levels for the upgraded bonds - the CE on the
Classes 1-A-M, 2-A-M and A-M have increased to 6.96% from 6.15% at
closing, on Class B-1 to 4.33% from 3.80% at closing, on Class B-2
to 2.54% from 2.20% at closing, on Class B-3 to 1.48% from 1.25% at
closing and on Class B-4 to 0.88% from 0.75% at closing. Moody's
pool loss projections also incorporate the strength of the
servicing framework, the originators and aggregator for the pools,
the results of the third party due diligence review done at
issuance and the representation and warranty (R&W) framework,
amongst other factors.

The transaction cashflow waterfall follows 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 could be exposed to
increased performance volatility later in the transaction's life.
JPMMT 2016-3 benefits from credit enhancement floors that protect
against such tail risk, with a senior subordination floor of 1.25%
of the closing pool balance, which mitigates tail risk by
protecting the senior bonds from eroding credit enhancement over
time. Cl. A-M is an exchangeable bond for Cl. 1-A-M and Cl. 2-A-M.

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

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

Down

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

Up

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

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


JP MORGAN 2018-1: Moody's Assigns (P)B2 Rating to Class B-5 Debt
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to 19
classes of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) issued by
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2018-1 (JPMMT 2018-1). The ratings range
from (P)Aaa (sf) to (P)B2 (sf).

The certificates are backed by 735 fully-amortizing fixed rate
mortgage loans with a total balance of $463,721,641 as of January
1, 2018 cut-off date. Similar to prior JPMMT transactions, JPMMT
2018-1 includes conforming fixed-rate mortgage loans originated by
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. (Chase) and LoanDepot, and underwritten
to the government sponsored enterprises (GSE) guidelines in
addition to prime jumbo non-conforming mortgages purchased by
JPMMAC from various originators and aggregators.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. will be the servicer on the conforming
loans originated by JPMorgan Chase. LoanDepot and Shellpoint
Mortgage Servicing will service conforming loans originated by
LoanDepot. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, LoanDepot, USAA,
Guaranteed Rate and PHH Mortgage will be the servicers on the prime
jumbo loans. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. will be the master servicer and
securities administrator. U.S. Bank National Association will be
the trustee. Pentalpha Surveillance LLC will be the representations
and warranties breach reviewer.

Distributions of principal and interest and loss allocations are
based on a typical shifting-interest structure that benefits from
and a senior and subordination floor.

The complete rating actions are:

Issuer: J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2018-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

Summary Credit Analysis and Rating Rationale

Moody's expected cumulative net loss on the aggregate pool is 0.4%
in a base scenario and reaches 5.2% at a stress level consistent
with the Aaa (sf) 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 provisional ratings on the certificates on the
credit quality of the mortgage loans, the structural features of
the transaction, Moody's assessments of the aggregators,
originators and servicers, the strength of the third party due
diligence and the representations and warranties (R&W) framework of
the transaction.

Collateral Description

JPMMT 2018-1 is a securitization of a pool of 735 fully-amortizing
mortgage loans with a total balance of $463,721,641 as of the
cut-off date, with a weighted average (WA) original term to
maturity of 359.8 months, and a WA seasoning of 3.4 months. The
borrowers in this transaction have high FICO scores and sizeable
equity in their properties. The WA original FICO score is 772 and
the WA original combined loan-to-value ratio (CLTV) is 71.4%. The
characteristics of the loans underlying the pool are generally
comparable to other JPMMT transactions backed by 30-year mortgage
loans that Moody's has rated. Two GSE eligible loans (0.2% of the
pool) were recast due to curtailments.

There are 136 properties located in counties affected by wildfires
in southern California. Post-disaster inspections for these
properties have been ordered by the loan seller. Any loans that
come back with damages greater than $1,000 will be removed or
repurchased out of the pool. In addition, there is a property
damage test as part of the breach review process for a severely
delinquent loan or a delinquent modified loan which will provide a
further level protection against losses precipitated by damage from
the recent fires. Furthermore, 12.9% of the properties are located
in areas affected by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma and the wildfire in
northern California. Post-disaster inspections ordered by the loan
seller indicated that none of those properties were damaged or had
an estimated total cost to repair all damages under $1,000.

In this transaction, 41.9% of the pool by loan balance was
underwritten by Chase and LoanDepot to Fannie Mae's and Freddie
Mac's guidelines (conforming loans). Moreover, the conforming loans
in this transaction have a high average current loan balance at
$532,692. The higher conforming loan balance of loans in JPMMT
2018-1 is attributable to the greater amount of properties located
in high-cost areas, such as the metro areas of New York City, Los
Angeles and San Francisco. Chase (31.9%), Caliber Home Loans
(13.0%), United Shore Financial Services (12.8%) and LoanDepot
(12.2%) contribute approximately 69.9% 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

Three 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 2018-1's R&W framework is in line with other JPMMT
transactions where an independent reviewer is named at closing, and
costs and manner of review are clearly outlined at issuance.
Moody's review of the R&W framework takes into account the
financial strength of the R&W providers, scope of R&Ws (including
qualifiers and sunsets) and enforcement mechanisms.

The R&W providers vary in financial strength. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
National Association (rated Aa2), who is the R&W provider for
approximately 31.9% (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. 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.

Trustee and Master Servicer

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

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 1.25% of the
original pool balance, the subordinate bonds do not receive any
principal and all principal is then paid to the senior bonds. In
addition, if the subordinate percentage drops below 6.00% of
current pool balance, the senior distribution amount will include
all principal collections and the subordinate principal
distribution amount will be zero. The subordinate bonds themselves
benefit from a floor. When the total current balance of a given
subordinate tranche plus the aggregate balance of the subordinate
tranches that are junior to it amount to less than 1.00% of the
original pool balance, those tranches do not receive principal
distributions. Principal those tranches would have received are
directed to pay more senior subordinate bonds pro-rata.

Transaction Structure

The transaction uses the shifting interest structure in which the
senior bonds benefit from a number of protections. Funds collected,
including principal, are first used to make interest payments to
the senior bonds. Next, principal payments are made to the senior
bonds. Next, available distribution amounts are used to reimburse
realized losses and certificate writedown amounts for the senior
bonds (after subordinate bond have been reduced to zero I.e. the
credit support depletion date). Finally, interest and then
principal payments are paid to the subordinate bonds in sequential
order.

Realized losses are allocated in a reverse sequential order, first
to the lowest subordinate bond. After the balance of the
subordinate bonds is written off, losses from the pool begin to
write off the principal balance of the senior support bond, and
finally losses are allocated to the super senior bonds.

In addition, the pass-through rate on the bonds is based on the net
WAC as reduced by the sum of (i) the reviewer annual fee rate and
(ii) the capped trust expense rate. In the event that there is a
small number of loans remaining, the last outstanding bonds' rate
can be reduced to zero.

Other Considerations

Similar to recent JPMMT transactions, extraordinary trust expenses
in the JPMMT 2018-1 transaction are deducted from Net WAC as
opposed to available distribution amount. Moody's believe there is
a very low likelihood that the rated certificates in JPMMT 2018-1
will incur any losses from extraordinary expenses or
indemnification payments from potential future lawsuits against key
deal parties. First, all of the loans are prime quality Qualified
Mortgages originated under a regulatory environment that requires
tighter originations controls than pre-crisis, thus reducing the
likelihood that the loans have defects that could form the basis of
a lawsuit. Second, the transaction has reasonably well defined
processes in place to identify loans with defects on an ongoing
basis. In this transaction, an independent breach reviewer
(Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC), named at closing must review loans
for breaches of representations and warranties when certain clearly
defined triggers have been breached which reduces the likelihood
that parties will be sued for inaction. Third, the issuer has
disclosed the results of a credit, compliance and valuation review
of 100% of the mortgage loans by independent third parties.
Finally, the performance of past JPMMT transactions have been well
within expectation.

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

Down

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

Up

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


JP MORGAN 2018-BCON: S&P Assigns Prelim. B on Class F Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to J.P. Morgan
Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2018-BCON's commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed securities
transaction backed by the $200.0 million portion of six uncrossed,
five-year, fixed-rate commercial mortgage loans, amounting to a
combined trust balance of $255.0 million. Each loan is secured by
one residential tower within The Beacon, a multifamily complex in
Jersey City, N.J., and one 510-space parking facility. The complex
also includes three other buildings, which are not part of the
collateral for this transaction.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 25,
2018. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

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

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED
  J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2018-BCON

  Class       Rating(i)             Amount
  A           AAA (sf)          81,535,000
  X           AAA (sf)          81,535,000(ii)
  B           AA- (sf)          20,465,000
  C           A- (sf)           23,500,000
  D           BBB- (sf)         24,000,000
  E           BB- (sf)          27,900,000
  F(iii)      B (sf)            10,800,000
  HRR(iii)    NR                11,800,000


LCM 26: S&P Assigns BB- Rating on $555MM Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to LCM 26 Ltd./LCM 26 LLC's
$555 million floating-rate notes.

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

The ratings reflect S&P's view of:

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

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

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

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

  RATINGS ASSIGNED
  LCM 26 Ltd./LCM 26 LLC
  Class                  Rating        Amount
                                      (mil. $)
  X                      AAA (sf)        3.00
  A-1                    AAA (sf)      366.00
  A-2                    NR             24.00
  B                      AA (sf)        66.00
  C (deferrable)         A (sf)         39.00
  D (deferrable)         BBB- (sf)      33.00
  E (deferrable)         BB- (sf)       24.00
  I subordinated notes   NR             58.70

  NR--Not rated.


MADISON PARK XXVII: S&P Assigns Prelim BB-(sf) Rating on D Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Madison Park
Funding XXVII Ltd./Madison Park Funding XXVII LLC's $701.60 million
floating-rate notes.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 18,
2018. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

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

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

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

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

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED
  Madison Park Funding XXVII Ltd./Madison Park Funding XXVII LLC

  Class                  Rating          Amount
                                        (mil. $)
  A-1a                   AAA (sf)        468.00
  A-1b                   NR               36.00
  A-2                    AA (sf)         106.40
  B                      A (sf)           48.00
  C                      BBB- (sf)        48.80
  D                      BB- (sf)         30.40
  Subordinated notes     NR               73.50

  NR--Not rated.


ML-CFC COMMERCIAL 2006-1: Fitch Affirms Dsf Rating on Cl. C Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded one and affirmed 12 classes of ML-CFC
Commercial Mortgage Trust, series 2006-1.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

High Credit Enhancement; Rating Cap Applied Due to Concentration:
The upgrade is the result of increased credit enhancement due to
amortization since the last rating action. The class is considered
likely to payoff given the collateral composition and low leverage
of some of the remaining assets. The class is now fully covered by
a fully amortizing loan (13.7%) collateralized by an office loft
located in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan. The loan's
leverage is now $56 per square foot. However, given the
concentration and binary risk of certain loans including the two
largest in the pool, a rating cap was applied.

Concentrated Pool: The pool is highly concentrated with only five
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, leverage,
location, and performance which ranked them by their perceived
likelihood of repayment. This includes fully amortizing loans,
balloon loans, and Fitch Loans of Concern. The analysis also
included the assumption that the largest loan in the transaction
does not payoff at the upcoming anticipated repayment date (ARD)
and defaults. The rating cap applied to class B reflects this
sensitivity analysis and the potential for interest shortfalls if
the two largest loans re-default.

Largest Loan in the Pool: The largest loan in the pool (43.6%) is
collateralized by a 91,400 retail center in Pueblo, CO. Largest
tenants are Bed Bath & Beyond (16% of the net rentable area (NRA),
2021 lease expiration), Petco (16%, 2027), and Dress Barn (8%,
2020). The property's occupancy has been in the low 80% range since
2014 and the debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) near 1.0x since
then. The loan was previously in special servicing from October
2015 to October 2016 due to imminent monetary default as the
borrower would not be able to refinance at the loan's original ARD
date in 2016. The loan was modified and the ARD data was extended
two years until February 2018 and the borrower was able to extend
the expiring Petco lease to 2027. Per the servicer, the borrower
continues to market the vacant space but it is unknown if the loan
will be repaid at the ARD. After the ARD, the interest rate will
increase to the greater of 7.65% or the 10 year treasury rate plus
3.18%. The loan's final maturity is in 2036.

Second Largest Loan in the Pool: The second largest loan (35.6%) is
collateralized by a 124 pad mobile home park located in Deerfield
Beach, FL, just south of Boca Raton. The property has reported high
occupancy of at least 98% since 2015 but the DSCR has remained low,
and according the borrower, the decline is due to lower rents. The
loan was previously in special servicing from 2009-2015 and was
modified. The modification included a five-year loan extension as
well as an extension of the interest-only (IO) period. The modified
IO period expired in 2017. The balloon loan now matures in June
2020. The loan remains on the master servicer's watchlist.

Paydown Since Issuance: The transaction has paid down 99% since
issuance to $23 million from $2.1 billion at issuance. None of the
remaining loans are defeased.

Maturity Schedule: Three of the loans are fully amortizing (20.8%)
and mature in 2019 and 2026. The two largest loans (79.2%) have
final maturities in 2036 and 2020.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Outlook on class B reflects the rating cap at 'Asf' and
future upgrades are not expected. Although credit enhancement is
high, the two largest loans are considered Fitch Loans of Concern
and rating cap reflects both concentration and future interest
shortfall concerns. While downgrades are not expected, they are
possible if significant losses are expected.

Fitch upgrades the following class:

-- $2.2 million class B to 'Asf' from 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch affirms the following classes and revises Recovery Estimates
as indicated:

-- $20.1 million class C at 'Dsf'; RE revised to 50% from 15%;
-- $0 class D at 'Dsf'; RE0%;
-- $0 class E at 'Dsf'; RE0%;
-- $0 class F at 'Dsf'; RE0%;
-- $0 class G at 'Dsf'; RE0%;
-- $0 class H at 'Dsf', RE0%;
-- $0 class J at 'Dsf'; RE0%;
-- $0 class K at 'Dsf', RE0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE0%;
-- $0 class P at 'Dsf'; RE0%.

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


ML-CFC COMMERCIAL 2007-6: Fitch Lowers Cl. AM Certs Rating to Bsf
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded one and affirmed 14 classes of ML-CFC
Commercial Mortgage Trust commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2007-6.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Pool Concentration/Adverse Selection: The downgrade of class AM is
the result of increased loss expectations for the remaining assets
in the transaction. The transaction is highly concentrated with
only 21 of the original 149 loans remaining, 16 of which are in
special servicing.

As of the December 2017 remittance report, the pool has been
reduced by 74.7% to $103.8 million from $2.22 billion at issuance.
There have been $66.4 million in realized losses, accounting for
3.1% of the original pool balance. Cumulative interest shortfalls
in the amount of $55.4 million are currently affecting classes AJ
through Q. The pool consists of 77.7% retail properties. Due to the
pool's concentrated nature, a sensitivity analysis was performed
which grouped and ranked the remaining loans by their structural
features, performance, expected losses and estimated likelihood of
repayment. The ratings reflect this sensitivity analysis.

Concentration of Specially Serviced Loans/Assets: There are 16
specially serviced loans/assets representing 47% of the pool,
including 11 REO assets (21.9%) and five loans in foreclosure
(25.2%). The second largest contributor to expected losses is the
specially serviced Blackpoint Puerto Rico Retail Portfolio (15.6%),
which is secured by six retail properties located within the
greater San Juan, PR area. The portfolio properties range from two
to 20 miles from the city of San Juan, and three of the six
properties are supermarket anchored. The loan was transferred to
the special servicer in February 2012. The portfolio was
approximately 67% occupied as of YE 2015 with a 1.06x NOI DSCR.
According to the servicer, most of the properties have sustained
roof damage from Hurricane Maria but they are waiting on the extent
of the damage and the current operational status of the properties
from the borrower.

MSKP Retail Portfolios: Of the remaining pool, 52.2% consists of
the MSKP Retail Portfolio A and MSKP Retail Portfolio B. The two
portfolios consist of 10 retail centers located throughout Florida.
Both loans were returned from the special servicer in October 2012
after being modified with a maturity extension to March 2019,
extended IO periods, and both were split into an A and B note. As
of Sept. 2017 the A note of the MSKP Retail Portfolio A had a NOI
DSCR of 1.60x with an 85% occupancy and A note of the MSKP Retail
Portfolio B has a NOI DSCR of 1.08x with a 69% occupancy. Fitch
assumed a 100% loss severity on the B notes.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Negative Outlook on the class AM reflects the transaction's
concentration of specially serviced assets along with the unknown
timing of the dispositions and the uncertainty of the damage and
operational status of the Blackpoint Puerto Rico Retail property.
Further downgrades are expected with protracted loan workouts
and/or an increase in expected losses. Distressed classes are
subject to downgrades as losses are realized. Upgrades are not
expected, but are possible if loan recoveries are significantly
better than currently expected.

Fitch has downgraded and revised the Outlook for the following
class:

-- $178.5 million class AM to 'Bsf' from 'BBsf'; Outlook to
    Negative from Stable.

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:

-- $107.4 million class AJ at 'CCCsf'; RE 30%;
-- $42.9 million class B at 'CCsf', RE 0%;
-- $16.1 million class C at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $34.9 million class D at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $18.8 million class E at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $24.1 million class F at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $24.1 million class G at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $19.4 million class H at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class P at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

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


MORGAN STANLEY 1999-RM1: Moody's Lowers Rating on N Certs to B2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded one class and affirmed the
rating on one class in Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 1999-RM1,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1999-RM1:

Cl. N, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jan 20, 2017 Affirmed
B1 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

The ratings on the P&I class was downgraded due to higher
anticipated losses from a troubled loan. The risk of future
interest shortfalls is also elevated as a result of the troubled
loan.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 12.6% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 0% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 1.7% of the
original pooled balance, essentially unchanged from the last
review.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017. The methodologies used in rating Cl.
X were "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only
(IO) Securities" published in June 2017 and "Moody's Approach to
Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower CMBS" published
in July 2017.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the January 15, 2018 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by over 99% to $2.5
million from $859.4 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by four mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 6% to 68% of the pool. One loan, constituting 16% 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 1, compared to a Herf of 3 at Moody's last
review.

Two loans, constituting 74% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Twelve loans have been liquidated from the pool, contributing to an
aggregate realized loss of $14.4 million (for an average loss
severity of 24%). There are no loans currently in special
servicing.

Moody's has also assumed an elevated default probability for one
poorly performing loans which is described in greater detail
below.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results and partial year
2017 operating results for 100% of the pool respectively. Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 7%, compared to 42% at Moody's last
review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with structured
credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and specially serviced
and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a weighted
average haircut of 15.9% to the most recently available net
operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 9.4%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 0.76X and 4.00X,
respectively, compared to 1.10X and 4.63X 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 three non-defeased loans represent 84% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Claremont Commons Loan ($1.7 million -- 68% of
the pool), which is secured by a 37,000 square foot anchored retail
center located in Claremont, North Carolina. The property is
currently anchored by a grocery store which occupies approximately
87% of the net rentable area (NRA) under a lease set to expire in
March 2018. The tenant has indicated it will not exercise its lease
renewal option, however the tenant may remain in place beyond the
March lease maturity date at reduced rent. The loan is on the
watchlist and the property was 93% leased as of September 2017. The
loan has amortized 35% since securitization. Moody's has identified
this as a troubled loan and has assumed an elevated default
probability and a moderate loss for the loan.

The second largest loan is the Northampton Apartments Loan
($242,000 -- 10% of the pool). The loan is fully amortizing and the
loan balance has been reduced by 93% since securitization. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 4% and 4.00X, respectively, compared to
9% and 4.00X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Garden Ridge I & II Shopping and
Office Center Loan ($152,000 -- 6% of the pool). The loan is fully
amortizing and the loan balance has been reduced by 90% since
securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 11% and 4.00X,
respectively, compared to 23% and 4.00X at the last review.


MORGAN STANLEY 2007-IQ13: Fitch Hikes Class A-J Certs Rating to Bsf
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded one and affirmed 12 classes of Morgan
Stanley Capital I Trust (MSC 2007-IQ13) commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2007-IQ13.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

High Credit Enhancement: The upgrade reflects the increased credit
enhancement from recent loan payoffs and liquidations with better
than expected recoveries, as well as the stable performance of the
remaining collateral.

Concentrated Pool: The pool is highly concentrated with only 12 of
the original 176 loans remaining. Six loans (56.5% of the pool) are
secured by retail properties in secondary and tertiary markets. Of
the six, four (42.4%) are in special servicing. Five loans (28.6%)
are secured by co-operative properties, largely in major
metropolitan areas. One loan (14.9%) is secured by an office
property in a primary market and is in special servicing. Overall,
five loans (57.3%) are in special servicing.

Class A-J Capped: Due to the concentrated nature of the pool, Fitch
performed a sensitivity analysis which grouped the remaining loans
based on loan structural features, collateral quality and
performance and ranked them by their perceived likelihood of
repayment. Based on this analysis, the rating of class A-J is
capped due to the increased pool concentration, adverse selection,
high retail concentration, and single tenant exposure.

Dispositions: The pool has benefited from significant loan payoffs
and the recent disposition of the formerly largest loan with
minimal loss. Since Fitch's last rating action, loans totalling
$233.6 million have paid at their maturity with only $84,849 in
realized losses and one loan in special servicing totalling $4.0
million paid with a realized loss of $40,414. Formerly the largest
loan, the $84.7 million Gateway I went into foreclosure after
failing to repay at its April 2017 maturity. The loan liquidated in
December 2017 and incurred losses of $4.5 million.

Maturity and Amortization Schedule: The seven non-specially
serviced loans remaining in the pool have longer-term maturities
and are all amortizing. Their maturities are: 9.2% of the pool in
2021, 26.4% in 2022 and 7.2% in 2026. 15% of the pool is fully
amortizing and 27.7% is partial interest only.

As of the January 2018 remittance report, the pool has been reduced
by 97.3% to $43.7 million from $1.6 billion at issuance. Fitch
modelled 10.6% in losses out of the original pool balance including
$156.7 million (9.56%) incurred. Cumulative interest shortfalls in
the amount of $18.7 million are currently affecting class B and
classes D through P.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Outlook on class A-J reflects sufficient credit
enhancement and continued delevering of the transaction through
amortization and payoff of maturing loans. Future upgrades are
possible with timely loan dispositions and workout resolutions.
Downgrades are possible should loan performance deteriorate.

Fitch has upgraded and assigned a Rating Outlook for the following
class:

-- $22.1 million class A-J to 'Bsf' from 'Csf'; assign Outlook
Stable.

Fitch has affirmed the following classes:

-- $21.5 million class B at 'Dsf'; RE 35%;
-- $0 class C at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class D at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class E at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class F at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class G at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class H at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class J at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

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


MORGAN STANLEY 2007-TOP25: Moody's Lowers Cl. C Certs Rating to C
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on four classes
and downgraded the ratings on one class in Morgan Stanley Capital I
Trust 2007-TOP25, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2007-TOP25:

Cl. A-J, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Jan 27, 2017 Upgraded to
Ba2 (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 27, 2017 Affirmed Caa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Jan 27, 2017 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 27, 2017 Downgraded to C
(sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating on the P&I class, Class A-J, 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, Class B, was affirmed because the
ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss.

The rating on the P&I class, Class C, was downgraded due to
anticipated losses from specially serviced loans.

The rating on the P&I class, Class D, was affirmed because the
ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss plus realized
losses. Class D has already experienced a 34% realized loss as
result of previously liquidated loans.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 27.3% of the
current pooled balance, compared to 20.3% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 8.6% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 8.0% at the last review.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017. The methodologies used in rating Cl.
X were "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only
(IO) Securities" published in June 2017 and "Moody's Approach to
Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower CMBS" published
in July 2017.

Moody's analysis incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since 75.2% of the pool is in
special servicing. In this approach, Moody's determines a
probability of default for each specially serviced and troubled
loan that it expects will generate a loss and estimates a loss
given default based on a review of broker's opinions of value (if
available), other information from the special servicer, available
market data and Moody's internal data. The loss given default for
each loan also takes into consideration repayment of servicer
advances to date, estimated future advances and closing costs.
Translating the probability of default and loss given default into
an expected loss estimate, Moody's then applies the aggregate loss
from specially serviced to the most junior classes and the recovery
as a pay down of principal to the most senior classes.

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the January 12, 2018 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 91.6% to $131
million from $1.5 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 13 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 54.2% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 97.5% of the pool. One loan, constituting
0.4% of the pool, has defeased and is secured by US government
securities.

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

Two loans, constituting 5.9% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
affect performance.

Nineteen loans have been liquidated with a loss from the pool,
resulting in an aggregate realized loss of $97.9 million (for an
average loss severity of 68.7%). Five loans, constituting 75.2% of
the pool, are currently in special servicing. The largest specially
serviced loan is the Shoppes at Park Place ($71 million -- 54.2% of
the pool), which is secured by a 325,000 square foot (SF) retail
center located in Pinellas Park, Florida approximately 15 miles
west of Tampa. The property is shadow anchored by Target and Home
Depot; the collateral anchor includes Regal Cinemas (22.4% of NRA;
lease expiration 10/31/2021). As per the April 2017 rent roll, the
property was 98% leased, the same as of September 2016. The loan
transferred to special servicing in January 2017 due to maturity
default.

The second largest specially serviced loan is the Romeoveille Towne
Center ($18.3 million -- 14% of the pool), which is secured by a
108,000 SF retail center located in Romeoville, Illinois, a suburb
of Chicago. The loan transferred to special servicing in March 2014
for imminent default, in connection with the shuttering of
Dominick's Supermarkets as part of parent company Safeway's exit
from the greater Chicago market. Dominick's operated as the anchor
tenant and occupied 61% of the center's net rentable area (NRA).
The Dominick's lease runs through 2019, and the tenant continues to
pay rent. As per the October 2017 rent roll the property was 93%
leased but only 32% occupied.

The remaining 3 specially serviced loans are secured by retail and
industrial properties. Moody's estimates an aggregate $35.7 million
loss for the specially serviced loans (36.3% expected loss on
average).

As of the January 12, 2018 remittance statement cumulative interest
shortfalls were $1.3 million. Moody's anticipates interest
shortfalls will continue because of the exposure to specially
serviced loans and/or modified loans. Interest shortfalls are
caused by special servicing fees, including workout and liquidation
fees, appraisal entitlement reductions (ASERs), loan modifications
and extraordinary trust expenses.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 86% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2017 operating results for 43% of
the pool (excluding specially serviced and defeased loans). Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 75.5%, compared to 68.8% 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 10.9% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.35%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.83X and 1.57X,
respectively, compared to 1.90X and 1.58X 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 15.5% of the pool balance.
The largest loan is the Franklin Center Loan ($10 million -- 7.6%
of the pool), which is secured by a 320 bed (160 room) nursing
home/rehabilitation center located in Flushing, New York. The
property is located 0.4 miles from Flushing Hospital and 0.9 miles
from the New York Presbyterian Queens Hospital. As of December 2016
the property was 100% occupied, and has been 100% occupied since
securitization. The loan is interest-only for its entire term and
is scheduled to mature in September 2021. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 94.4% and 1.32X, respectively, compared to 89.4% and 1.47X
at securitization.

The second largest loan is the Village One Apartments Loan ($5.4
million -- 4.1% of the pool), which is secured by a 320 unit garden
style multifamily apartment property located in Menand, New York
just outside of Albany. As per the June 2017 rent roll, the
property was 94% leased, compared to 95% leased as of June 2016.
The loan is interest-only for its entire term and is scheduled to
mature in December 2021. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 56.1%
and 1.88X, respectively, compared to 56.5% and 1.86X at the last
review.

The third largest loan is the Office Depot - Paramus Loan ($4.9
million -- 3.8% of the pool), which was originally secured by a
single tenant retail space built in 1996 and located in Paramus,
New Jersey. The original tenant, Office Depot, vacated upon lease
expiration in September 2016. As per the November 2017 rent roll,
the property was 29% leased by one tenant, Trader Joe's (Lease
expiration September 2021). Lease negotiations for the remaining
space are on-going. The loan has amortized 17.1% since
securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 68% and 1.48X,
respectively, compared to 69.3% and 1.45X at the last review.


N-STAR REAL IX: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class A-1 Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on the following
notes issued by N-Star Real Estate CDO IX, Ltd.:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Affirmed Caa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 19, 2017 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's has affirmed the ratings on the Rated Notes because its key
transaction metrics are commensurate with existing ratings. The
reduction in credit risk in the outstanding asset pool, as
evidenced by WARF, did not more than offset the current level of
implied losses within the transaction. The affirmation is the
result of Moody's on-going surveillance of commercial real estate
collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO and Re-REMIC)
transactions.

N-Star Real Estate CDO IX, Ltd. is a currently static cash
transaction; the reinvestment period ended in June 2012; 100%
backed by a portfolio of: i) commercial mortgage backed securities
(CMBS), primarily issued between 2005 and 2008 (50.7%); ii) CRE CDO
(42.4%) primarily issued between 2004 and 2007; iii) small business
loans (1.1%); iv) real estate investment trust (REIT) debt (1.4%);
and v) direct commercial real estate exposures, primary in the form
of whole loans, b-notes and mezzanine interests (4.4%). As of the
trustee's December 1, 2017 report, the aggregate note balance of
the transaction has decreased to $406.0 million from $776.0 million
at issuance, with the paydown directed to the senior most
outstanding class of notes, as a result of the combination of
regular amortization, recoveries on defaulted and high credit risk
assets, and interest proceeds re-diverted as principal due to
failure of certain par value tests.

The pool contains fifty assets totaling $205.3 million (41.2% of
the collateral pool balance) that are listed as defaulted
securities as of the trustee's December 1, 2017 report. Thirty nine
of these assets (66.7% of the defaulted balance) are CMBS; nine
(22.4%) are CRE CDO; one (10.4%) is a commercial real estate loan;
and one (0.5%) is a small business loan. Moody's does expect
moderate/significant losses to occur from these defaulted
securities once they are realized.

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

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF excluding
defaulted securities of 4748, compared to 5363 at last review. The
current distribution of Moody's rated collateral and assessments
for non-Moody's rated collateral is: Aaa-Aa3 and 11.8% compared to
7.1% at last review, A1-A3 and 1.5% compared to 2.4% at last
review, Baa1-Baa3 and 3.4% compared to 5.6% at last review, Ba1-Ba3
and 14.5% compared to 11.5% at last review, B1-B3 and 16.6%
compared to 19.5% at last review, Caa1-Ca/C and 52.2% compared to
53.8% at last review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.5 years, compared to 2.6 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
look-through underlying CMBS loan collateral and CRE CDOs assets.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 2.6%, compared to 2.3% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 10.7%, compared to 11.8% at last review.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for some of the Rated
Notes, although a change in one key parameter assumption could be
offset by a change in one or more of the other key parameter
assumptions. The Rated Notes are particularly sensitive to changes
in the ratings of the underlying collateral and credit assessments.
Increasing the recovery rate of 100% of the collateral pool by +10%
would result in an average modeled rating movement on the rated
notes of zero to two notches upward (e.g., one notch up implies a
ratings movement of Baa3 to Baa2). Decreasing the recovery rate of
100% of the collateral pool to 0% would result in an average
modeled rating movement on the rated notes of zero notches downward
(e.g., one notch down implies a ratings movement of Baa3 to Ba1)

The primary sources of uncertainty in Moody's assumptions are the
extent of growth in the current macroeconomic environment.
Commercial real estate property values continue to improve
modestly, along with a rise in investment activity and
stabilization in core property type performance. Limited new
construction and moderate job growth have aided this improvement.


NATIXIS 2018-285M: S&P Assigns Prelim B-(sf) Rating on Cl. F Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Natixis
Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2018-285M's $235.0 million
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2018-285M.

The issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed securities transaction
backed by a five-year, fixed-rate commercial mortgage loan totaling
$235.0 million, secured by a first lien on the borrower's fee
interest in 285 Madison Avenue, a 27-story office building totaling
511,208 sq. ft. located within Midtown Manhattan's Grand Central
office submarket.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 12,
2018. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

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

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Natixis Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2018-285M  
  Class         Rating(i)          Amount ($)
  A             AAA (sf)          105,270,000
  X             AA- (sf)      131,590,000(ii)
  B             AA- (sf)           26,320,000
  C             A- (sf)            19,740,000
  D             BBB- (sf)          24,220,000
  E             BB- (sf)           32,890,000
  F             B- (sf)            26,560,000

(i) The certificates will be issued to qualified institutional
buyers according to Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933.
(ii) Notional balance. The notional amounts of the class X
certificates will be reduced by the aggregate amount of realized
losses allocated to the class A and class B certificates,
respectively.


NELNET STUDENT 2008-3: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Cl. A-4 Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings affirms the following Nelnet Student Loan Trusts
2008-3 and 2008-4 outstanding notes backed by student loans
originated under the Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFELP):

Nelnet Student Loan Trust 2008-3 (NSLT 2008-3):
-- Class A-4 at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

Nelnet Student Loan Trust 2008-4 (NSLT 2008-4):
-- Class A-4 at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- Class B at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

For 2008-3, the class A-4 notes fail the credit and maturity base
case stress scenario due to missing the legal final maturity date
by 4.25 years in the base case LIBOR up stress scenario. For
2008-4, the class A-4 notes fail the credit and maturity base case
stress scenario due to missing the legal final maturity date by
1.75 years in the base case LIBOR up stress scenario.

Fitch's affirmation of 'Bsf' rather than downgrades to 'CCCsf' or
below, considers qualitative factors such as Nelnet's ability to
call the notes ahead of the final maturity as of the optional
purchase date. The optional purchase date is defined as the earlier
of the distribution date on which the pool factor falls below 10%
or November 2019 (for 2008-3) or October 2018 (for 2008-4).

For 2008-4, as a result of the projected event of default (EOD) for
the class A-4 notes under the base cases, class B suffers an
interest shortfall, as all class B interest post-EOD is diverted to
pay class A principal. As a result, the class B notes fail the base
cases as well.

KEY RATING DRIVERS
U.S. Sovereign Risk: The trusts' collateral comprises Federal
Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) loans, less than 1.0% of
which are rehabilitated FFELP loans in each transaction, with
guaranties provided by eligible guarantors and reinsurance provided
by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) for at least 97% of
principal and accrued interest. The U.S. sovereign rating is
currently 'AAA'/Outlook Stable.

Collateral Performance for NSLT 2008-3: Fitch assumes a base case
cumulative default rate of 17.0% and a 51.0% default rate under the
'AAA' credit stress scenario. The base case default assumption
implies a constant default rate of 3.8% (assuming a weighted
average life of 4.5 years) consistent with the sustainable constant
default rate utilized in the maturity stresses. Fitch applies the
standard default timing curve in its credit stress cash flow
analysis. The claim reject rate is assumed to be 0.25% in the base
case and 2.0% in the 'AAA' case. The TTM constant prepayment rate
(voluntary and involuntary) is 14.6% and was used as the
sustainable rate in cash flow modeling. The TTM average levels of
deferment, forbearance, and income-based repayment (prior to
adjustment) are 9.4%, 10.3%, and 30.5%, respectively, and are used
as the starting point in cash flow modeling. Subsequent declines or
increases are modeled as per criteria. The borrower benefit is
assumed to be approximately 0.14%, based on information provided by
the sponsor.

Collateral Performance for 2008-4: Fitch assumes a base case
cumulative default rate of 22.3% and a 66.8% default rate under the
'AAA' credit stress scenario. The base case default assumption
implies a constant default rate of 5.0% (assuming a weighted
average life of 4.5 years) consistent with the sustainable constant
default rate utilized in the maturity stresses. Fitch applies the
standard default timing curve in its credit stress cash flow
analysis. The claim reject rate is assumed to be 0.25% in the base
case and 2.0% in the 'AAA' case. The TTM constant prepayment rate
(voluntary and involuntary) is 13.9% and was rounded to 14.0% as
the sustainable rate in cash flow modeling. The TTM average levels
of deferment, forbearance, and income-based repayment (prior to
adjustment) are 11.5%, 11.2%, and 25.8%, respectively, and are used
as the starting point in cash flow modeling. Subsequent declines or
increases are modeled as per criteria. The borrower benefit is
assumed to be approximately 0.08%, based on information provided by
the sponsor.

Basis and Interest Rate Risk: Basis risk for these transactions
arises from any rate and reset frequency mismatch between interest
rate indices for SAP and the securities. As of October 2017 (for
2008-3) and November 2017 (for 2008-4), 0.38% and 3.15% of the
trust student loans are indexed to 91-day T-bill for NLST 2008-3
and NLST 2008-4, respectively. The remainder are indexed to
one-month LIBOR. All notes are indexed to three-month LIBOR. Fitch
applies its standard basis and interest rate stresses to this
transaction as per criteria.

Payment Structure for NLST 2008-3: Credit enhancement (CE) is
provided by overcollateralization, excess spread and, for the class
A notes, subordination. As of October 2017, total effective parity
ratio (which includes the reserve account) is 105.39% (5.11% CE).
Liquidity support is provided by a reserve account sized at its
floor of $1,505,150. The transaction will continue to release cash
as long as the target parity of 105% is maintained.

Payment Structure for 2008-4: Credit enhancement (CE) is provided
by overcollateralization, excess spread and, for the class A notes,
subordination. As of November 2017, total and senior parity ratio
(which include the reserve account) are 101.190% (1.17% CE) and
115.13% (13.14% CE), respectively. Liquidity support is provided by
a reserve account sized at its floor of $1,326,612. The transaction
will continue to release cash as long as the target parity of 101%
is maintained.

Maturity Risk: Fitch's Student Loan ABS (SLABS) cash flow model
indicates that the class A-4 notes do not pay off before their
maturity date under Fitch's modeling scenarios, including the base
cases. For 2008-4, if the breach of the class A-4 maturity date
triggers an EOD, interest payments will be diverted away from the
class B notes, causing the subordinate notes to fail the base cases
as well.

Operational Capabilities: Day-to-day servicing is provided by
Nelnet, Inc. for 2008-3, and Nelnet and Conduent, Inc. for 2008-4.
Fitch believes Nelnet to be acceptable servicers, due to its
extensive track records of servicing FFELP loans. Nelnet will be
taking over servicing of Conduent loans in the portfolio and Fitch
does not expect any major disruption in the transfer.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

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

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

NLST 2008-3:
Credit Stress Rating Sensitivity
-- Default increase 25%: class A-4 'CCCsf';
-- Default increase 50%: class A-4 'CCCsf';
-- Basis Spread increase 0.25%: class A-4 'CCCsf';
-- Basis Spread increase 0.50%: class A-4 'CCCsf'.

Maturity Stress Rating Sensitivity
-- CPR decrease 50%: class A-4 'CCCsf';
-- CPR increase 100%: class A-4 'CCCsf';
-- IBR Usage increase 100%: class A-4 'CCCsf';
-- IBR Usage decrease 50%: class A-4 'CCCsf'.

NLST 2008-4:
Credit Stress Rating Sensitivity
-- Default increase 25%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf';
-- Default increase 50%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf';
-- Basis Spread increase 0.25%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf';
-- Basis Spread increase 0.5%: class A 'CCCsf'; class B 'CCCsf'.

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


NEUBERGER BERMAN 27: S&P Assigns Prelim BB-(sf) Rating on E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Neuberger
Berman Loan Advisers CLO 27 Ltd./Neuberger Berman Loan Advisers CLO
27 LLC's $447.50 million floating-rate notes.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 17,
2018. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

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

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

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

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

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Neuberger Berman Loan Advisers CLO 27 Ltd./Neuberger Berman Loan

  Advisers CLO 27 LLC
  Class                Rating          Amount              
                                       (mil. $)
  A-1                  AAA (sf)        300.00
  A-2                  NR               15.00
  B                    AA (sf)          60.00
  C (deferrable)       A (sf)           35.00
  D (deferrable)       BBB- (sf)        30.00
  E (deferrable)       BB- (sf)         22.50
  Subordinate notes    NR               48.30

  NR--Not rated.


NEW RESIDENTIAL 2015-1: Moody's Hikes Cl. B-5 Notes Rating to Ba3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of seven
tranches issued by New Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 2015-1
("NRMLT 2015-1), a securitization of approximately $164 million of
first lien, seasoned mortgage loans. At issuance, the loans had a
weighted average seasoning of 146 months, weighted average updated
LTV of 41.0% and weighted average updated FICO score of 719. The
pool has paid down significantly since issuance and had a pool
factor of approximately 49% with 778 loans, with an average
remaining term of 178 months as of November 2017. Specialized Loan
Servicing (SLS) is the primary servicer and Nationstar Mortgage LLC
is the Master Servicer .

The complete rating actions are:

Issuer: New Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 2015-1

Cl. A-IO, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017
Downgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Cl. A-2, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jun 25, 2015 Assigned
Aa1 (sf)

Cl. B-2, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Jun 25, 2015
Definitive Rating Assigned A1 (sf)

Cl. B2-IO, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Jun 25, 2015
Definitive Rating Assigned A1 (sf)

Cl. B-3, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jun 25, 2015 Definitive
Rating Assigned Baa1 (sf)

Cl. B-4, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jun 25, 2015
Definitive Rating Assigned Ba1 (sf)

Cl. B-5, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jun 25, 2015
Definitive Rating Assigned B2 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating upgrades are primarily due to the higher than expected
rate of prepayments on the underlying pool, and the related
increase in credit enhancement (CE) available to the bonds. The
actions also reflect the recent performance of the pool and Moody's
updated projected losses on the pool (see link below). As of
November 2017, serious delinquencies (60 days or greater
delinquent, including foreclosures and real estate owned) as a
percentage of current pool balance were approximately 3.28 % with
an additional 3.93% 30-day delinquent. Higher than expected
voluntary prepayment rates since issuance (approximately 15.7%
average monthly CPR over the last 12 months) have contributed to
increases in percentage credit enhancement levels for the upgraded
bonds - the CE on the Class A-2 has increased to 14.02% from 8.70%
at closing, on Class B-2 to 9.06% from 5.45% at closing, on Class
B-3 to 5.70% from 3.25% at closing, on Class B-4 to 4.17% from
2.25% at closing and on Class B-5 to 2.95% from 1.45% at closing.

The transaction cashflow waterfall follows 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 could be exposed to
increased performance volatility later in the transaction's life.
NRMLT 2015-1 has a subordination floor of 1.5% of the original
collateral balance ($5.00 million) which will provide protection to
the senior notes towards the tail end of the transaction .

The principal methodology used in this rating was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in January 2017". The
methodologies used in rating class A-IO and class B2-IO were
"Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO)
Securities" published in June 2017 and "US RMBS Surveillance
Methodology" published in January 2017.

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

Down

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

Other reasons for worse-than-expected performance include poor
servicing, error on the part of transaction parties, inadequate
transaction governance and fraud.

Up

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

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


NEW RESIDENTIAL 2018-1: S&P Gives Prelim B(sf) Rating on B-5 Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to New
Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 2018-1's $678.487 million
residential mortgage-backed notes.

The note issuance is a residential mortgage-backed securities
transaction backed by highly seasoned, prime and nonprime first
lien, fully amortizing and balloon, fixed rate, adjustable-rate,
and step-rate residential mortgage loans secured primarily by
one-to four family residential properties, condominiums,
townhouses, manufactured homes, cooperatives and planned unit
developments.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 16,
2018. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

-- The credit enhancement provided, as well as the associated
structural transaction mechanics;

-- The pool's collateral composition, which consists of highly
seasoned, prime and nonprime, fully amortizing and balloon,
fixed-rate, step-rate, and adjustable-rate mortgages, as described
in the Collateral Summary section below;

-- The representation and warranty framework; and

-- The ability and willingness of key transaction parties to
perform their contractual obligations and the likelihood that the
parties could be replaced if needed.

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED
  New Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 2018-1  
  Class          Rating          Amount (mil. $)(i)
  A-1            AAA (sf)               546,417,000
  A-IO           AAA (sf)               546,417,000(ii)
  A-1A           AAA (sf)               546,417,000
  A-1B           AAA (sf)               546,417,000
  A-1C           AAA (sf)               546,417,000
  A1-IOA         AAA (sf)               546,417,000(ii)
  A1-IOB         AAA (sf)               546,417,000(ii)
  A1-IOC         AAA (sf)               546,417,000(ii)
  A-2            AA (sf)                581,612,000
  A              AAA (sf)               546,417,000
  X              NR                      24,202,941(ii)
  B-1            AA (sf)                 35,195,000
  B1-IO          AA (sf)                 35,195,000(ii)
  B-1A           AA (sf)                 35,195,000
  B-1B           AA (sf)                 35,195,000
  B-1C           AA (sf)                 35,195,000
  B-1D           AA (sf)                 35,195,000
  B1-IOA         AA (sf)                 35,195,000(ii)
  B1-IOB         AA (sf)                 35,195,000(ii)
  B1-IOC         AA (sf)                 35,195,000(ii)
  B-2            A (sf)                  29,026,000
  B2-IO          A (sf)                  29,026,000(ii)
  B-2A           A (sf)                  29,026,000
  B-2B           A (sf)                  29,026,000
  B-2C           A (sf)                  29,026,000
  B-2D           A (sf)                  29,026,000
  B2-IOA         A (sf)                  29,026,000(ii)
  B2-IOB         A (sf)                  29,026,000(ii)
  B2-IOC         A (sf)                  29,026,000(ii)
  B-3            BBB+ (sf)               27,938,000
  B3-IO          BBB+ (sf)               27,938,000(ii)
  B-3A           BBB+ (sf)               27,938,000
  B-3B           BBB+ (sf)               27,938,000
  B-3C           BBB+ (sf)               27,938,000
  B-3D           BBB+ (sf)               27,938,000
  B3-IOA         BBB+ (sf)               27,938,000(ii)
  B3-IOB         BBB+ (sf)               27,938,000(ii)
  B3-IOC         BBB+ (sf)               27,938,000(ii)
  B-4            BB+ (sf)                19,955,000
  B-4A           BB+ (sf)                19,955,000
  B-4B           BB+ (sf)                19,955,000
  B-4C           BB+ (sf)                19,955,000
  B4-IOA         BB+ (sf)                19,955,000(ii)
  B4-IOB         BB+ (sf)                19,955,000(ii)
  B4-IOC         BB+ (sf)                19,955,000(ii)
  B-5            B (sf)                  19,956,000
  B-5A           B (sf)                  19,956,000
  B-5B           B (sf)                  19,956,000
  B-5C           B (sf)                  19,956,000
  B-5D           B (sf)                  19,956,000
  B5-IOA         B (sf)                  19,956,000(ii)
  B5-IOB         B (sf)                  19,956,000(ii)
  B5-IOC         B (sf)                  19,956,000(ii)
  B5-IOD         B (sf)                  19,956,000(ii)
  B-6            NR                      47,167,377
  B-7            B (sf)                  39,911,000
  B-8            NR                      67,123,377
  B-9            NR                      87,078,377
  B              NR                     179,237,377
  FB             NR                      26,523,895
  R              NR                            0.00

(i)The note amounts are based on the aggregate stated principal
balance of the mortgage loans as of Dec. 1, 2017, and the final
note amounts will be lower based on the aggregate stated principal
balance of the mortgage loans as of the cut-off date. (ii)Notional
amount. NR--Not rated.


OCTAGON INVESTMENT 35: S&P Gives Prelim. BB- Rating on D Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Octagon
Investment Partners 35 Ltd./Octagon Investment Partners 35 LLC's
$431.5 million floating-rate notes.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 19,
2018. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

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

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

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

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

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Octagon Investment Partners 35 Ltd./Octagon Investment Partners

  35 LLC

  Class                              Rating       Amount (mil. $)
  A-1a                               AAA (sf)            290.000
  A-1b                               NR                   27.500
  A-2                                AA (sf)              55.000
  B (deferrable)                     A (sf)               35.500
  C (deferrable)                     BBB- (sf)            32.000
  D (deferrable)                     BB- (sf)             19.000
  Subordinated notes (deferrable)    NR                   52.200
  Combination notes(i)               A-p (sf)             58.875

(i)Combination notes comprise $14.50 million of class A-1a, $1.38
million of class A-1b, $2.75 million of class A-2, $31.95 million
of class B, $1.60 million of class C, $950,000 of class D, and
$5.75 million of the subordinated notes.
NR--Not rated.
P--Principal-only.


OCTAGON INVESTMENT XXII: S&P Assigns B-(sf) Rating on F-RR Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-RR, B-RR,
C-RR, D-RR, E-RR, and F-RR replacement notes, as well as to the new
class X-RR notes, from Octagon Investment Partners XXII Ltd., a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) originally issued in November
2014 that is managed by Octagon Credit Investors LLC. S&P withdrew
its rating on the original class A-R notes following payment in
full on the Jan. 22, 2018, second refinancing date.

On the Jan. 22, 2018, second refinancing date, the proceeds from
the class A-RR, B-RR, C-RR, D-RR, E-RR, and F-RR replacement notes
issuances, combined with the proceeds from the issuances of the
class X-RR notes and additional subordinated notes, were used to
redeem the class A-R, B-1-R, B-2-R, C-1-R, C-2-R, C-3-R, D-1-R,
D-2-R, E-1, E-2-R, and F notes as outlined in the transaction
document provisions. Therefore, S&P withdrew its rating on the
class A-R notes in line with their full redemption, and it is
assigning ratings to the replacement notes.

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

-- Change the rated par amount and aggregate ramp-up par amount to
$661.30 million and $694.57 million, respectively, from $424.50
million and $700.00 million, respectively.

-- Extend the reinvestment period to Jan. 22, 2023, from Jan. 22,
2019.

-- Extend the non-call period to Jan. 22, 2020, from Nov. 25,
2016.

-- Extend the weighted average life test to nine years calculated
from the Jan. 22, 2018, second refinancing date, from Nov. 25,
2022.

-- Extend the legal final maturity date on the rated and
subordinated notes to Jan. 22, 2030, from Nov. 25, 2025.

-- Issue additional class X-RR senior secured floating-rate notes,
which are expected to be paid down using interest proceeds in equal
quarterly installments beginning with the payment date in July 2018
and ending on the payment date in April 2022. The transaction will
also issue additional subordinated notes, increasing the
subordinated notes balance to approximately $63.17 million from
$60.00 million.

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

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

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

-- Incorporate the recovery rate methodology and updated industry
classifications outlined in S&P's August 2016 CLO criteria update.


  REPLACEMENT AND ORIGINAL NOTE ISSUANCES

  Notes Following Second Refinancing Replacement Issuances
  Class                  Amount    Interest                        
                     
                        (mil. $)    rate (%)        
  X-RR                   8.50    LIBOR + 0.65
  A-RR                 424.40    LIBOR + 1.07
  B-RR                  82.50    LIBOR + 1.45
  C-RR                  62.60    LIBOR + 1.90
  D-RR                  37.50    LIBOR + 2.75
  E-RR                  31.90    LIBOR + 5.45
  F-RR                  13.90    LIBOR + 7.75
  Subordinated notes    63.17    N/A

  Notes Following First Refinancing Replacement Issuances(i)

  Class                Amount    Interest                          
  
                      (mil. $)    rate (%)        
  A-R                  424.50    LIBOR + 1.12
  B-1-R                 74.25    LIBOR + 1.60
  B-2-R                 18.00    LIBOR + 1.60
  C-1-R                 40.25    LIBOR + 2.10
  C-2-R                  4.00    LIBOR + 2.10
  C-3-R                 13.00    LIBOR + 2.10
  D-1-R                 32.25    LIBOR + 3.30
  D-2-R                  4.00    LIBOR + 3.30
  E-1                   30.00    LIBOR + 5.25
  E-2-R                  3.75    LIBOR + 6.00
  F                     14.00    LIBOR + 6.30
  Subordinated notes    60.00    N/A

(i)The original class E-1, F, and subordinated notes were not
refinanced on the first refinancing date. In addition, the original
class X notes were paid in full on the April 2015 payment date,
prior to the first refinancing date.

  Original Notes
  Class                Amount    Interest                          

                      (mil. $)    rate (%)  
  X                      4.00    LIBOR + 1.00
  A                    424.50    LIBOR + 1.48
  B-1                   74.25    LIBOR + 2.55
  B-2                   18.00    LIBOR + 2.30
  C-1                   40.25    LIBOR + 3.25
  C-2                    4.00    LIBOR + 3.50
  C-3                   13.00    5.65
  D-1                   32.25    LIBOR + 3.90
  D-2                    4.00    LIBOR + 4.58
  E-1                   30.00    LIBOR + 5.25
  E-2                    3.75    LIBOR + 6.75
  F                     14.00    LIBOR + 6.30
  Subordinated notes    60.00    N/A

  N/A--Not applicable.

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

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

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

RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Octagon Investment Partners XXII Ltd.
  Replacement class         Rating       Amount (mil $)
  X-RR                      AAA (sf)               8.50
  A-RR                      AAA (sf)             424.40
  B-RR                      AA (sf)               82.50
  C-RR                      A (sf)                62.60
  D-RR                      BBB- (sf)             37.50
  E-RR                      BB- (sf)              31.90
  F-RR                      B- (sf)               13.90
  Subordinated notes        NR                    63.17

  RATINGS WITHDRAWN

  Octagon Investment Partners XXII Ltd.
                             Rating
  Original class       To              From
  A-R                  NR              AAA (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


PALMER SQUARE 2014-1: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Cl. D-R2 Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-1-R2,
A-2-R2, B-R2, C-R2, and D-R2 replacement notes from Palmer Square
CLO 2014-1 Ltd., a collateralized loan obligation (CLO) originally
issued in June 2014 and first refinanced in January 2017. S&P said,
"We withdrew our ratings on the class A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, and
D-R notes following payment in full on the Jan. 17, 2018, second
refinancing date. On the Jan. 17, 2018, second refinancing date,
the proceeds from the issuance of the class A-1-R2, A-2-R2, B-R2,
C-R2, and D-R2 replacement notes were used to redeem the class
A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, and D-R notes as outlined in the
transaction document provisions. Therefore, we withdrew our ratings
on the class A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, and D-R notes in line with
their full redemption, and we are assigning ratings to the
replacement notes. This is the second refinancing date of the
transaction. The original class A-1, A-2, B, C, and D notes were
redeemed in full on the Jan. 17, 2017, refinancing date."

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

-- Change the rated par amount and target initial par amount to
$370.40 million and $402.50 million, respectively, from $368.15
million and $400.00 million, respectively.

-- Extend the reinvestment period to Jan. 17, 2023, from Jan. 17,
2019.

-- Extend the non-call period to Jan. 17, 2020, from Jan. 17,
2018.

-- Extend the weighted average life test to Jan. 17, 2027, from
Jan. 17, 2023.

-- Extend the legal final maturity date on the rated,
contribution, and subordinated notes to Jan. 17, 2031, from Jan.
17, 2027.

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

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

S&P's analysis also took into account a change to the collateral
management agreement, which increased the subordinated collateral
management fee percentage to 0.20% per annum from 0.15% per annum.

  REPLACEMENT AND ORIGINAL NOTE ISSUANCES

  Second Refinancing Replacement Notes
  Class                Amount    Interest                          
            
                      (mil. $)    rate (%)        
  A-1-R2              244.00     LIBOR + 1.13
  A-2-R2               62.45     LIBOR + 1.45
  B-R2                 25.15     LIBOR + 1.85
  C-R2                 20.80     LIBOR + 2.65
  D-R2                 18.00     LIBOR + 5.70
  Contribution notes    5.00     LIBOR + 8.00
  Subordinated notes   44.75     N/A


  First Refinancing Replacement Notes
  Class                Amount    Interest                          

                     (mil. $)    rate (%)        
  A-1-R               260.00     LIBOR + 1.37
  A-2-R                44.00     LIBOR + 1.90
  B-R                  28.15     LIBOR + 2.70
  C-R                  19.80     LIBOR + 4.00
  D-R                  16.20     LIBOR + 6.90
  Contribution notes    5.00     LIBOR + 8.00
  Subordinated notes   44.75     N/A


  Original Notes
  Class                Amount    Interest                          

                      (mil. $)    rate (%)        
  A-1                  288.00    LIBOR + 1.27
  A-2                   49.50    LIBOR + 1.84
  B                     36.00    LIBOR + 2.55
  C                     22.50    LIBOR + 3.85
  D                     16.25    LIBOR + 5.75
  Subordinated notes    44.75    N/A

  N/A--Not applicable.
  
S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow
analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction as reflected in
the trustee report, to estimate future performance. In line with
our criteria, our cash flow scenarios applied forward-looking
assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of defaults, and
recoveries upon default, under various interest rate and
macroeconomic scenarios.

"In addition, our analysis considered the transaction's ability to
pay timely interest or ultimate principal, or both, to each of the
rated tranches. The assigned ratings reflect our opinion that the
credit support available is commensurate with the associated rating
levels.

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

  RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Palmer Square CLO 2014-1 Ltd.
  Replacement class         Rating        Amount (mil $)
  A-1-R2                    AAA (sf)              244.00
  A-2-R2                    AA (sf)                62.45
  B-R2                      A (sf)                 25.15
  C-R2                      BBB- (sf)              20.80
  D-R2                      BB- (sf)               18.00
  Contribution notes        NR                      5.00
  Subordinated notes        NR                     44.75

  RATINGS WITHDRAWN

  Palmer Square CLO 2014-1 Ltd.
                             Rating
  Class                To              From
  A-1-R                NR              AAA (sf)
  A-2-R                NR              AA (sf)
  B-R                  NR              A (sf)
  C-R                  NR              BBB (sf)
  D-R                  NR              BB (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


RAIT TRUST 2016-FL6: DBRS Confirms B Rating on Class F Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS Limited confirmed the ratings on the following classes of
Floating Rate Notes issued by RAIT 2016-FL6 Trust:

-- Class A at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-S at AAA (sf)
-- Class B at AA (low) (sf)
-- Class C at A (low) (sf)
-- Class D at BBB (low) (sf)
-- Class E at BB (sf)
-- Class F at B (sf)

All trends are Stable.

The rating confirmations reflect that the performance of the
transaction remains in line with DBRS's expectations since
issuance. At closing, the collateral consisted of 23 floating-rate
loans secured by 33 transitional commercial properties. As of the
November 2017 remittance, 15 loans remain in the pool, representing
a collateral reduction of 37.4% since issuance. Two of the
remaining loans, representing 29.0% of the current cut-off trust
balance, were structured with pari passu future funding notes.
These funds are to be used for property renovations and future
leasing costs to aid in property stabilization.

Overall, the performance for the underlying loans has been as
expected, with select loans showing improvement over DBRS's
expectations at issuance. Based on the most recent financial
reporting for the remaining loans, the pool has a weighted-average
debt yield of 7.5%, which is relatively healthy for a pool of loans
secured by stabilizing properties. There are currently no loans on
the servicer's watchlist or any delinquent or specially serviced
loans. The first- and third-largest loans in the transaction are
highlighted below.

The Montague Business Center loan (19.0% of the current pool
balance) is secured by a 146,000 square foot (sf) mixed-use
property located in San Jose, California, consisting of the 55,100
sf Plumeria office building and the 91,000 sf Junction industrial
building. The $30.7 million whole loan consists of a $24.1 million
initial mortgage loan and $6.6 million of future funding for tenant
improvements and leasing commissions (TI/LC), which have been force
funded by the lender in July 2017. Loan proceeds, along with
sponsor equity of $11.5 million, facilitated the acquisition of the
property and, in addition to the $6.6 million of future funding,
funded a $2.8 million capital expediture (capex) reserve, a
$621,000 debt service reserve and covered closing costs.
Additionally, there is a $542,000 property-assessed clean energy
loan that covered HVAC and roof improvements on the Plumeria
building.

At issuance, the collateral was 62.0% occupied by the County of
Santa Clara (the County), which fully leases the Junction building
through December 2020, at a rental rate of $14.40 triple net (NNN).
The Plumeria building was vacant at issuance as the sponsor planned
to utilize the $2.8 million capex reserve to renovate the interior
and exterior of the building. At issuance, $600,000 of the $2.8
million was unfunded; however, according to the servicer, the
upgrades were completed in March 2017, and since then the sponsor
has been marketing the space for lease.

According to the October 2017 asset summary report, the borrower
signed a lease to a single tenant at the Plumeria building with a
lease commencement date of February 2018; however, rental payments
will not commence until September 2018. The report does not provide
the name of the tenant, the lease terms or the TI package provided
to the tenant; however, it does note that the contractual rental
rate is above the issuer's assumed rental rate for the space at
issuance of approximately $18 per square foot (psf). According to
the most recent monthly reporting, the $6.5 million TI/LC reserve
has yet to be drawn upon by the borrower; however, it is likely
funds will be utilized in conjunction with the new lease. DBRS has
requested the new tenant's lease terms, TI package provided and the
balance of the leasing reserve once all costs to the new tenant are
considered.

In addition to the renovation of the Plumeria building, the
sponsor's business plan also consisted of two strategies at
issuance. The first option would entail negotiating with the County
to terminate its lease early and assist in the relocation to a more
suitable industrial building in the area. The sponsor agreed to
cover moving costs of up to roughly $125,000 if the tenant obliges.
Once successful, future funding would allow the sponsor to convert
the Junction building to modern office/research and development
(R&D) space. Prior to a termination of the County's lease, a new
approved lease for a replacement tenant would need to be in place.
The second option involved the County moving into the renovated
Plumeria building as the tenant had expressed interest in moving
some of its operations to the building as it was in need of more
space. As the borrower has signed a lease with a new tenant at the
renovated building, this option is no longer viable. DBRS has
requested an updated business plan from the servicer regarding the
current strategy for the Junction building.

According to CoStar as of November 2017, flex R&D properties in the
Plumeria Drive submarket reported an average rental rate of $24.51
psf, vacancy rate of 21.2% and availability rate of 20.1%, while
office properties in the submarket reported an average rental rate
of $27.63 psf, vacancy rate of 31.3% and availability rate of
28.3%. The subject compares favorably in terms of occupancy as the
subject is now 100% leased.

The Lakeshore Business Center loan (10.0% of the current pool
balance) is secured by a four-building office complex in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, encompassing a total of approximately 235,000
sf. Loan proceeds of $14.4 million, along with $6.2 million of
sponsor equity and $1.8 million of future funding, were used to
facilitate the sponsor's acquisition of the property, fund a $1.8
million TI/LC reserve, fund a $800,000 capex reserve and cover
closing costs.

At issuance, the collateral was 57.2% occupied as the sponsor's
business plan was to lease up the vacant space over the three-year
loan term and to increase the desirability of the asset by
renovating the common areas, the exterior and vacant suites.
According to the October 2017 rent roll, the subject was 65.2%
occupied with the majority of the new leases executed at rental
rates ranging from $13.50 psf to $15.50 psf. One new tenant, On
Rite Company, Inc., executed a lease starting in February 2018 and
will occupy 14.7% of the net rentable area (NRA) and pay a
below-market rental rate of $8.72 NNN, becoming the largest tenant
at the subject and bringing occupancy up to 79.9%. It is uncertain
if the tenant was granted an abatement period and the amount of TI
allowance given. As such, DBRS has requested the details of any
leasing package provided and contractual rent steps. At issuance,
DBRS had expected the On Rite Company, Inc.'s space to be leased at
the market rental rate of $13.25 psf. The second-largest tenant,
ECI Telecom, Inc., increased its footprint to 10.3% of NRA, from
5.8% of the NRA at issuance and is currently paying a rental rate
of $17.80 psf, an increase from issuance of $16.80 psf.

According to CoStar, office properties in the Cypress Creek
submarket reported an average vacancy rate of 13.2% and an
availability rate of 17.6%. As the subject still trails the
submarket in terms of occupancy, there is potential leasing upside.
Per the October 2017 asset summary report, approximately $311,000
out of the $800,000 capex reserve has been spent to date on the
installation of new restrooms and upgrades to existing restrooms.
DBRS has also requested an updated balance of the leasing reserve
after any funds earmarked for all new leasing activity has been
considered.


RAIT TRUST 2017-FL8: DBRS Finalizes B(sf) Rating on Class F Debt
----------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. finalized its provisional ratings on the following
classes of secured Floating Rate Notes issued by RAIT 2017-FL8
Trust (the Issuer):

-- Class A at AAA (sf)
-- Class A-S at AAA (sf)
-- Class B at AA (low) (sf)
-- Class C at A (low) (sf)
-- Class D at BBB (low) (sf)
-- Class E at BB (sf)
-- Class F at B (sf)

All trends are Stable.

The collateral for the transaction consists of 23 recently
originated floating-rate mortgages secured by 26 transitional
commercial real estate properties totaling $259.8 million based on
current cut-off balances and $262.8 million based on the fully
funded loan amount. The loans are secured by currently cash flowing
assets, some of which are in a period of transition, with plans to
stabilize and improve the asset value. The floating-rate mortgages
were analyzed to determine the probability of loan default over the
term of the loan and its refinance risk at maturity based on a
fully extended loan term. Because of the floating-rate nature of
the loans, the index (one-month LIBOR) was applied at the lower of
a DBRS stressed rate that corresponded to the remaining fully
extended term of the loans and the strike price of the interest
rate cap, with the respective contractual loan spread added to
determine a stressed interest rate over the loan term. When the
cut-off balances were measured against the DBRS In-Place net cash
flow (NCF) and their respective stressed constants, there were 13
loans, representing 39.2% of the pool, with term debt service
coverage ratios (DSCRs) below 1.15 times (x), a threshold
indicative of a higher likelihood of term default. Additionally, to
assess refinance risk, DBRS applied its refinance constants to the
balloon amounts, resulting in 18 loans, or 74.0% of the pool,
having refinance DSCRs below 1.00x relative to the DBRS Stabilized
NCF. The properties are frequently transitioning, with potential
upside in the cash flow; however, DBRS does not give full credit to
the stabilization if there are no holdbacks or if other loan
structural features in place are insufficient to support such
treatment. Furthermore, even with structural features provided,
DBRS generally does not assume the assets will stabilize above
market levels.

The loans were all sourced by a commercial mortgage originator with
strong origination practices. Classes E, F, G and H will be
retained by the Issuer and represent 17.0% of the transaction
balance. The loans are secured by traditional property types (i.e.,
multifamily, retail and office), with no exposure to
higher-volatility property types or those with short-term leases
such as hotels or self-storage. The properties are located in
primarily core (urban and suburban) markets that benefit from
greater liquidity. Only four loans, representing 8.9% of the pool,
are located in tertiary markets. Twenty-two loans totaling 93.1% of
the deal balance represent acquisition financing, with borrowers
contributing equity to the transaction. All loans are structured
with cash management in place from origination. Twenty-two loans,
representing 93.4% of the pool, are structured with springing cash
management in the form of soft lockboxes for all tenants at the
property. One additional loan, representing 6.6% of the pool, is
entirely structured with springing cash management in the form of a
hard lockbox. Additionally, all loans are structured with reserves
for future capital improvements or leasing costs. The borrowers of
each loan have purchased LIBOR rate caps with a range of 1.10% to
4.75% to protect against a rise in interest rates over the term of
the loan.

The pool is relatively concentrated based on loan size, as there
are only 23 loans in the pool and it has a concentration profile
similar to a pool of 18 equally sized loans. The ten largest loans
represent 66.0% of the pool and the largest three loans represent
24.7% of the pool. Furthermore, the pool is relatively
geographically non-diverse. The top five states (Texas, Georgia,
California, Florida and Minnesota) account for 15 loans and 18
properties, representing 72.2% of the pool. Although the
concentration profile is similar to a pool of 18 equally sized
loans, which is typically worse than most fixed-rate conduit
transactions, the concentration profile is superior compared with
many floating-rate transactions that generally have fewer than 20
loans and a concentration profile more similar to a pool of ten to
15 loans.

The loans have been analyzed by DBRS to a stabilized cash flow that
is, in some instances, above the current in-place cash flow. There
is a possibility that the sponsors will not execute their business
plans as expected and that the higher stabilized cash flow will not
materialize during the loan term. Failure to execute the business
plan could result in a term default or the inability to refinance
the fully funded loan balance. DBRS made relatively conservative
stabilization assumptions and in each instance considered the
business plan to be rational and the future funding amounts to be
sufficient to execute such plans. In addition, the weighted-average
(WA) DBRS Debt Yield is based on the DBRS In-Place NCF and the
fully funded loan amount (including the junior participation
structures) is 7.2%, which is significantly lower than the WA DBRS
Exit Debt Yield, based on the DBRS Stabilized NCF of 8.2%. This
indicates that a fair amount of upside is being considered.

The Issuer, Servicer, Special Servicer, Mortgage Loan Seller,
Advancing Agent and Trust Administrator are the same party, a
non-rated entity. RAIT Financial Trust was established in 1998 and
has a proven track record of originating and servicing commercial
mortgage loans. Within the servicing agreement, the Indenture
Trustee has been enlisted as backup Servicer and Advancing Agent to
step in should there be an un-remedied Servicer event of default.
Wells Fargo Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee, is
considered a large, highly experienced commercial mortgage
servicer. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is currently rated AA with a
Stable trend by DBRS, which meets the Advancing Requirement.

The loans have future funding commitments residing outside the
trust with the junior participations. The failure of the holder of
the junior participations (an affiliate of the trust asset seller
and sponsor) to make future advances as required by the loan
documents could result in liability to the trust. The future
funding commitments will be first and foremost funded by a
committed warehouse line. RAIT 2017-FL8 A-2 Holdings, LLC and RAIT
Partnership LP have indemnified the trust against any liability
relating to funding the future commitments. Additionally, the
parent of the obligor, RAIT Financial Trust, owns and currently
manages a portfolio of commercial real estate assets totaling
approximately $1.8 billion, comprising over 220 multifamily units
and 4.3 million square feet of office and retail space as of
September 30, 2017. As of the same period, RAIT Financial Trust had
$2.9 billion of assets under management across both equity and debt
platforms, which is considered sufficient to advance the future
funds.

The overall WA DBRS Term and Refi DSCRs of 1.12x and 0.93x,
respectively, and corresponding DBRS Debt and Exit Debt Yields of
7.2% and 8.2%, respectively, are considered high-leverage
financing. The DBRS Term and Refi DSCRs are based on the DBRS
In-Place NCF and debt service calculated using a stressed interest
rate. The WA DBRS stressed rate used is 6.3%, which is greater than
the current WA LIBOR floor and WA loan gross margin combined rate
of 5.3%. Regarding the significant refinance risk indicated by the
DBRS Refi DSCR of 0.93x, credit enhancement levels are reflective
of the increased leverage and substantially higher than recent
fixed-rate transactions. The DBRS Refi DSCR of 0.93x is calculated
using a WA risk-free interest rate of 6.3%, which is conservative
relative to the current U.S. ten-year treasury rate of
approximately 2.4%. The assets are generally well positioned to
stabilize and any realized cash flow growth would help to offset a
rise in interest rates and improve the overall debt yield of the
loans. DBRS associates its probability of default (POD) based on
the assets' in-place cash flow, which does not assume that the
stabilization plan and cash flow growth will ever materialize.

All loans in the pool are two- to three-year floating-rate loans
with 24- to 36-month extension options out to a fully extended term
of five years, which creates interest rate risk. The borrowers of
all loans have purchased interest rate caps to protect against a
rise in interest rates over the term of the loan. Given that the
interest rate caps had relatively low LIBOR strike rates ranging
from 1.1% to 4.75%, the WA DBRS stressed interest rate for the pool
is only 1.0% higher than the pool's WA interest rate. DBRS
considered five loans, representing 31.8% of the pool, to have Weak
sponsorship quality resulting from limited net worth and liquidity
or past credit issues. Loans with Weak sponsors were assigned
increased POD levels to mitigate increased risk.

The DBRS sample included 16 of the 23 loans in the pool. Site
inspections were performed on 17 of the 26 properties in the
portfolio (83.5% of the pool by allocated loan balance). DBRS
conducted meetings with the on-site property managers, leasing
agents or representatives of the borrowing entities for 83.5% of
the pool. A cash flow review as well as a cash flow stability and
structural review was completed on 16 of the 23 loans, representing
83.5% of the pool by loan balance. The DBRS sample had an average
In-Place NCF variance of -8.2% from the Issuer NCF and ranged from
-56.0% to +42.6%. DBRS excluded two loans that had unique
situations where haircuts were excluded, as their NCFs were not
indicative of averages. Furthermore, the DBRS sample had an average
DBRS Stabilized NCF variance of -16.2% and ranged from -35.3% to
+7.3%.


REALT 2015-1: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class G Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed eight classes of Real Estate Asset
Liquidity Trust's (REAL-T) commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates, series 2015-1.  All currencies are in Canadian
dollars (CAD).

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Stable Performance: The affirmations are based on the stable
performance of the underlying collateral since issuance. All loans
in the pool continue to perform with property level performance
generally in line with issuance expectations and no material
changes to the pool metrics. As of the January 2018 distribution
date, the pool's aggregate principal balance has been reduced by
6.8% to $312 million from $334.8 million at issuance. No loans are
defeased.

Watchlist Loan: There is one loan (2.2%) on the servicer's
watchlist that is secured by a 41,100 square foot (sf) industrial
building located in Leduc, Alberta. The property's largest tenant
(55% of net rentable area) vacated after declaring bankruptcy. The
sponsor, York Realty, is working to re-tenant the space. The loan
is full-recourse to the sponsor.

Significant Amortization: There are no partial or full
interest-only loans. The pool's scheduled maturity balance
represents a paydown of 31% of the January 2018 balance and 28.9%
of the initial pool balance.

Canadian Loan Attributes: The ratings reflect strong Canadian
commercial real estate loan performance, including a low
delinquency rate and low historical losses of less than 0.1%, as
well as positive loan attributes such as short amortization
schedules, recourse to the borrower and additional guarantors. At
issuance, 82.6% of the loans feature full or partial recourse to
the borrowers and/or sponsors.

Alberta Exposure: The pool has a 9% exposure to Alberta, a province
more dependent on the energy extraction industry. The transaction's
six properties located in Alberta are composed of five industrial
properties and one multifamily. Four of the five industrial
properties are leased to tenants directly or indirectly involved in
the energy extraction industry. However, two of the loans secured
by Alberta properties fully amortize on a 10-year schedule,
mitigating retenanting and refinance risk.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Outlooks on classes A-1 through G remain Stable due to increasing
credit enhancement, continued paydown, and overall stable
collateral performance. Fitch does not foresee positive or negative
ratings migration unless a material economic or asset level event
changes the underlying transaction's portfolio-level metrics.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

-- CAD$140.3 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- CAD $126.5 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- CAD $8 million class B at 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- CAD $10 million class C at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- CAD $9.6 million class D at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- CAD $4.2 million class E at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- CAD $3.8 million class F at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- CAD $3.3 million class G at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch does not rate the class H or X certificates.


RFC CDO 2006-1: Fitch Affirms 'CCsf' Rating on Class B Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed nine classes of RFC CDO 2006-1, Ltd.
/LLC (RFC 2006-1).  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations reflect the high loss expectation on the Fitch
Loans of Concerns (FLOCs) and the increasing concentration and
adverse selection of the remaining portfolio. The collateralized
debt obligation (CDO) is undercollateralized by $110.5 million.

Since Fitch's last rating action and as of the December 2017
trustee report, the CDO liabilities have paid down by an additional
$3.4 million, mainly from scheduled portfolio amortization and
diversion of interest proceeds from the failure of all
overcollateralization and interest coverage tests. Realized losses
since the last rating action total $4.1 million from the
disposition of two distressed-rated commercial mortgage-backed
security (CMBS) bonds.

High Loss Expectations: Fitch's base case loss expectation is
86.1%, which exceeds the credit enhancement of the outstanding CDO
liabilities. The ratings on the class B through K notes are based
upon a deterministic analysis that considers Fitch's base case loss
expectation and the current percentage of FLOCs, factoring in
anticipated recoveries relative to each class' credit enhancement.

Portfolio Concentration & Adverse Selection: The remaining
portfolio is highly concentrated with only four assets remaining.
As of the December 2017 trustee report and per Fitch
categorizations, the CDO was substantially invested in one whole
loan (54.4% of current portfolio), one mezzanine loan (33.1%) and
two CMBS bonds (12.5%). One of the CMBS bonds, LBCMT 1998-C4 class
J (12.4%), has a Fitch-derived rating of 'AA+sf'. The other CMBS
bond, DLJCM 1998-CF1 class B6 (0.1%), has paid in full, but is not
yet reflected in the CDO's latest trustee reporting.

Fitch Loans of Concern: Fitch designated the two commercial real
estate loans (combined, 87.5% of current portfolio) as FLOCs, both
of which are classified as impaired by the trustee and with the
special servicer. Fitch expects significant to full losses on these
FLOCs.

The largest component of Fitch's base case loss expectation is the
whole loan (54.4%), which is secured by a 72-room boutique hotel
located within the Time Square area of New York City. In 2015 and
in 2016, the property generated negative cash flow due to increased
market competition and higher operating expenses, primarily payroll
expenses stemming from labor unionization. The loan had previously
been modified in 2012 into a $10 million A-note, a B-note (which
was subsequently sold after modification and recoveries applied to
the CDO) and a $22.8 million hope note, and its maturity date was
extended to 2019. Fitch modeled significant losses in its base case
scenario.

The next largest component of Fitch's base case loss expectation is
the JW Marriott mezzanine loan (33.1%), which is secured by an
interest in a 575-room, full-service hotel located in Tucson, AZ.
Litigation between the borrower and lender has remained opened for
many years and outstanding judgements need to be settled before the
special servicer on the senior loan can move forward with the
foreclosure process. Fitch modeled a full loss on this highly
leveraged position in its base case scenario.

The transaction exited its reinvestment period in April 2011. The
CDO's asset manager is CV Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Realty
Finance Corp. (RFC).

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Future upgrades are not expected due to portfolio concentration.
Classes are subject to further downgrades to 'Dsf' as the classes
are expected to default at legal maturity.

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $13.4 million class B at 'CCsf' RE 60%;
-- $15 million class C at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $13.5 million class D at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $9 million class E at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $10.5 million class F at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $13.5 million class G at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $4.5 million class H at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $24 million class J at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $20.3 million class K at 'Csf'; RE 0%.

Classes A-1 and A-2 have paid in full. Fitch does not rate the
Preferred Shares.


SDART 2018-1: Fitch Assigns 'BBsf' Rating to Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings assigns the following ratings and Outlooks to the
notes issued by Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-1
(2018-1), sponsored and serviced by Santander Consumer USA (SC):

-- $239,000,000 class A-1 notes 'F1+sf';
-- $301,600,000 class A-2 notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $118,980,000 class A-3 notes 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $182,180,000 class B notes 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $169,550,000 class C notes 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $119,020,000 class D notes 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $93,090,000 class E notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Stable Credit Quality: 2018-1 is backed by collateral relatively
consistent with recent pools, with a weighted average (WA) FICO
score of 613 and WA SC internal loss forecast score (LFS) of 553.
Obligors with no FICO scores are down from peak levels but total
10.5%.

High Extended-Term Concentration: The concentration of 75-month
loans is 10.3%, consistent with recent transactions; 61+ month
loans total 91.1% of the pool, toward the higher end of the range
for the platform. Consistent with prior Fitch-rated transactions,
an additional stress was applied to the 75-month loans in deriving
the loss proxy, as performance for these contracts has been
volatile.

Stable Portfolio/Securitization Performance: Recent managed
portfolio annual vintage losses are tracking higher. Loss frequency
has been driven higher by looser underwriting, while severity has
also increased due to weaker used vehicle values and early-stage
defaults on extended-term collateral. In response, SC has pulled
back on originations and tightened underwriting slightly, which has
led to improved performance in the 2016 vintage relative to
2014-2015. ABS performance remains within Fitch expectations to
date.

Sufficient Credit Enhancement: Initial hard credit enhancement (CE)
is lower versus the 2017 transactions and totals 51.40%, 37.70%,
24.95%, 16.00% and 9.00% for classes A, B, C, D and E,
respectively. Excess spread is expected to be 10.14% per annum.

Stable Corporate Health: SC's recent financial results have been
weaker due to higher losses on the managed portfolio. However, the
company has been profitable since 2007, and Fitch currently rates
Santander, SC's majority owner, 'A-'/'F2'/Stable.

Consistent Origination/Underwriting/Servicing: SC demonstrates
adequate abilities as originator, underwriter and servicer, as
evidenced by historical portfolio and securitization performance.
Fitch deems SC capable to service this transaction.

Legal Structure Integrity: The legal structure of the transaction
should provide that a bankruptcy of SC would not impair the
timeliness of payments on the securities.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Unanticipated increases in the frequency of defaults and loss
severity on defaulted receivables could produce loss levels higher
than the base case. This in turn could result in Fitch taking
negative rating actions on the notes.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to 2018-1
to increased credit losses over the life of the transaction.
Fitch's analysis found that the transaction displays some
sensitivity to increased defaults and credit losses. This analysis
exhibited a potential downgrade of one or two categories under
Fitch's moderate (1.5x base case loss) scenario, and potentially
distressed ratings or defaults for the class E bonds. The notes
could experience downgrades of three or more rating categories,
potentially leading to distressed ratings (below Bsf) or possibly
default, under Fitch's severe (2x base case loss) scenario.


SHACKLETON CLO 2013-III: S&P Assigns B- Rating on Class F-R Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class X-R, A-R, B-R,
C-R, D-R, E-R, and F-R replacement notes from Shackleton 2013-III
CLO Ltd., a collateralized loan obligation (CLO) originally issued
in 2013 that is managed by Alcentra NY LLC. S&P said, "We
discontinued our ratings on the class A, B-1, B-2, C-1, C-2, D, E,
and F notes following payment in full on the Jan. 16, 2018,
refinancing date. As part of the discontinuance, we removed our
ratings on the class B-1, B-2, C-1, C-2, and D notes from
CreditWatch, where they were placed with positive implications in
November 2017. We also assigned a rating to a new class X-R note
that was created as part of the refinancing."

On the Jan. 16, 2018, refinancing date, the proceeds from the class
X-R, A-R, B-R, C-R, D-R, E-R, and F-R replacement note issuances
were used to redeem the class A, B-1, B-2, C-1, C-2, D, E, and F
notes as outlined in the transaction document provisions.
Therefore, S&P discontinued its ratings on the refinanced notes in
line with their full redemption, and it is assigning ratings to the
replacement notes.

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

-- The stated maturity will be extended 5.25 years.

-- The original transaction exited its reinvestment period in
April 2017.

-- The reinvestment period ending in July 2022 will be reinstated
as part of the refinancing.

-- The non-call period ending in January 2020 will also be
reinstated.

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."

  RATINGS ASSIGNED
  Shackleton 2013-III CLO Ltd./Shackleton 2013-III CLO LLC

  Replacement class        Rating      Amount (mil. $)
  X-R                      AAA (sf)               5.00
  A-R                      AAA (sf)             303.00
  B-R                      AA (sf)               70.00
  C-R                      A (sf)                39.00
  D-R                      BBB (sf)              27.00
  E-R                      BB- (sf)              21.00
  F-R                      B- (sf)               10.00
  Subordinated notes       NR                    71.25

  RATINGS DISCONTINUED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH (IF  
  APPLICABLE)
  Shackleton 2013-III CLO Ltd./Shackleton 2013-III CLO LLC

  Replacement class        To                  From
  A                        NR                  AAA (sf)
  B-1                      NR                  AA (sf)/Watch Pos
  B-2                      NR                  AA (sf)/Watch Pos
  C-1                      NR                  A (sf)/Watch Pos
  C-2                      NR                  A (sf)/Watch Pos
  D                        NR                  BBB (sf)/Watch Pos
  E                        NR                  BB (sf)
  F                        NR                  B (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


SOUND POINT II: S&P Assigns Prelim B-(sf) Rating on Cl. B3-R Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to the class
A1-R, A2-R, A3-R, B1-R, B2-R, and B3-R replacement notes from Sound
Point CLO II Ltd., a collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
originally issued in March 2013 that is managed by Sound Point
Capital Management L.P.. The replacement notes will be issued via
an amended and restated indenture.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 25,
2018. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

On the Jan. 26, 2018, refinancing date, the proceeds from the
replacement note issuance are expected to redeem the original
notes. 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.

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

-- Increase the rated par amount and effective date target par
amount to $517.00 million and $550.00 million, respectively, from
$357.50 million and $378.74 million, respectively. Given that the
transaction is currently in its amortization period, the current
portfolio has approximately $269.01 million in assets and $48.22
million in principal proceeds. The proceeds from the replacement
note issuance and additional subordinated notes will add $232.77
million in par to purchase additional assets. Therefore, the
transaction will have an additional ramp-up period and subsequent
effective date, expected to be before the first determination date.
The first payment date following the Jan. 26, 2018, refinancing
date is expected to be April 26, 2018.

-- Extend the reinvestment period to Jan. 26, 2023, from April 26,
2017.

-- Extend the non-call period to Jan. 26, 2020, from April 26,
2015.

-- Extend the weighted average life test to Jan. 26, 2027, from
eight years measured from the original closing date, March 28,
2013.

-- Extend the legal final maturity date on the rated and
subordinated notes to Jan. 26, 2031, from April 26, 2025.

-- Issue additional subordinated notes, increasing their total
balance to approximately $69.29 million from $42.50 million.

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

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

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

-- Incorporate the recovery rate methodology and updated industry
classifications outlined in our August 2016 CLO criteria update.

  REPLACEMENT AND ORIGINAL NOTE ISSUANCES

  Replacement Notes
  Class                Amount    Interest                          

                      (mil. $)    rate (%)        
  A1-R                346.50     LIBOR + 1.07
  A2-R                 71.50     LIBOR + 1.45
  A3-R                 30.25     LIBOR + 1.85
  B1-R                 33.00     LIBOR + 2.70
  B2-R                 24.75     LIBOR + 5.50
  B3-R                 11.00     LIBOR + 7.47
  Subordinated notes   69.29     N/A

  Original Notes
  Class       Original amount    Interest                          

                     (mil. $)    rate (%)        
  A-1L                230.50(i)  LIBOR + 1.20
  A-1F                 10.00(i)  2.2464
  A-2L                 27.50     LIBOR + 1.90
  A-2F                 10.00     3.3877
  A-3L                 31.50     LIBOR + 2.75
  B-1L                 19.50     LIBOR + 3.75
  B-2L                 19.00     LIBOR + 4.50
  B-3L                  9.50     LIBOR + 5.50
  Subordinated notes   42.50     N/A

(i)The transaction is currently post reinvestment period, and as of
December 2017, has paid down the class A-1L and A-1F notes to
approximately $172.88 million and $7.50 million, respectively.
N/A—Not applicable.

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

"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

  Sound Point CLO II Ltd.
  Replacement class         Rating      Amount (mil. $)
  A1-R                      AAA (sf)             346.50
  A2-R                      AA (sf)               71.50
  A3-R                      A (sf)                30.25
  B1-R                      BBB- (sf)             33.00
  B2-R                      BB- (sf)              24.75
  B3-R                      B- (sf)               11.00
  Subordinated notes        NR                    69.29

  NR--Not rated.


SOUND POINT V: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class F Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the following
notes issued by Sound Point CLO V, Ltd.:

US$67,000,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class B-R Notes"), Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on
January 18, 2017 Assigned Aa1 (sf)

US$32,500,000 Class C-R Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Upgraded to Aa3 (sf);
previously on January 18, 2017 Assigned A1 (sf)

US$35,500,000 Class D Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Upgraded to Baa2 (sf);
previously on March 31, 2014 Assigned Baa3 (sf)

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

US$390,000,000 Class A-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2026 (the "Class A-R Notes"), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on
January 18, 2017 Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$27,000,000 Class E Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on
March 31, 2014 Assigned Ba3 (sf)

US$16,000,000 Class F Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2026 (the "Class F Notes"), Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on
March 31, 2014 Assigned B2 (sf)

Sound Point CLO V, Ltd, issued in March 2014, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment period will end in
April 2018.

RATINGS RATIONALE

These rating actions reflect the benefit of the short period of
time remaining before the end of the deal's reinvestment period in
April 2018. In light of the reinvestment restrictions during the
amortization period, and therefore the limited ability of the
manager to effect significant changes to the current collateral
pool, Moody's analyzed the deal assuming a higher likelihood that
the collateral pool characteristics will maintain a positive buffer
relative to certain covenant requirements. In particular, Moody's
assumed that the deal will benefit from lower WARF, and higher
diversity levels. The deal has also benefited from a shortening of
the portfolio's weighted average life. Furthermore, the
transaction's reported collateral quality and overcollateralization
(OC) ratios have been stable.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moody's Adjusted WARF -- 20% (2133)

Class A-R: 0

Class B-R: 0

Class C-R: +3

Class D: +3

Class E: +1

Class F: +2

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3200)

Class A-R: 0

Class B-R: -1

Class C-R: -2

Class D: -1

Class E: -1

Class F: -3

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

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

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base case,
Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing par and
principal proceeds balance of $594.5 million, defaulted par of $3.4
million, a weighted average default probability of 18.58% (implying
a WARF of 2667), a weighted average recovery rate upon default of
47.49%, a diversity score of 69 and a weighted average spread of
3.84%.

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


SOUND POINT XVIII: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Cl. D Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to six classes of
notes issued by Sound Point CLO XVIII, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

US$520,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2031 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$66,900,000 Class A-2A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2031 (the "Class A-2A Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$21,100,000 Class A-2B Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2031
(the "Class A-2B Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$48,000,000 Class B Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2031 (the "Class B Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$48,000,000 Class C Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2031 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$32,000,000 Class D Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2031 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Sound Point CLO XVIII is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes
will be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated senior
secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the portfolio must
consist of first lien 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 74%
ramped as of the closing date.

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

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer issued two classes of
subordinated notes.

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

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

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

Par amount: $800,000,000

Diversity Score: 55

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2660

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.45%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 4.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 45.65%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

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

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2660 to 3059)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2A Notes: -2

Class A-2B Notes: -2

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2660 to 3458)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2A Notes: -3

Class A-2B Notes: -3

Class B Notes: -4

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1


STACR 2018-DNA1: Fitch to Rate 12 Note Classes 'Bsf'
----------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings expects to rate Freddie Mac's risk-transfer
transaction, Structured Agency Credit Risk Debt Notes Series
2018-DNA1 (STACR 2018-DNA1):

-- $230,000,000 class M-1 notes 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $270,000,000 class M-2A notes 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $270,000,000 class M-2B notes 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $540,000,000 class M-2 exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $540,000,000 class M-2R exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $540,000,000 class M-2S exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $540,000,000 class M-2T exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $540,000,000 class M-2U exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $540,000,000 class M-2I notional exchangeable notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $270,000,000 class M-2AR exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $270,000,000 class M-2AS exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $270,000,000 class M-2AT exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $270,000,000 class M-2AU exchangeable notes 'BBsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $270,000,000 class M-2AI notional exchangeable notes 'BBsf';
    Outlook Stable;
-- $270,000,000 class M-2BR exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $270,000,000 class M-2BS exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $270,000,000 class M-2BT exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $270,000,000 class M-2BU exchangeable notes 'Bsf'; Outlook
    Stable;
-- $270,000,000 class M-2BI notional exchangeable notes 'Bsf';
    Outlook Stable.

The following classes will not be rated by Fitch:

-- $33,343,969,909 class A-H reference tranche;
-- $82,599,718 class M-1H reference tranche;
-- $94,699,671 class M-2AH reference tranche;
-- $94,699,671 class M-2BH reference tranche;
-- $130,000,000 class B-1 notes;

-- $43,666,510 class B-1H reference tranche;
-- $173,666,510 class B-2H reference tranche.

The 'BBB-sf' rating for the M-1 notes reflects the 3.10%
subordination provided by the 1.05% class M-2A notes, the 1.05%
class M-2B notes, the 0.50% class B-1 notes and their corresponding
reference tranches, as well as the 0.50% class B-2H reference
tranche. The 'BBsf' rating for the M-2A notes reflects the 2.05%
subordination provided by the 1.05% class M-2B notes, the 0.50%
class B-1 notes and their corresponding reference tranches, as well
as the 0.50% class B-2H reference tranche. The 'Bsf' rating for the
M-2B notes reflects the 1.00% subordination provided by the 0.50%
class B-1 notes and the 0.50% class B-2H reference tranche. The
notes are general unsecured obligations of Freddie Mac (AAA/Stable)
subject to the credit and principal payment risk of a pool of
certain residential mortgage loans held in various Freddie
Mac-guaranteed MBS.

STACR 2018-DNA1 represents Freddie Mac's 22nd risk transfer
transaction applying actual loan loss severity (LS) issued as part
of the Federal Housing Finance Agency's Conservatorship Strategic
Plan for 2013 - 2017 for each of the government-sponsored
enterprises (GSEs) to demonstrate the viability of multiple types
of risk-transfer transactions involving single-family mortgages.

The objective of the transaction is to transfer credit risk from
Freddie Mac to private investors with respect to a $34.7 billion
pool of mortgage loans currently held guaranteed by Freddie Mac
where principal repayment of the notes is subject to the
performance of a reference pool of mortgage loans. As loans
liquidate or other credit events occur, the outstanding principal
balance of the debt notes will be reduced by the actual loan's LS
percentage related to those credit events, which includes
borrower's delinquent interest.

While the transaction structure simulates the behavior and credit
risk of traditional RMBS senior-subordinate securities, Freddie Mac
will be responsible for making monthly payments of interest and
principal to investors. Because of the counterparty dependence on
Freddie Mac, Fitch's expected rating on the M-1, M-2A and M-2B
notes will be based on the lower of: the quality of the mortgage
loan reference pool and credit enhancement (CE) available through
subordination, and Freddie Mac's Issuer Default Rating. The M-1,
M-2A, M-2B, and B-1 notes will be issued as LIBOR-based floaters.
In the event that the one-month LIBOR rate falls below zero and
becomes negative, the coupons of the interest-only modifications
and combinations (MAC) notes may be subject to a downward
adjustment, so that the aggregate interest payable within the
related MAC combination does not exceed the interest payable to the
notes for which such classes were exchanged. The notes will carry a
12.5-year legal final maturity.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

High-Quality Mortgage Pool (Positive): The reference pool consists
of loans with original loan-to-value ratios (LTVs) of over 60% and
less than or equal to 80% with a weighted average (WA) original
combined LTV of 76.6%. The WA debt-to-income (DTI) ratio of 35.9%
and credit score of 747 reflect the strong credit profile of
post-crisis mortgage originations.

Home Possible Loans (Neutral): Approximately 2% of the reference
pool was originated under Freddie Mac's Home Possible or Home
Possible Advantage program, which targets low- to moderate-income
homebuyers or buyers in high-cost or underrepresented communities.

The Home Possible program provides flexibility for a borrower's
LTV, income, down payment and mortgage insurance coverage
requirements. Among the eligibility guidelines is that the borrower
must be located in an underserved area, or the borrower's income
cannot exceed 100% of the area's median income or a higher
percentage in some designated high-cost areas. In certain
circumstances, Home Possible borrowers must participate in a
homeownership education program to qualify and have early
delinquency counselling made available to them in the event they
have trouble making payments.

Fitch does not believe the Home Possible loans add meaningful
credit risk to this transaction due to the relatively low
percentage of the loans in the pool and the full documentation of
income, employment and assets. If the Home Possible loans were
assumed to have a 25% higher default probability than loans with
the same credit attributes that were not originated under Home
Possible, the adjustment to the total pool projected loss would not
be large enough to change the CE for the rated classes.

12.5-Year Hard Maturity (Positive): The M-1, M-2A and M-2B notes
benefit from a 12.5-year legal final maturity. Thus, any credit
events on the reference pool that occur beyond year 12.5 are borne
by Freddie Mac and do not affect the transaction. In addition,
credit events that occur prior to maturity with losses realized
from liquidations or loan modifications that occur after the final
maturity date will not be passed through to noteholders.

Solid Lender Review and Acquisition Processes (Positive): Fitch
found that Freddie Mac has a well-established and disciplined
process in place for the purchase of loans and views its
lender-approval and oversight processes for minimizing counterparty
risk and ensuring sound loan quality acquisitions as positive. Loan
quality control (QC) review processes are thorough and indicate a
tight control environment that limits origination risk. Fitch has
determined Freddie Mac to be an above-average aggregator for its
2013 and later product. Fitch accounted for the lower risk by
applying a lower default estimate for the reference pool.

Advantageous Payment Priority (Positive): The M-1 class strongly
benefits from the sequential pay structure and stable CE provided
by the more junior M-2A, M-2B and B-1 classes, which are locked out
from receiving any principal until classes with a more senior
payment priority are paid in full. However, available CE for the
junior classes as a percentage of the outstanding reference pool
increases in tandem with the paydown of the M-1 class. Given the
size of the M-1 class relative to the combined total of all the
junior classes, together with the sequential pay structure, the
class M-1 will de-lever and CE as a percentage will build faster
than in a pro rata payment structure.

Solid Alignment of Interests (Positive): While the transaction is
designed to transfer credit risk to private investors, Fitch
believes the transaction benefits from a solid alignment of
interests. Freddie Mac will retain credit risk in the transaction
by holding the senior reference tranche A-H, which has 4.00% of
loss protection, as well as a minimum of 5% of the M-1, M-2A, M-2B
and B-1 tranches and a minimum of 75% of the first-loss B-2H
tranche. Initially, Freddie Mac will retain an approximately 26.10%
vertical slice/interest in the M-1, M-2A and M-2B tranches.

Receivership Risk Considered (Neutral): Under the Federal Housing
Finance Regulatory Reform Act, the Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) must place Freddie Mac into receivership if it determines
that the government-sponsored enterprise's (GSE) assets are less
than its obligations for longer than 60 days following the deadline
of its SEC filing. As receiver, FHFA could repudiate any contract
entered into by Freddie Mac if it is determined that such action
would promote an orderly administration of Freddie Mac's affairs.
Fitch believes that the U.S. government will continue to support
Freddie Mac, as reflected in its current rating of the GSE.
However, if, at some point, Fitch views the support as being
reduced and receivership likely, the rating of Freddie Mac could be
downgraded and ratings on the M-1, M-2A and M-2B notes, along with
their corresponding MAC notes, could be affected.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

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

This defined stress sensitivity analysis demonstrates how the
ratings would react to steeper MVDs at the national level. The
analysis assumes MVDs of 10%, 20% and 30%, in addition to the model
projected 25.4% at the 'BBBsf' level, and 16% at the 'Bsf' level.
The analysis indicates that there is some potential rating
migration with higher MVDs, compared with the model projection.

Fitch also conducted defined rating sensitivities which determine
the stresses to MVDs that would reduce a rating by one full
category, to non-investment grade, and to 'CCCsf'. For example,
additional MVDs of 12%, 12% and 36% would potentially move the
'BBBsf' rated class down one rating category, to non-investment
grade, to 'CCCsf', respectively.


STEWART PARK: Moody's Assigns Ba3(sf) Rating to Class E-R Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned the following ratings to the
following notes (the "Refinancing Notes") issued by Stewart Park
CLO, Ltd.:

US$7,500,000 Class X Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class X Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$454,125,000 Class A-1-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class A-1-R Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa
(sf)

US$47,000,000 Class A-2-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class A-2-R Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa
(sf)

US$54,000,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2030
(the "Class B-R Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

US$57,250,000 Class C-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

US$44,500,000 Class D-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (the "Class D-R Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$33,000,000 Class E-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2030 (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.

GSO / Blackstone Debt Funds 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 notes address the expected losses posed to
noteholders. The ratings reflect the risks due to defaults on the
underlying portfolio of assets, the transaction's legal structure,
and the characteristics of the underlying assets.

The Issuer has issued the Refinancing Notes on January 16, 2018
(the "Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of all
of the secured notes (the "Refinanced Original Notes") previously
issued on May 7, 2015 (the "Original Closing Date"). On the
Refinancing Date, the Issuer used proceeds from the issuance of the
Refinancing Notes, to redeem in full the Refinanced Original
Notes.

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

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

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

Performing par and principal proceeds balance: $746,616,025

Recoveries on defaulted assets: $3,383,975

Diversity Score: 75

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2915

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.45%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.5%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

The performance of the 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 2915 to 3352)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-1-R Notes: 0

Class A-2-R Notes: -1

Class B-R Notes: -2

Class C-R Notes: -2

Class D-R Notes: -1

Class E-R Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF - increase of 30% (from 2915 to 3790)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-1-R Notes: -1

Class A-2-R Notes: -3

Class B-R Notes: -4

Class C-R Notes: -4

Class D-R Notes: -2

Class E-R Notes: -1


TELOS CLO 2013-4: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Class E-R Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-R, B-R, D-R,
and E-R replacement notes, class C-R loans, and new class X notes
from Telos CLO 2013-4 Ltd./Telos CLO 2013-4 LLC, a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) originally issued in 2013 that is managed by
Telos Asset Management LLC. S&P withdrew its ratings on the
original class A, B, C, D, and E notes following payment in full.

On the Jan. 17, 2018, refinancing date, the proceeds from the class
A-R, B-R, C-R, D-R, and E-R replacement note and loan issuances
were used to redeem the original class A, B, C, D, and E notes as
outlined in the transaction document provisions. Therefore, S&P
withdrew its ratings on the original notes in line with their full
redemption, and it assigned ratings to the replacement notes,
loans, and class X notes.

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

-- Issue all of the replacement classes, except class E-R, at a
lower spread than the original notes.

-- Extend the stated maturity, reinvestment period, and non-call
period by 5.50, 4.50, and 4.50 years, respectively.

-- Replace the class C notes with the class C-R loans.

-- Issue the class X senior floating-rate notes, which are paid
using interest proceeds in equal quarterly installments beginning
with the April 2018 payment date and ending with the October 2021
payment date.

-- Issue additional subordinated notes, increasing the
subordinated notes' balance to $40.00 million from $37.00 million.

-- Incorporate the recovery rate methodology and updated industry
classifications outlined in our August 2016 CLO criteria update.

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

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

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

  RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Telos CLO 2013-4 Ltd./Telos CLO 2013-4 LLC
  Replacement class          Rating       Amount (mil. $)
  X notes                    AAA (sf)                4.20
  A-R notes                  AAA (sf)              215.00
  B-R notes                  AA (sf)                47.50
  C-R loans                  A (sf)                 21.00
  D-R notes                  BBB- (sf)              24.50
  E-R notes                  BB- (sf)               14.00
  Subordinated notes         NR                     40.00

  RATINGS WITHDRAWN

  Telos CLO 2013-4 Ltd./Telos CLO 2013-4 LLC
                             Rating
  Original class       To              From
  A                    NR              AAA (sf)
  B                    NR              AA (sf)
  C                    NR              A (sf)
  D                    NR              BBB (sf)
  E                    NR              BB (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


THARALDSON HOTEL 2018-THPT: S&P Gives Prelim B- Rating on F Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Tharaldson
Hotel Portfolio Trust 2018-THPT's $960.0 million commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed securities
transaction backed by one two-year, floating-rate, interest-only
commercial mortgage loan totaling $960.0 million, with three
one-year extension options, secured by the fee simple and leasehold
interests and the operating lessee's leasehold interests in 135
hotels: 88 limited-service, 41 extended-stay, and six full-service
hotel properties.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 18,
2018. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

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

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Tharaldson Hotel Portfolio Trust 2018-THPT

  Class             Rating          Amount ($)
  A                 AAA (sf)       261,060,000
  X-CP              BBB- (sf)      424,992,000(i)
  X-EXT             BBB- (sf)      531,240,000(i)
  B                 AA- (sf)        99,180,000
  C                 A- (sf)         73,720,000
  D                 BBB- (sf)       97,280,000
  E                 BB- (sf)       153,710,000
  F                 B- (sf)        135,850,000
  G                 NR              47,500,000
  H                 NR              43,700,000
  RR interest       NR              48,000,000

(i) Notional balance. The notional amount of the class X-CP
certificates will be reduced by the aggregate amount of principal
distributions and realized losses allocated to the A-2 portion of
class A,  B-2 portion of class B, C-2 portion of class C, and D-2
portion of class D through May 2019, and 0% thereafter. The
notional amount of the class X-EXT certificates will be reduced by
the aggregate amount of principal distributions and realized losses
allocated to the A-1 portion of class A, B-1 portion of class B,
C-1 portion of class C, and D-1 portion of class D through May 2019
and after May 2019, the notional amount of the class X-EXT
certificates will be reduced by the aggregate amount of principal
distributions and realized losses allocated to the class A, B, C,
and D certificates.
NR--Not rated.


THL CREDIT 2014-2: Moody's Assigns B3(sf) Rating to Cl. F-R Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to seven classes of
CLO refinancing notes (the "Refinancing Notes") issued by THL
Credit Wind River 2014-2 CLO Ltd.:

Moody's rating action is:

US$6,000,000 Class X Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2031
(the "Class X Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$397,300,000 Class A-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class A-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$66,700,000 Class B-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2031
(the "Class B-R Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$31,600,000 Class C-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class C-R Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$38,900,000 Class D-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class D-R Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$27,900,000 Class E-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class E-R Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

US$12,300,000 Class F-R Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
2031 (the "Class F-R Notes"), Assigned B3 (sf)

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

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The Issuer has issued the Refinancing Notes on January 16, 2018
(the "Refinancing Date") in connection with the refinancing of
certain classes of secured notes (the "Refinanced Original Notes")
previously issued on August 21, 2014 (the "Original Closing Date").
On the Refinancing Date, the Issuer used proceeds from the issuance
of the Refinancing Notes to redeem in full the Refinanced Original
Notes.

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

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

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

Performing par and principal proceeds balance: $611,520,048

Defaulted par: $6,299,220

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2925

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.45%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.5%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

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

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (3364)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-R Notes: -1

Class B-R Notes: -2

Class C-R Notes: -2

Class D-R Notes: -1

Class E-R Notes: 0

Class F-R Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (3803)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A-R Notes: -1

Class B-R Notes: -4

Class C-R Notes: -4

Class D-R Notes: -2

Class E-R Notes: -1

Class F-R Notes: -3


TOWD POINT 2017-6: DBRS Finalizes B(high) Rating on Cl. B2 Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
DBRS, Inc. finalized its provisional ratings on the Asset-Backed
Securities, Series 2017-6 (the Notes) issued by Towd Point Mortgage
Trust 2017-6 (the Trust):

-- $1161.8 million Class A1 at AAA (sf)
-- $117.9 million Class A2 at AA (sf)
-- $91.4 million Class M1 at A (high) (sf)
-- $100.5 million Class M2 at BBB (sf)
-- $73.1 million Class B1 at BB (high) (sf)
-- $27.4 million Class B2 at B (high) (sf)
-- $1279.7 million Class A3 at AA (sf)
-- $1371.1 million Class A4 at A (high) (sf)

Classes A3 and A4 are exchangeable notes. These classes can be
exchanged for combinations of exchange notes as specified in the
offering documents.

The AAA (sf) rating on the Notes reflects the 36.45% of credit
enhancement provided by subordinated Notes in the pool. The AA
(sf), A (high) (sf), BBB (sf), BB (high) (sf) and B (high) (sf)
ratings reflect credit enhancement of 30.00%, 25.00%, 19.50%,
15.50% and 14.00%, respectively.

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

This transaction is a securitization of a portfolio of seasoned
performing and re-performing first- or second-lien residential
mortgages. The Notes are backed by 10,322 loans with a total
principal balance of $1,828,095,066 as of the Cut-Off Date (October
31, 2017).

As of the Statistical Calculation Date (September 30, 2017), the
portfolio contains 10,713 loans with a total principal balance of
$1,873,745,243. Unless specified otherwise, all the statistics
regarding the mortgage loans in this press release are based on the
Statistical Calculation Date.

The portfolio is approximately 132 months seasoned and contains
81.8% modified loans. The modifications happened more than two
years ago for 85.2% of the modified loans. Within the pool, 2,870
mortgages have non-interest-bearing deferred amounts, which equate
to 11.0% of the total principal balance. Included in the deferred
amounts are proprietary principal forgiveness and HAMP principal
reduction alternative amounts (collectively, PRA amounts), which
comprise approximately 0.2% of the total principal balance.

All loans (100.0%) were current as of the Statistical Calculation
Date, including 1.1% bankruptcy-performing loans. Approximately
65.5% of the mortgage loans have been zero times 30 days delinquent
for at least the past 24 months under the Mortgage Bankers
Association delinquency method. In accordance with the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau Ability-to-Repay (ATR) and Qualified
Mortgage (QM) rules, 12 loans are classified as Safe Harbor (0.4%
of the pool), two loans as Non-QM, one loan as Rebuttable
Presumption and the rest (99.6%) are exempt from the ATR/QM rules.

FirstKey Mortgage, LLC (FirstKey) will acquire the loans from
various transferring trusts on or prior to the Closing Date. The
transferring trusts acquired the mortgage loans between 2013 and
2017, and are beneficially owned by funds managed by affiliates of
Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. Upon acquiring the loans from the
transferring trusts, FirstKey, through a wholly owned subsidiary,
Towd Point Asset Funding, LLC, will contribute loans to the Trust.
As the Sponsor, FirstKey, through a majority-owned affiliate, will
acquire and retain a 5% eligible vertical interest in each class of
securities to be issued (other than any residual certificates) to
satisfy the credit risk retention requirements. These loans were
originated and previously serviced by various entities through
purchases in the secondary market. As of the Closing Date, 97.3% of
the loans will be serviced by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and
2.7% will be serviced by Cohen Financial Services, LLC.

There will not be any advancing of delinquent principal or interest
on any mortgages by the servicer or any other party to the
transaction; however, the servicer is obligated to make advances in
respect of homeowner association fees, taxes and insurance,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the course of servicing
and disposing of properties.

FirstKey, as the Asset Manager, has the option to sell certain
non-performing loans or real estate owned (REO) properties to
unaffiliated third parties individually or in bulk sales. The asset
sale price has to equal a minimum reserve amount to maximize
liquidation proceeds of such loans or properties. The minimum
reserve amount equals the product of 53.10% and the then-current
principal amount of the mortgage loans or REO properties. In
addition, on the payment date when the aggregate pool balance of
the mortgage loans is reduced to less than 30% of the Cut-Off Date
balance, the holders of more than 50% of the Class X Certificates
will have the option to cause the Issuer to sell all of its
remaining property (other than amounts in the Breach Reserve
Account) to one or more third-party purchasers so long as the
aggregate proceeds meet a minimum price.

The transaction employs a sequential-pay cash flow structure.
Principal proceeds and excess interest can be used to cover
interest shortfalls on the Notes, but such shortfalls on Class M1
and more subordinate bonds will not be paid from principal proceeds
until the more senior classes are retired.

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

The ratings reflect transactional strengths that include underlying
assets that generally performed well through the crisis, a strong
servicer and Asset Manager oversight. Additionally, a satisfactory
third-party due diligence review was performed on the portfolio
with respect to regulatory compliance, payment history and data
capture as well as title and tax review. Servicing comments were
reviewed for a sample of loans. Updated broker price opinions or
exterior appraisals were provided for most of the pool; however, a
reconciliation was not performed on the updated values.

The transaction employs a relatively weak representations and
warranties framework that includes a 13-month sunset, an unrated
representation provider (FirstKey), certain knowledge qualifiers
and fewer mortgage loan representations relative to DBRS criteria
for seasoned pools. Mitigating factors include (1) significant loan
seasoning and relative clean performance history in recent years,
(2) a comprehensive due diligence review and (3) a strong
representations and warranties enforcement mechanism, including
delinquency review trigger and breach reserve accounts.

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


UBS-BARCLAYS COMMERCIAL 2013-C6: Fitch Affirms B Rating on F Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 14 classes of Barclays Commercial
Mortgage Securities LLC's UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust
2013-C6, commercial mortgage pass-through certificates.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Stable Performance: The affirmations are the result of stable
performance since issuance. All the loans in the pool continue to
perform, with property level performance generally in line with
issuance expectations. There are no loans in special servicing or
on the servicer's watchlist. The original rating analysis was
considered in affirming the transaction, as there have been no
material changes to pool metrics.

High Quality Assets in Major Markets: Four of the top 15 loans,
totaling 31.6% of the pool, are secured by high-quality assets in
major urban markets. Three of the assets are located in New York
City and one in Philadelphia.

Retail Concentration: Retail properties represent 47.8% of the
pool, with five retail loans in the top 10. Additionally, mixed-use
properties make up 15.9% of the pool, with three mixed-use loans in
the top 15. For 2012 vintage transactions, the average retail and
mixed-use exposures were 35.9% and 4.2%, respectively.

Amortization: As of the December 2017 distribution date, the pool's
aggregate balance has been reduced by 5.33% to $1.23 billion, from
$1.30 billion at issuance. There are ten loans (13.6%) that were
partial interest-only and are now amortizing. 38.7% of the pool is
composed of full term interest-only loans.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlook for all classes remains Stable due to stable
collateral performance. Fitch does not foresee positive or negative
ratings migration until a material economic or asset-level event
changes the transaction's portfolio-level metrics.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

-- $22.8 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $155 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $461.1 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $87 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $95 million class A-3FL at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $95 million class A-3FX at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $111.7 million class A-S at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $932.7 million* class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $140.9 million* class X-B at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $90.7 million class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $50.2 million class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $48.6 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $25.9 million class E at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $19.4 million class F at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

* Indicates notional amount and interest-only.

All or a portion of the class A-3FL certificates may be exchanged
for class A-3FX certificates. The aggregate certificate balance of
the class A-3FL certificates and class A-3FX certificates will at
all times equal the certificate balance of the class A-3FL regular
interest.

The class A-1 certificates have paid in full. Fitch does not rate
the class G and X-C certificates.


UNITED AUTO 2018-1: S&P Assigns Prelim B(sf) Rating on F Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to United Auto
Credit Securitization Trust 2018-1's $171.73 million automobile
receivables-backed notes series 2018-1.

The note issuance is an ABS transaction backed by subprime auto
loan receivables.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 25,
2018. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final
ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

-- The availability of approximately 61.5%, 53.9%, 44.4%, 34.4%,
27.1%, and 24.6% (pre-haircut) credit support for the class A, B,
C, D, E, and F notes, respectively, based on stressed break-even
cash flow scenarios (including excess spread). These credit support
levels provide coverage of approximately 2.85x, 2.45x, 2.00x,
1.50x, 1.17x, and 1.10x S&P's expected net loss range of
20.50%-21.50% for the class A, B, C, D, E, and F notes,
respectively.

-- The likelihood of timely interest and principal payments by the
assumed legal final maturity dates under stressed cash flow
modeling scenarios that are appropriate for the assigned
preliminary ratings.

-- S&P said, "Our expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
scenario, all else being equal, the ratings on the class A, B, and
C notes would not be lowered and the rating on the class D notes
would not decline by more than one rating category. Under this
scenario, the ratings on the class E and F notes would not decline
by more than two rating categories from our preliminary 'BB- (sf)'
and 'B (sf)' ratings, respectively, in the first year but would
ultimately not pay off in a 'BBB' stress scenario, as expected.
These potential rating movements are consistent with our credit
stability criteria, which outline the outer bound of credit
deterioration as a one-category downgrade within the first year for
'AAA' and 'AA' rated securities and a two-category downgrade within
the first year for 'A' through 'B' rated securities under moderate
stress conditions."

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

-- The collateral characteristics of the subprime pool being
securitized. It is approximately five months seasoned, with a
weighted average original term of approximately 44 months and an
average remaining term of about 39 months. As a result, S&P expects
that the pool will pay down more quickly than many other subprime
pools with longer weighted average original and remaining terms.

-- S&P's analysis of six years of static pool data following the
credit crisis and after United Auto Credit Corp. (UACC) centralized
its operations and shifted toward shorter loan terms.

-- S&P also reviewed the performance of UACC's three outstanding
securitizations, as well as its seven securitizations from 2004 to
2007. UACC's 20-plus-year history of originating, underwriting, and
servicing subprime auto loans.

-- The transaction's payment and legal structures.

  PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED
  United Auto Credit Securitization Trust 2018-1

  Class       Rating      Type            Interest       Amount
                                           rate(i)      (mil. $)
  A           AAA (sf)    Senior          Fixed           78.84
  B           AA (sf)     Subordinate     Fixed           21.47
  C           A (sf)      Subordinate     Fixed           21.47
  D           BBB (sf)    Subordinate     Fixed           24.74
  E           BB- (sf)    Subordinate     Fixed           19.14
  F           B (sf)      Subordinate     Fixed            6.07

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


VERUS SECURITIZATION 2018-1: S&P Gives B+(sf) Rating on B-3 Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to Verus Securitization
Trust 2018-1's $242.521 million mortgage pass-through
certificates.

The certificate issuance is a residential mortgage-backed
securities transaction backed by first-lien, fixed- and
adjustable-rate, fully amortizing, and interest-only residential
mortgage loans secured by single-family residential properties,
planned-unit developments, condominiums, and two- to four-family
residential properties to both prime and nonprime borrowers. The
pool has 561 loans, which are primarily non-qualified mortgage
loans.

The ratings reflect:

-- The pool's collateral composition;
-- The credit enhancement provided for this transaction;
-- The transaction's associated structural mechanics;
-- The representation and warranty framework for this transaction;
and
-- The mortgage aggregator, Invictus Capital Partners.

  RATINGS ASSIGNED
  Verus Securitization Trust 2018-1

  Class       Rating(i)    Interest      Amount ($)
                           rate(ii)                
  A-1         AAA (sf)     Fixed        155,248,000
  A-2         AA (sf)      Fixed         16,807,000
  A-3         A (sf)       Fixed         34,361,000
  B-1         BBB- (sf)    Fixed         25,273,000
  B-2         BB (sf)      Fixed          7,172,000
  B-3         B+ (sf)      Fixed          3,660,000
  B-4         NR           Fixed          6,474,054
  A-IO-S      NR           (v)             Notional(iii)
  XS          NR           (vi)            Notional(iv)
  P           NR           (vii)                100
  R           NR           N/A                  N/A

(i) Interest can be deferred on the classes; the ratings assigned
to the classes address the ultimate payment of interest and
principal.
(ii) Coupons are subject to the pool's net WAC rate.
(iii) Notional amount equals the loans' stated principal balance.
(iv) Notional amount equals the aggregate balance of the class A-1,
A-2, A-3, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and P certificates.
(v) Excess servicing strip plus the excess prepayment strip minus
compensating interest.
(vi) Certain excess amounts per the pooling and servicing
agreement.
(vii) Prepayment premiums during the related prepayment period.
WAC--Weighted average coupon.
N/A--Not applicable.
NR--Not rated.


VIBRANT CLO VIII: Moody's Assigns (P)Ba3 Rating to Cl. D Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to seven
classes of notes to be issued by Vibrant CLO VIII, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is:

US$320,000,000 Class A-1A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2031 (the "Class A-1A Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$7,500,000 Class A-1B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2031
(the "Class A-1B Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

US$50,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2031
(the "Class A-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

US$20,000,000 Class B-1 Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2031 (the "Class B-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

US$7,500,000 Class B-2 Secured Deferrable Fixed Rate Notes due 2031
(the "Class B-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

US$32,500,000 Class C Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due
2031 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

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

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

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Vibrant CLO VIII is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will
be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated senior secured
corporate loans. At least 90.0% of the portfolio must consist of
first lien senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up to
10.0% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and
unsecured loans. Moody's expect the portfolio to be approximately
65% ramped as of the closing date.

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

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

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

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

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

Par amount: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2750

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.30%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 46.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9.0 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

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

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2750 to 3163)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1A Notes: 0

Class A-1B Notes: -1

Class A-2 Notes: -2

Class B-1 Notes: -2

Class B-2 Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2750 to 3575)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1A Notes: -1

Class A-1B Notes: -3

Class A-2 Notes: -4

Class B-1 Notes: -4

Class B-2 Notes: -4

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1


WACHOVIA BANK 2004-C12: Fitch Affirms BB Rating on 2 Tranches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed all classes of Wachovia Bank Commercial
Mortgage Trust, commercial mortgage pass-through certificates,
series 2004-C12 (WBCMT 2004-C12).  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Concentrated Pool with Adverse Selection: The pool is highly
concentrated with only 12 of the original 97 loans remaining. All
of the remaining loans in the pool are secured by retail
properties, the majority of which are located in secondary/tertiary
markets and/or leased to a single tenant.

The largest loan, Eastdale Mall, comprises 53.9% of the current
pool balance. Due to the reliance on recoveries from the largest
loan and the concentrated nature of the pool, Fitch performed a
sensitivity analysis, which grouped the remaining loans based on
loan structural features, collateral quality and performance, and
ranked them by their perceived likelihood of repayment. The ratings
and Outlooks reflect this sensitivity analysis.

Fitch Loans of Concern: Fitch has designated five loans (69.2% of
current pool) as Fitch Loans of Concern (FLOCs), including the
Eastdale Mall (53.9%), which is scheduled to mature in December
2018. The four other FLOCs include three retail properties (13.7%)
in Charlotte, NC, Midlothian, VA and Savannah, GA with significant
near-term tenant rollover concerns, declining occupancy and/or low
debt service coverage ratio, and a vacant retail property (1.6%) in
Ormond Beach, FL with no leasing momentum for three years.

Eastdale Mall: The Eastdale Mall loan is secured by a 481,422
square foot (sf) portion of a 757,411 sf regional mall located in
Montgomery, AL. The sponsor is the Aronov Company. Non-collateral
anchors include Dillard's and JCPenney. Belk has been the only
collateral anchor since Sears closed its store at the property in
July 2016.

The loan had previously been in special servicing twice. When the
loan first transferred to special servicing in November 2013, it
was modified whereby the anticipated repayment date provisions were
eliminated and the final loan maturity was brought up to December
2018 from December 2027. The loan re-transferred back to the
special servicer for a second time in September 2015 for imminent
default and was returned to the master servicer in February 2017,
following a November 2016 lease execution with a home decor tenant,
At Home (21.8% of collateral net rentable area (NRA); lease expiry
in October 2021), for a portion of the former Sears space and a
five-year lease extension with Belk (26.6%) to January 2023.

As of October 2017, overall mall occupancy was 85.5%. Collateral
occupancy was 77.2%, compared to 64% at year-end (YE) 2016 and
85.2% at YE 2014. At Fitch's last rating action, occupancy was
expected to further improve; however, the Evans Theatres, which had
executed a six-year lease for 6% of the collateral NRA through 2022
and opened in August 2016, closed in November 2016 after sustaining
rain damages. The theater currently remains closed and Fitch has an
outstanding inquiry to the servicer regarding the status of the
tenant's lease.

Upcoming lease rollover includes 7.3% of the collateral NRA in 2018
and 5.6% in 2019. Anchor and inline sales have both trended
downward. Belk reported lower sales of $122 psf in 2016, compared
to $131 psf in 2015 and $133 psf in 2014. Comparative inline sales
for tenants occupying less than 10,000 sf were $337 psf in 2016,
compared to $351 psf in 2015.

Defeasance & Fully Amortizing Loans: Three loans (12.3% of current
pool) are defeased, one of which is fully amortizing (2.5%). An
additional six loans (25.2%) are fully amortizing.

Hurricane Exposure: Two loans (5.6% of current pool) are secured by
properties in areas of Florida impacted by Hurricane Irma,
including the Walgreens property in Port Charlotte (3.9%) and the
former, vacant Food Lion property in Ormond Beach (1.7%). One loan,
the Walgreens property in Katy, TX (3.2%), is located in an area of
Texas impacted by Hurricane Harvey. According to the most recent
significant insurance event reporting, the borrowers of these three
affected loans have been contacted and the servicer is awaiting a
response.

Loan Maturities: The loan maturity schedule consists of 53.9% of
the pool in 2018, 21.7% in 2019, 18.6% in 2024 and 5.8% in 2026.

As of the January 2018 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 95.8% to $45.3 million from
$1.08 billion at issuance. Realized losses to date total 1.3% of
the original pool balance. Interest shortfalls are currently
affecting class P.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Negative Outlooks on classes H, J and K reflect performance
concerns surrounding the Eastdale Mall loan. Downgrades to these
classes are possible if the loan is unable to refinance at its
December 2018 maturity or if the property loses additional tenants
or performance declines significantly. The Stable Outlook on class
G reflects increased credit enhancement and expected continued
amortization. The class G balance is covered by a combination of
defeased collateral and low leveraged or fully amortizing loans.

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $8.7 million class G at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $13.3 million class H at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $4 million class J at 'BBsf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $2.7 million class K at 'BBsf'; Outlook Negative;
-- $5.3 million class L at 'CCCsf'; RE 60%;
-- $4 million class M at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $2.7 million class N at 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
-- $2.7 million class O at 'Csf'; RE 0%.

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


WACHOVIA BANK 2007-C30: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Class B Certs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed fifteen classes of Wachovia Bank
Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C30, Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-C30 as follows:

Cl. A-J, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed B1
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed Caa1
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed Caa2
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. M, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. N, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jan 12, 2017 Affirmed C (sf)

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

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating on thirteen P&I classes were affirmed because the
ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss.

The ratings on the IO Classes, Classes X-C and X-W, were affirmed
based on the credit quality of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 60.0% of the
current balance compared to 21.6% at last review. The deal has paid
down 62% since last review and 87% since securitization. Moody's
base plus realized loss totals 10.2% compared to 9.6% at last
review. Moody's provides a current list of base expected losses for
conduit and fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at:
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017. The methodologies used in rating Cl.
X-W and Cl. X-C were "Moody's Approach to Rating Structured Finance
Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June 2017 and "Moody's
Approach to Rating Large Loan and Single Asset/Single Borrower
CMBS" published in July 2017.

Moody's analysis incorporated a loss and recovery approach in
rating the P&I classes in this deal since 75% of the pool is in
special servicing and Moody's has identified additional troubled
loans representing 8% 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 December 15, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 87% to $1.110
billion from $7.9 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 41 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 18% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 59% of
the pool. One loan, constituting less than 1% of the pool, has
defeased and is secured by US government securities.

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

Forty-four loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $162.4 million (for an average loss
severity of 32%). Thirty-four loans, constituting 75% of the pool,
are currently in special servicing.

The largest specially serviced loan is the Park Hyatt Resort Aviara
Loan (formerly known as the Four Seasons Aviary Loan) -- ($186.5
Million -17.5% of the pool). The loan is secured by a 329-unit
resort lodging facility with spa and golf course, located in
Carlsbad, California, located approximately 30 miles north west of
San Diego. The loan transferred to special servicing in April 2013
due to monetary default. Between November 2016 and November 2017,
occupancy has increased from 65.7% to 70.2%. RevPar has increased
from $165 to $181. The property is currently Real Estate Owned
(REO). In February 2017, the property was deemed non recoverable.
The special servicer is currently evaluating the capital investment
needs and plans on selling the property in second quarter 2018.

The second largest specially serviced loan is the PNC Corporate
Plaza Loan -- ($56.4 Million -5.3% of the pool). The loan is
secured by a 581,430 SF 29-story Class A office building
constructed in 1972, renovated in 2003, and located in the CBD of
Louisville, Kentucky. The property features a 45,789 SF, 100 space
parking garage. The loan transferred to special servicing in June
2016 due to imminent default. The loan matured in March 2017. The
property is currently 72% leased as of November 2017, due to the
largest tenant vacating 20% of the property in February 2017. A
June 2017 reported the property to be in good condition. The
special servicer and sponsor are currently in discussions to
potentially modify the loan.

The third largest specially serviced loan is the Sealy C Loan --
($48.8 Million -4.6% of the pool). The loan is secured by a
portfolio of 14 warehouse/office properties totaling 1,006,861 SF
which are located in various Louisiana locations and San Antonio,
Texas. In July 2012, the Borrower requested for the loan to be
transferred to Special Servicing to discuss a modification.
Ultimately, the loan was not modified. Currently the special
servicer is moving forward with foreclosure while continuing to
fully support the Borrower's ongoing leasing efforts. The special
servicer anticipates to receive title to the Texas properties by
January 2018 and will petition the court for the appointment of a
Receiver while the lengthy Louisiana foreclosure process runs its
course. As of October 2017, the properties reported a combined
weighted average occupancy of 75%.

The remaining specially serviced loans are secured by a mix of
property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $481.8 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (61% expected loss on average).

Moody's has also assumed a high default probability for four poorly
performing loans, constituting 8% of the pool, and has estimated an
aggregate loss of $74.6 million (an 84% expected loss based on a
100% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 100% of the
pool, and partial year 2017 operating results for 85% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 173%, compared to 110% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 18% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.0%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.28X and 0.56X,
respectively, compared to 1.22X and 0.84X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 19% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Bank One Center - A note ($143.5 million --
13.4% of the pool). The loan is also encumbered by a $33.8 million
B-Note as the result of a May 2013 modification. The loan is
secured by a 1.5 million SF Class A high-rise office building which
encompasses a city block in the heart of the Dallas, Texas CBD. The
largest tenants are Comerica, K&L Gates and Orix USA Corporation.
As of October 2017, the property was 70% leased, compared to 67% at
last review. The loan is currently on the watchlist due to low
occupancy and DSCR. Moody's A note LTV and stressed DSCR are 170%
and 0.57X, respectively.

The second largest loan is the NJ Office Pool - A note ($40.5
million -- 3.8% of the pool). The loan is also encumbered by a
$21.6 million B-Note as the result of an April 2013 special
servicing modification which also extended the maturity date and
decreased the interest rate. The loan is secured by four office
properties located in the cities of Clifton, East Hanover and
Parsippany, New Jersey. The loan was transferred to special
servicing again in October 2016 due to imminent default as the
borrower was unable to pay off the loan at its February 2017
maturity date. The loan was subsequently modified for the second
time in July 2017. New terms of the modification include a new
maturity date of February 2020. As of the September 30, 2017 rent
roll, the portfolio's weighted average occupancy was 72%. Moody's A
note LTV and stressed DSCR are 180% and 0.65X, respectively.

The third largest loan is the NJ Industrial & Office Pool - A note
Loan ($21.8 million -- 2.0% of the pool). The loan is also
encumbered by an $11.5 million B-Note as the result of a November
2013 special servicing modification which also extended the
maturity date. The loan is currently secured by two office
properties located in Hackensack, New Jersey and South Plainsfield,
New Jersey. At securitization the portfolio was secured by six
properties but four have since sold from the trust. The loan was
transferred to the special servicer again in October 2016 due to
imminent default as it had a previous maturity date of February 11,
2017. The loan returned from the special servicer in July 2017 with
a new maturity date of February 11, 2020. As of September 2017, the
properties have a weighted average occupancy rate of 76%. Moody's A
note LTV and stressed DSCR are 154% and 0.63X, respectively,
compared to 127% and 0.76X at the last review.



WAMU COMMERCIAL 2006-SL1: Fitch Hikes Cl. D Certs Rating to BBsf
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded three and affirmed nine classes of WaMu
Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-SL1, small balance
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Principal paydown: Since the last rating action, the pool has
experienced 26.8% of collateral reduction, mainly as a result of
prepayments. Over the last 12 months, the trust has remitted $20.8
million in unscheduled principal.

Higher than expected recoveries: Loans previously in special
servicing have been disposed with near full recoveries, better than
Fitch's projections at the time of the last rating action. In
addition, for loans still in special servicing, updated appraisals
have indicated significant improvement for the value of the
underlying properties.

Sensitivity: Fitch utilized conservative loss estimates for
performing loans for purposes of this review to mitigate concerns
regarding the pool's property-type concentration, collateral
quality and limited financial reporting. An additional sensitivity
stress assumed no recovery on loans currently in special
servicing.

Low Leverage: The pool's weighted average LTV is 61.4% and 85% of
the outstanding debt is fully amortizing. Although prepayments are
difficult to time and the maturity profile for the remaining loans
is extended, the pool has paid down at a significant pace over the
last 24 months.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlook for class B was revised to Stable from Positive
following its upgrade. Outlooks on classes C and D were revised to
Positive from Stable. The pool has experienced a significant amount
of collateral reduction since the last rating action, largely as a
result of prepayments, which has increased credit enhancement to
these bonds. Prepayments are difficult to time, and scheduled
monthly principal is minimal given the pool's scheduled extended
maturity profile. However, with continued principal paydown,
classes C and D may be upgraded. Downgrades to distressed classes
are possible as losses are realized or if additional defaults
occur.

Fitch has upgraded the following ratings:

-- $10.2 million class B to 'AAAsf' from 'Asf'; Outlook revised
    to Stable from Positive;
-- $14.7 million class C to 'Asf' from 'BBBsf'; Outlook revised
    to Positive from Stable;
-- $10.2 million class D to 'BBsf' from 'Bsf'; Outlook revised to

    Positive from Stable.

Fitch has affirmed the following ratings:

-- $0.6 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $7 million class E at 'CCsf'; RE 50%;
-- $3.8 million class F at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
-- $2.5 million 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%.

The class A certificate has been paid in full. Fitch does not rate
the class N certificate. Fitch previously withdrew the rating on
the interest-only class X certificate.



WELLFLEET CLO 2017-3: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to Class D Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by Wellfleet CLO 2017-3, Ltd. (the "Issuer" or
"Wellfleet CLO 2017-3").

Moody's rating action is:

US$260,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2031 (the "Class A-1 Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

US$44,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2031
(the "Class A-2 Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

US$22,000,000 Class B Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2031 (the "Class B Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

US$24,000,000 Class C Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2031 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

US$18,000,000 Class D Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
due 2031 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

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

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

Wellfleet CLO 2017-3 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes
will be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated senior
secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up to
7.5% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans, senior
unsecured loans, and first-lien last out loans. The portfolio is
approximately 80% ramped as of the closing date.

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

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

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

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

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

Par amount: $400,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2900

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.55%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 9 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

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

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

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

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

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2900 to 3335)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2 Notes: -2

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2900 to 3770)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2 Notes: -4

Class B Notes: -4

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1


WELLS FARGO 2011-C4: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class G Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 11 classes of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(WFRBS) commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series
2011-C4.  

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Relatively Stable Performance: Pool performance has been mostly
stable since issuance. The transaction has paid down 24.4% and
credit enhancement continues to increase. However, two loans (2.35%
of the pool) are in special servicing that Fitch will continue to
monitor. Nine loans (17.5% of pool) have been defeased.

Specially Serviced Loans: There are two loans in special servicing.
Wausau Center (1.51% of the pool) transferred to the special
servicer in June 2016 for imminent monetary default. The loan is
secured by a 423,556 square foot (sf) (235,656 sf are collateral)
shopping mall located in Wausau, WI. The mall's only anchor is
Younkers after JC Penney and Sears both vacated. As of October
2017, the property occupancy was 53%, down from 94% at issuance.
The property became REO in August 2017 after a foreclosure sale.
The special servicer is currently stabilizing operations and
preparing to market the asset for sale. The other loan is Park
Place Student Housing (0.84%), which transferred in November 2014.
The borrower has continued to fund payments at a non-default rate,
but remains in default due to failure to provide required financial
reporting.

Regional Mall Concentration: There are two regional malls (15.4% of
the pool) within the top 10. This includes two regional mall
properties: Fox River Mall (13.1%) in Appleton, WI, and Eastgate
Mall (2.3%) located in Union Township, OH. Both malls have direct
or indirect exposure to regional mall tenants such as Sears, Macy's
and JC Penney. The transaction is also concentrated in loan size
with the top three loans representing 30% of the pool and the top
10 loans 55% of the pool.
Secondary Locations: Seven out of the top 15 loans are located in
secondary markets such as Appleton, WI and Vestavia Hills, AL.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Rating Outlooks on classes A3 through E remain Stable due to
increasing credit enhancement, continued paydown, and relatively
stable collateral performance. The Rating Outlooks on classes F and
G have been revised to Negative to reflect the potential downgrade
concerns as a result of the expected losses from the specially
serviced Wausau Center loan and the potential for performance
declines of the regional malls.

Fitch has affirmed the following and revises Outlooks as
indicated:

-- $58.8 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $90 million class A-FL at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $0 class A-FX at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $681.4 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $830.2 million* X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $42.6 million class B at 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $42.6 million class C at 'A+sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $33.3 million class D at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $51.8 million class E at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $20.4 million class F at 'BBsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable;
-- $18.5 million class G at 'Bsf'; Outlook to Negative from
    Stable.

*Notional and interest-only.

The class A-1 and A-2 certificates have paid in full. Fitch does
not rate the class H or X-B certificates.


WELLS FARGO 2018-BXI: Fitch to Rate Class HRR Certs 'B-sf'
----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has issued a presale report on Wells Fargo Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2018-BXI Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2018-BXI. Fitch expects to rate the
transaction and assign Rating Outlooks as follows:

-- $88,000,000 class A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $74,800,000a class X-CP 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $88,000,000a class X-NCP 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $20,000,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $13,000,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $18,000,000 class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $28,000,000 class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $14,200,000 class F 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $10,800,000b class HRR 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable.

a) Notional amount and interest-only.
b) Horizontal credit risk retention interest.

The Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2018-BXI pass-through
certificates represent the beneficial interest in a trust that
holds a floating-rate mortgage loan secured by the fee interest in
34 industrial properties and one office property, located primarily
in Chicago and South Florida and totaling 4.4 million sf. Proceeds
from the loan, together with approximately $64.7 million (inclusive
of closing costs) in equity and $60 million in subordinate
mezzanine debt, were used by affiliates of Blackstone Real Estate
Partners VIII L.P. to acquire the portfolio of properties from
Prologis for a purchase price of $300 million ($67.50 psf). The
certificates will follow a sequential-pay structure; however, so
long as there is no event of default, any voluntary prepayments (up
to the first 15% of the loan), including property releases, will be
applied to the loan components on a pro-rata basis.

Key Rating Drivers
Primary Market Locations: Approximately 92.2% of the portfolio NRA
is located in Chicago (third largest U.S. MSA) and South Florida
(eighth largest U.S. MSA), and features immediate access to some of
the country's largest markets. The properties are predominantly
clustered around major interstates and thoroughfares within each
market, and benefit from close proximity to numerous transportation
networks.

Portfolio Diversity: The portfolio exhibits modest geographic
diversity with 35 properties (4.4 million sf) located in four
states and 16 individual submarkets. The largest 10 properties (by
ALA) account for approximately 45.5% of the portfolio net cash flow
and 56.3% of total NRA. The portfolio also exhibits significant
tenant diversity as it features 87 distinct tenants with no
individual tenant representing more than 8.5% of base rents.

High Aggregate Leverage: The trust amount of $192.0 million
represents 64.0% of the recent purchase price, and the total debt
of $252.0 million represents a loan-to-cost of 84.0%. Fitch's DSCR
and LTV on the trust debt are 0.94x and 96.1%, respectively, while
Fitch's DSCR and LTV on the total debt are 0.72x and 126.1%,
respectively.

Institutional Sponsorship: The loan is sponsored by Blackstone Real
Estate Partners VIII L.P., which is owned by affiliates of the
Blackstone Group, L.P. Blackstone is a global leader in real estate
investing with over $111 billion in assets under management
including 272 million sf of industrial properties as of Sept. 30,
2017.

Rating Sensitivities

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 3.0% below
the TTM July 2017 NCF. Included in Fitch's presale report are
numerous Rating Sensitivities that describe the potential impact
given further NCF declines below Fitch's NCF. Fitch evaluated the
sensitivity of the ratings for class A and found that a 30% decline
would result in a downgrade to 'BBBsf'.


WESTLAKE AUTOMOBILE 2018-1: S&P Assigns B Rating on Class F Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to Westlake Automobile
Receivables Trust 2018-1's $1 billion automobile receivables-backed
notes series 2018-1.

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

The ratings reflect S&P's view of:

-- The availability of approximately 48.9%, 42.5%, 33.6%, 25.9%,
22.2%, and 18.1% credit support for the class A, B, C, D, E, and F
notes, respectively, based on stress cash flow scenarios (including
excess spread). These provide approximately 3.50x, 3.00x, 2.30x,
1.75x, 1.50x, and 1.10x, respectively, of our 13.00%-13.50%
expected cumulative net loss range.

-- The transaction's ability to make timely interest and principal
payments under stressed cash flow modeling scenarios appropriate
for the assigned ratings.

-- S&P said, "Our expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
scenario, all else being equal, for the transaction's life our
ratings on the class A and B notes would not be lowered from the
assigned ratings, our rating on the class C notes would remain
within one rating category of the assigned rating, and our rating
on the class D notes would remain within two rating categories of
the assigned rating. Our ratings on the class E and F notes would
remain within two rating categories of the assigned rating over one
year, but would ultimately default at months 61 and 24,
respectively, which is within the bounds of our credit stability
criteria."

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

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

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

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

  RATINGS ASSIGNED
  Westlake Automobile Receivables Trust 2018-1

  Class      Rating       Type           Interest         Amount
                                         rate(i)    (mil. $)(ii)
  A-1        A-1+ (sf)    Senior         Fixed            215.00
  A-2-A      AAA (sf)     Senior         Fixed            317.76
  A-2-B      AAA (sf)     Senior         Floating          60.00
  B          AA (sf)      Subordinate    Fixed             88.66
  C          A (sf)       Subordinate    Fixed            112.38
  D          BBB (sf)     Subordinate    Fixed            105.16
  E          BB (sf)      Subordinate    Fixed             44.33
  F          B (sf)       Subordinate    Fixed             56.71

(i)The class A-2-B coupon is expressed as a spread tied to
one-month LIBOR.
(ii)The transaction was upsized after S&P Global Ratings published
its presale report on Jan. 10, 2018.


WFRBS COMMERCIAL 2011-C3: Moody's Lowers Class E Debt Rating to B1
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on seven classes
and downgraded the ratings on three classes in WFRBS Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2011-C3, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2011-C3 as follows:

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 20, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl.A-3FL, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 20, 2017 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 20, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa1 (sf); previously on Jan 20, 2017 Affirmed Aa1
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on Jan 20, 2017 Affirmed A1
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Jan 20, 2017 Affirmed Baa3
(sf)

Cl. E, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jan 20, 2017 Downgraded
to Ba3 (sf)

Cl. F, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 20, 2017
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 20, 2017 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. X-B, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2017
Downgraded to B1 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

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

The ratings on two P&I classes E and F were downgraded due to
higher anticipated losses from troubled loans, primarily due to
concerns regarding the Oakdale Mall Loan.

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

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 4.2% of the
current balance, compared to 3.9% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.9% of the original
pooled balance, compared to 2.8% at the last review. Moody's
provides a current list of base expected losses for conduit and
fusion CMBS transactions on moodys.com at:
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBS_SF215255.

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY UNDERLYING THE RATING ACTION

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

DEAL PERFORMANCE

As of the December 15, 2017 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 32% to $976.8
million from $1.446 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 52 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 17% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 59% of
the pool. Seven loans, constituting 12% of the pool compared to 6%
at last review, have defeased and are secured by US government
securities.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 13, compared to 15 at Moody's last review.

Eight loans, constituting 18% 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.

Three loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $535,000 (for an average loss severity
of 15%). There are currently no loans in special servicing.

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for two poorly
performing loans, constituting 6% of the pool, and has estimated an
aggregate loss of $30 million (a 49% expected loss based on a 71%
probability default) for these troubled loans.

The largest troubled loan is the Oakdale Mall Loan ($51.2 million
-- 5.2% of the pool), which is secured by a 709,000 square foot
(SF) enclosed regional mall located in Johnson City, NY. The Macy's
at the mall (19.1% of the GLA) is on the store closures list, and
is set to close doors in April 2018. Macy's is currently on a
ground lease through the end of 2018, expiring two years before
loan maturity. As of September 2017, the mall inline occupancy was
only 47%; the inline sales were $239PSF compared to $279PSF in
2016. The loan is on the servicer's watchlist. Moody's is concerned
about the future performance of this mall.

Moody's received full year 2016 operating results for 99% of the
pool, and a partial year 2017 operating results for 87% of the
pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 78%, compared to 77%
at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans
with structured credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 16% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.4%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.52X and 1.33X,
respectively, compared to 1.60X and 1.36X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 31% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Village of Merrick Park Loan ($167.4 million --
17.1% of the pool), which is secured by an 858,000 SF mixed-use
property located in Coral Gables, Florida. The property consists of
a three-story, 756,000 SF open-air lifestyle center and a separate
101,000 SF five-story office building. The total property was 98%
occupied as of June 2017, compared to 97% in December 2015. The
retail anchors are Nordstrom (23% of the gross leasable area (GLA);
lease expiration in 2023) and Neiman Marcus (15% of the GLA; lease
expiration in 2023). For the office component, the largest tenant
is Bayview Asset Management (9% of the GLA; lease expiration in
2018). Performance has been stable. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 70% and 1.28X, respectively, compared to 71% and 1.26X at last
review.

The second largest loan is the Hilton Minneapolis Loan ($85.8
million -- 8.8% of the pool), which is secured by an 821-room,
25-story full-service hotel located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The
property is directly connected to the Minneapolis Convention Center
via the Skyway. As of October 2017, the occupancy and revenue per
available room (RevPAR), were 72% and $111.17, respectively,
compared to 78% and $115.44 at last review. The loan is structured
on a 25-year amortization schedule and has amortized 14% since
securitization. Performance has been stable. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 88% and 1.33X, respectively, compared to 90% and
1.29X at last review.

The third largest loan is the Park Plaza Loan ($84.1 million --
8.6% of the pool), which is secured by a three-story, 283,000 SF,
enclosed regional mall located in Little Rock, Arkansas. The shadow
anchor is Dillard's, which is not part of the collateral. As of
September 2017 rent roll, the total mall was 91% leased with the
in-line space being 82% leased. The loan is structured on a 25-year
amortization schedule and has amortized 15% since securitization.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 92% and 1.12X, respectively,
compared to 91% and 1.13X at last review.


Z CAPITAL 2015-1: S&P Affirms B(sf) Rating on Class F Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the class A-X-R, A-1-R,
B-R, C-R, and D-R replacement notes from Z Capital Credit Partners
CLO 2015-1 Ltd., a collateralized loan obligation (CLO) originally
issued in 2015 that is managed by Z Capital CLO Management LLC. S&P
said, "We withdrew our ratings on the original class A-X, A-1, B,
C, D, and combination notes following payment in full on the Jan.
16, 2018, refinancing date. At the same time, we affirmed our
ratings on the class E and F notes."  

On the Jan. 16, 2018, refinancing date, the proceeds from the class
A-X-R, A-1-R, B-R, C-R, and D-R replacement note issuances were
used to redeem the original class A-X, A-1, B, C, and D notes as
outlined in the transaction document provisions. Therefore, S&P
withdrew its ratings on the original notes in line with their full
redemption, and it is assigning ratings to the replacement notes.

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

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

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

  RATINGS ASSIGNED

  Z Capital Credit Partners CLO 2015-1 Ltd.
  Replacement class         Rating      Amount (mil. $)
  A-X-R                     AAA (sf)                3.0
  A-1-R                     AAA (sf)              243.0
  B-R                       AA (sf)                48.5
  C-R                       A (sf)                 24.5
  D-R                       BBB (sf)               20.0

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  Z Capital Credit Partners CLO 2015-1 Ltd.
  Class                     Rating
  E                         BB (sf)
  F                         B (sf)

  RATINGS WITHDRAWN

  Z Capital Credit Partners CLO 2015-1 Ltd.
                             Rating
  Original class       To               From
  A-X                  NR               AAA (sf)
  A-1                  NR               AAA (sf)
  B                    NR               AA (sf)
  C                    NR               A (sf)
  D                    NR               BBB (sf)  
  Combination notes    NR               AA (sf)

  NR--Not rated.


[*] Moody's Hikes Ratings on $116MM of Alt-A Debt Issued 2004-2005
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded ratings of 25 tranches from
6 transactions backed by Alt-A mortgage loans, issued by multiple
issuers.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Bear Stearns ALT-A Trust 2004-11

Cl. I-A-1, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Cl. I-A-2, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017
Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

Cl. II-A-1, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017
Upgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. II-A-2, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017
Upgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. II-A-3, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017
Upgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. II-A-4, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017
Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. II-A-5, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. II-A-6a, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017
Upgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. II-A-6b, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017
Upgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: Deutsche Mortgage Securities, Inc. Mortgage Loan Loan
Trust, Series 2004-3

Cl. I-A-5, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017 Upgraded
to Baa2 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017
Upgraded to Baa2 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: Ambac Assurance Corporation (Segregated
Account - Unrated)

Cl. I-A-6, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017 Upgraded
to A3 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017
Upgraded to A3 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: Ambac Assurance Corporation (Segregated
Account - Unrated)

Cl. II-AR-1, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017
Upgraded to A1 (sf)

Cl. II-MR-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Mar 15, 2016
Upgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. II-MR-2, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Mar 15, 2016
Upgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. II-MR-3, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Mar 15, 2016
Upgraded to Ca (sf)

Issuer: GSAA Home Equity Trust 2004-7

Cl. AF-4, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Apr 5, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa1 (sf)

Cl. AF-5, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Apr 5, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Apr 5, 2016 Upgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, Alternative Loan
Trust, Series 2004-AP1

Cl. A-5, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2016 Upgraded
to Baa1 (sf)

Cl. A-6, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2016 Upgraded
to A3 (sf)

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2011
Downgraded to Ca (sf)

Issuer: Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, Alternative Loan
Trust, Series 2004-AP3

Cl. A-5A, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017 Upgraded
to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. A-5B, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017 Upgraded
to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. A-6, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017 Upgraded
to Baa1 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Feb 14, 2017
Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: Ambac Assurance Corporation (Segregated
Account - Unrated)

Issuer: Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, Alternative Loan
Trust, Series 2005-AR3

Cl. III-A-1, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Feb 2, 2017
Upgraded to B1 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions reflect the recent performance of the underlying
pools and Moody's updated loss expectations on those pools. The
rating upgrades are primarily due to improvement of credit
enhancement available to the bonds and projected losses on the
underlying collateral.

The rating upgrade on Cl. III-A-1 in Nomura Asset Acceptance
Corporation, Alternative Loan Trust, Series 2005-AR3 also reflects
corrections to the cashflow model used in rating this transaction.
In prior rating actions, group III didn't apply realized loss at
credit support depletion date ( CSDD) and the coupon was capped.
These errors have now been corrected, and action reflects the
correct allocation of principal payments and realized losses.

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

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

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate fell to 4.1% in December 2017 from 4.7% in
December 2016. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of
3.5% to 4.5% for the 2018 year. Deviations from this central
scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector. House prices
are another key driver of US RMBS performance. Moody's expects
house prices to continue to rise in 2018. Lower increases than
Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating actions.
Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent
on servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicing
transfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact the
performance of these transactions.



[*] Moody's Puts Ratings on 16 Bonds From 4 RMBS Deals on Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has placed on review the ratings of 16
bonds from four US residential mortgage backed transactions (RMBS),
issued by multiple issuers in 1998 and 1999. The ratings of four
bonds are being placed on review direction uncertain and the
ratings on 12 bonds are being placed on watch for upgrade.

Issuer: AMRESCO Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 1998-2

A-5, Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade; previously
on Aug 22, 2014 Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

A-6, Ba2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade; previously
on Aug 22, 2014 Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

M-1A, Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade;
previously on Mar 24, 2011 Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

M-1F, Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade;
previously on Mar 24, 2011 Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

M-2F, C (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade; previously
on Mar 24, 2011 Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust
1999-LB1

A-1F, Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade; previously
on May 8, 2017 Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

B-1A, Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain; previously
on May 8, 2017 Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

B-1F, Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade; previously
on Mar 11, 2011 Downgraded to Ca (sf)

A-3A, Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade;
previously on Dec 21, 2016 Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

A-5A, Baa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade;
previously on Dec 21, 2016 Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

Issuer: Delta Funding Home Equity Loan Trust 1999-3

Cl. A-1A, Ba2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain;
previously on Mar 7, 2011 Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Ba2 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction
Uncertain; previously on Mar 7, 2011 Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: MBIA Insurance Corporation (Affirmed at Caa1,
Outlook Developing on Jan 17, 2018)

Cl. A-1F, Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain;
previously on Mar 7, 2011 Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction
Uncertain; previously on Mar 7, 2011 Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: MBIA Insurance Corporation (Affirmed at Caa1,
Outlook Developing on Jan 17, 2018)

Cl. A-2F, Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain;
previously on Mar 7, 2011 Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Ba1 (sf) Placed Under Review Direction
Uncertain; previously on Mar 7, 2011 Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: MBIA Insurance Corporation (Affirmed at Caa1,
Outlook Developing on Jan 17, 2018)

Issuer: Southern Pacific Secured Assets Corp 1998-2

A-1, Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade; previously
on Mar 3, 2015 Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Ba3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
Upgrade; previously on Mar 3, 2015 Upgraded to Ba3 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: MBIA Insurance Corporation (Affirmed at Caa1,
Outlook Developing on Jan 17, 2018)

A-7, Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade; previously
on May 20, 2016 Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
Upgrade; previously on Mar 24, 2011 Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: MBIA Insurance Corporation (Affirmed at Caa1,
Outlook Developing on Jan 17, 2018)

A-8, Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade; previously
on May 20, 2016 Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible
Upgrade; previously on Mar 24, 2011 Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: MBIA Insurance Corporation (Affirmed at Caa1,
Outlook Developing on Jan 17, 2018)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The actions result from the discovery of errors in prior ratings
analysis of these transactions and an update in the approach used
in analyzing the transaction structures. The actions also reflect
the recent performance of the underlying pools and Moody's updated
expected losses on the pools.

In the prior ratings analysis, Moody's did not appropriately
reflect the cross-collateralization between the collateral groups
backing these bonds. In AMRESCO Residential Mortgage Loan Trust
1998-2, Southern Pacific Secured Assets Corp 1998-2 and Asset
Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust 1999-LB1, the
bonds benefit from cross-collateralization of the excess cash flow
across collateral groups. Additionally, in Asset Backed Securities
Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust 1999-LB1, principal carryover
shortfalls on Class B component of the unrelated group are
reimbursed from excess cash flow before the Class B component of
the related group. Hence, rating of Class B-1A is being placed on
review direction uncertain. Further, ratings of bonds in Delta
Funding Home Equity Loan Trust 1999-3 are being placed on review
direction uncertain as collections from both collateral groups are
combined and principal payments for variable rate senior bonds have
priority in certain cases over fixed rate senior bonds. Moody's
prior analysis mistakenly considered the cash flow structure of
each group of bonds to be independent within its respective
collateral group.

Additionally, in Moody's prior analysis Moody's used a static
approach in which Moody's compared the total credit enhancement for
a bond, including excess spread, subordination,
overcollateralization, and other external support, if any, to
Moody's expected losses on the mortgage pool(s) supporting that
bond. Moody's have updated Moody's approach to include a cash flow
analysis, wherein Moody's run several different loss levels, loss
timing, and prepayment scenarios using Moody's scripted cash flow
waterfalls to estimate the losses to the different bonds under
these scenarios, as described in more detail in the "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in January 2017.

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

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

Ratings can vary based on the levels of credit protection available
to protect investors against current expectations of loss and the
transaction structure. Transaction performance also depends greatly
on the US macro economy and housing market. Finally, performance of
RMBS continues to remain highly dependent on servicer procedures.
Any change resulting from servicing transfers or other policy or
regulatory change can impact the performance of these transactions.


[*] Moody's Takes Action on $195MM of RMBS Issued 2005-2007
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 22 tranches,
and downgraded the rating of one tranche, from 17 transactions
issued by various issuers. Complete rating actions are:

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2005-1

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Mar 23, 2015 Upgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2005-10

Cl. II-A-1, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Oct 9, 2015
Upgraded to B2 (sf)

Cl. II-A-3, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Oct 9, 2015
Upgraded to B2 (sf)

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2005-3

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2014 Upgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2005-4

Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct 30, 2008
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2005-6

Cl. M-1, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Aug 14, 2015 Upgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2005-7

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2005-8

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2005-WM2

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010 Downgraded
to C (sf)

Issuer: Saco I Trust 2006-2

Cl. I-A, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Underlying Rating: Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Financial Guarantor: Ambac Assurance Corporation (Segregated
Account - Unrated)

Cl. II-A, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Underlying Rating: Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Financial Guarantor: Ambac Assurance Corporation (Segregated
Account - Unrated)

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2006-3

Cl. A-1, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

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

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2006-4

Cl. A-1, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Cl. A-3, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2006-5

Cl. I-A, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Cl. II-A-1, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2006-6

Cl. A, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010 Downgraded
to C (sf)

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2006-7

Cl. A, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010 Downgraded
to C (sf)

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2007-1

Cl. I-A, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010 Downgraded
to C (sf)

Cl. II-A, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010 Downgraded
to C (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2005-S5

Cl. M1, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Oct 20, 2015 Upgraded
to Ba3 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corporation 2005-S1

Cl. M4, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jul 6, 2010 Confirmed
at Ca (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The upgrades on the bonds are driven by the total credit
enhancement available to the bonds and reflect the losses on the
bonds till date, if any. The downgrade is due to the total losses
expected on the bond. The actions also reflect the recent
performance of the underlying pools and Moody's updated loss
expectations on the pools. The pools are backed by second lien RMBS
loans issued by various issuers from 2005 to 2007.

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

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

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to macroeconomic
uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate. The
unemployment rate fell to 4.1% in December 2017 from 4.7% in
December 2016. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of
3.5% to 4.5% for the 2018 year. Deviations from this central
scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector. House prices
are another key driver of US RMBS performance. Moody's expects
house prices to continue to rise in 2018. Lower increases than
Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating actions.
Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent
on servicer procedures.


[*] Moody's Takes Action on $309.5MM of Securities
--------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 14 tranches
and downgraded the ratings of two tranches from six US residential
mortgage backed transactions (RMBS), backed by Alt-A and Option ARM
loans, issued by multiple issuers. Complete rating actions are as
follows:

Issuer: CWMBS, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2004-2CB

Cl. 3-A-1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Sep 22, 2016
Confirmed at B1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A-1, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Sep 22, 2016
Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Issuer: Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mortgage Loan Trust, Series
2007-OA3

Cl. A-1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Feb 2, 2017 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

Issuer: DSLA Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-AR1

Cl. 2-A1A, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 8, 2016
Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Issuer: MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2004-1

Cl. 1-A-1, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Feb 4, 2013
Affirmed Baa2 (sf)

Cl. 6-A-1, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Feb 4, 2013
Affirmed Baa1 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Mortgage Investments Trust 2003-AR1

Cl. A-4, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Apr 9, 2014 Downgraded
to B1 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2005-9XS

Cl. 1-A4, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Feb 2, 2017 Upgraded
to A1 (sf)

Cl. 1-A3B, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Feb 2, 2017 Upgraded
to A2 (sf)

Cl. 1-A3D, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Feb 2, 2017 Upgraded
to A2 (sf)

Cl. 1-A3C, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Feb 2, 2017 Upgraded
to Baa2 (sf)

Cl. 1-A3A, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Feb 2, 2017 Upgraded
to A2 (sf)

Underlying Rating: Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Feb 2, 2017
Upgraded to A2 (sf)

Financial Guarantor:Ambac Assurance Corporation (Segregated Account
- Unrated)

Cl. 2-A1, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Feb 2, 2017 Upgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A2, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Feb 2, 2017 Upgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A3, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Feb 2, 2017 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. M1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Aug 27, 2012 Confirmed
at C (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions reflect the recent performance of the underlying
pools and Moody's updated loss expectations on those pools. The
rating upgrades are primarily due to improvement of credit
enhancement available to the bonds and pay down of senior bonds.
The rating downgrades are primarily due to a decline in the credit
enhancement available to the bonds.

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

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

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate fell to 4.1% in November 2017 from 4.6% in
November 2016. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of
3.5% to 4.5% for the 2018 year. Deviations from this central
scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector. House prices
are another key driver of US RMBS performance. Moody's expects
house prices to continue to rise in 2018. Lower increases than
Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating actions.
Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent
on servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicing
transfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact the
performance of these transactions.



[*] Moody's Takes Rating Actions on 15 NCSLT Securitizations
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 10 classes of
notes, downgraded the ratings of 12 classes of notes, and confirmed
the ratings of 10 classes of notes in 15 National Collegiate
Student Loan Trust (NCSLT) securitizations backed by private (i.e.
not government-guaranteed) student loans. The loans are serviced
primarily by the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency
(PHEAA) with U.S. Bank, N.A. acting as the special servicer. The
administrator for all securitizations is GSS Data Services, Inc.

Moody's has also upgraded the ratings of 4 classes of certificates
and confirmed the ratings of 4 classes of certificates in Student
Loan ABS Repackaging Trust, Series 2007-1 (SLART 2007-1). In
addition, Moody's has upgraded one class of certificate in Student
Loan ABS Repackaging Trust, Series 2007-2 (SLART 2007-2). Deutsche
Bank Trust Company Americas is the administrator and indenture
trustee for both SLART transactions.

Complete rating actions are as follow:

Issuer: National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2003-1 (The)

Cl. IO, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Caa2 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. A-7, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Caa2
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2004-1

Cl. A-3, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 B1 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. A-4, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Jun 3, 2013 Downgraded
to C (sf)

Cl. A-IO-2, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Jun 3, 2013
Downgraded to C (sf)

Issuer: National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2004-2

Cl. B, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 B1 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-1

Cl. A-5-1, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Baa3
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. A-5-2, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Baa3
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. B, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Caa3 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-2

Cl. A-4, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Jan 24, 2017 Upgraded
to A3 (sf)

Cl. A-5-1, Confirmed at Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Caa1
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. A-5-2, Confirmed at Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Caa1
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3

Cl. A-5-1, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 B1 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. A-5-2, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 B1 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. B, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Ca (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1

Cl. A-5, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 B1
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-2

Cl. A-3, Downgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Aaa
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. A-4, Confirmed at Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Caa3
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-3

Cl. A-4, Downgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Aaa (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. A-5, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Ba1 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-4

Cl. A-3, Downgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Aa1 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. A-4, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 B1
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1

Cl. A-3, Downgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 A2 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. A-4, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Caa1
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2

Cl. A-3, Downgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Aa3 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. A-4, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Caa1
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3

Cl. A-3-AR-1, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2017
Confirmed at B1 (sf)

Cl. A-3-AR-2, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Caa3
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-4

Cl. A-3-AR-1, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Feb 28, 2017
Confirmed at B1 (sf)

Cl. A-3-AR-2, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Caa3
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: NCF Grantor Trust 2004-2

Cl. A-5-1, Confirmed at Baa2 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Baa2
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: Student Loan ABS Repackaging Trust, Series 2007-1

Cl. 3-A-IO, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Caa2
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. 3-A-1, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Caa2
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. 4-A-IO, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Jun 6, 2013
Downgraded to C (sf)

Cl. 4-A-1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Jun 6, 2013
Downgraded to C (sf)

Cl. 5-A-IO, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Baa3
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. 5-A-1, Confirmed at Baa3 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Baa3
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. 6-A-IO, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 B1
(sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Cl. 6-A-1, Confirmed at B1 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 B1 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: Student Loan ABS Repackaging Trust, Series 2007-2

Cl. IO, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017 Caa1 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

Issuer: The National Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust I (2001
Indenture)

NCT-2003AR-12, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Oct 18, 2017
Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Downgrade

RATINGS RATIONALE

The NCSLT transactions in rating actions continue to be subject to
the operational and governance risk concerns outlined in Moody's
October 18, 2017 rating action. In that action, Moody's placed on
review for downgrade 27 of the 32 classes of notes that are the
subject of rating actions due to the increase in transaction
expense as well as the increase in operational and governance risk
brought on by a proposed consent judgment between the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau and the beneficial owners of NCSLT
transactions (CFPB Action). The Court has not yet ruled on the
settlement terms, the pending motions to intervene, or any of the
objections to the settlement terms raised by the intervening
parties. In addition to the CFPB lawsuit, the NCSLT transactions
are also subject to additional expenses and operational risk from
two other lawsuits involving the transaction parties, as outlined
in Moody's January 24, 2017 and February 28, 2017 rating actions.
The courts have yet to rule on these lawsuits as well.

In rating actions, Moody's considered the potential negative impact
from extraordinary fees charged to the trusts, the potential
deterioration in performance of underlying pools due to servicer
transfer, a significant restriction on NCSLT's ongoing ability to
enforce debt obligations, implementation of the monetary penalty as
outlined in the CFPB proposed consent judgment, and further
disgorgement of prior recoveries from current cash flow.

The primary rationale for the downgrades is the potential negative
impact to cash flow from penalties which may be imposed by the CFPB
and from performance deterioration in the underlying pool if the
propose proposed consent order is implemented. An adverse impact on
cash flow could lead to insufficient credit enhancement to support
the affected tranches at specified rating levels. To reflect this
elevated risk, Moody's increased lifetime net loss assumptions from
a range of 29%-47% to a range of 31%-56%. In addition, while
Moody's prior actions reflected the view that the 2006-2007 NCSLT
transactions are not subject to the same operational concerns as
the 2003-2005 NCSLT transactions, Moody's believes that the CFPB
Action creates significant uncertainty that may impact cash flow
for all 15 NCSLT transactions.

The primary rationale for the upgrades is the continued build-up in
credit enhancement as a result of the rapid pay down of senior
notes in sequential pay structures. Although overall parity ratios
have been declining, some senior class A-tranches have benefitted
from rapid deleveraging. For these tranches, subordination and
overcollateralization supporting the notes have increased, allowing
the tranche to achieve higher rating levels despite elevated net
loss assumptions.

Given that the ultimate outcome of the various lawsuits is unclear,
rating actions reflect Moody's current view of cash flow impact to
the NCSLT transactions. The results of the lawsuits, however, are
binary. As such, cash flow impact on NCSLT tranches may improve or
worsen depending on the outcome of these various cases. Moody's
will continue to evaluate the impact of the lawsuits to the NCSLT
transactions and monitor ongoing legal developments.

Certain certificates in repackaged transactions were also upgraded
as a result of upgrades to the NCSLT notes underlying the repacking
trusts. Ratings of the SLART 2007-1, Class 3-A-1, Class 3-A-IO,
Class 4-A-1, Class 4-A-IO, Class 5-A-1, Class 5-A-IO, 6-A-1, and
Class 6-A-IO certificates are based on the ratings of the
underlying securities in the NCSLT transactions. The rating of the
Student Loan ABS Repackaging Trust 2007-2, Class IO certificate is
based on the ratings of the underlying IO certificates in the SLART
2007-1 transaction.

The principal methodology used in rating all deals except Student
Loan ABS Repackaging Trust, Series 2007-1 and Student Loan ABS
Repackaging Trust, Series 2007-2 were "Moody's Approach to Rating
U.S. Private Student Loan-Backed Securities" published in January
2010. The principal methodology used in rating Student Loan ABS
Repackaging Trust, Series 2007-1 and Student Loan ABS Repackaging
Trust, Series 2007-2 was "Moody's Approach to Rating Repackaged
Securities" published in June 2015. The principal methodology used
in rating National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2003-1 (The) Cl.
IO, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2004-1 Cl. A-IO-2 and
Student Loan ABS Repackaging Trust, Series 2007-1 Cl. 3-A-IO, Cl.
4-A-IO, Cl. 5-A-IO, Cl. 6-A-IO was "Moody's Approach to Rating
Structured Finance Interest-Only (IO) Securities" published in June
2017.

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

Up

Among the factors that could drive the ratings up are lower
defaults and net losses on the underlying student loan pools than
Moody's expects as well as positive outcome for trusts with regard
to mentioned lawsuits.

Down

Among the factors that could drive the ratings down are higher
defaults and net losses on the underlying student loan pools than
Moody's expects as well as negative outcome for trusts with regard
to mentioned lawsuits.


[*] S&P Cuts Ratings to D(sf) on 116 Classes From 71 US RMBS Deals
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its ratings on 116 classes of mortgage
pass-through certificates from 71 U.S. residential mortgage-backed
securities (RMBS) transactions issued between 2002 and 2009 to 'D
(sf)'.

The transactions in this review are backed by a mix of fixed- and
adjustable-rate mortgage loans, which are secured primarily by
first liens on one- to four-family residential properties. Today's
downgrades reflect our assessment of the principal writedowns'
impact on the affected classes during recent remittance periods.
All of the classes in this review were rated either 'CCC (sf)' or
'CC (sf)' before today's rating actions.

Principal-Only Ratings

This review included three ratings on principal-only (PO) classes,
which are all categorized as PO strip classes.

Class PO from Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2005-A2, class
A-P from GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-3F, and class A-P from Lehman
Mortgage Trust 2006-2 are PO strip classes that 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. We do 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 classes within this review have incurred a
loss on their principal obligation without the likelihood of future
reimbursement. We are therefore lowering the ratings of these
classes to 'D (sf)'.

The 116 defaulted classes consist of the following:

-- 47 from prime jumbo transactions (40.52%);

-- 31 from Alternative-A transactions (26.72%);

-- 14 from Federal Housing Administration/Veterans Administration
transactions (12.07%);

-- 10 from subprime transactions (8.62%);

-- Five from re-real estate mortgage investment conduit
transactions;

-- Four from an outside-the-guidelines transaction;

-- Two from risk transfer transactions;

-- One from a negative amortization transaction;

-- One from a reperforming transaction; and

-- One from a second-lien subprime 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 writedowns, and we will take rating
actions as we consider appropriate according to our criteria."

The list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at:

        http://bit.ly/2DvbGY2


[*] S&P Lowers Ratings on Eight Classes From Three U.S. CMBS Deals
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its ratings on eight classes of
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from three U.S.
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transactions.

S&P said, "Specifically, we lowered our ratings to 'D (sf)' on six
classes from three U.S. CMBS transactions due to accumulated
interest shortfalls that we expect to remain outstanding for the
foreseeable future.

"We also lowered our rating to 'D (sf)' on class G from Morgan
Stanley Capital I Trust 2006-TOP21 because of principal losses
experienced by the class according to the trustee report dated Jan.
12, 2018.

"Finally, we lowered our rating to 'B+ (sf)' on class F from COMM
2005-LP5 because of expected credit support erosion upon the
liquidation of the sole specially serviced asset."

The recurring interest shortfalls for the respective certificates
are primarily due to one or more of the following factors:

-- Appraisal subordinate entitlement reduction (ASER) amounts in
effect for specially serviced assets;

-- The lack of servicer advancing for loans/assets where the
servicer has made nonrecoverable advance declarations;

-- Interest rate modifications or deferrals, or both, related to
corrected mortgage loans; or

-- Special servicing fees.

S&P said, "Our analysis primarily considered the ASER amounts based
on appraisal reduction amounts (ARAs) calculated using recent
Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI) appraisals. We also
considered servicer-nonrecoverable advance declarations and special
servicing fees that are likely, in our view, to cause recurring
interest shortfalls."

The servicer implements ARAs and resulting ASER amounts according
to each transaction's terms. Typically, these terms call for an ARA
equal to 25% of the stated principal balance of a loan to be
implemented when a loan is 60 days past due and an appraisal or
other valuation is not available within a specified time frame. S&P
primarily considered ASER amounts based on ARAs calculated from MAI
appraisals when deciding which classes from the affected
transactions to downgrade to 'D (sf)'. This is because ARAs based
on a principal balance haircut are highly subject to change, or
even reversal, once the special servicer obtains the MAI
appraisals.

Servicer-nonrecoverable advance declarations can prompt shortfalls
due to a lack of debt-service advancing, the recovery of previously
made advances after an asset was deemed nonrecoverable, or the
failure to advance trust expenses when nonrecoverable declarations
have been determined. Trust expenses may include, but are not
limited to, property operating expenses, property taxes, insurance
payments, and legal expenses.

Discussions of the individual transactions follow.

BEAR STEARNS COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES TRUST 2006-PWR12

S&P said, "We lowered our rating to 'D (sf)' on the class D
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates to reflect
accumulated interest shortfalls that we expect to be outstanding
for the foreseeable future. While class D may experience repayment
of a portion of its outstanding interest shortfalls upon the
liquidation of certain specially serviced assets, we believe that
the interest shortfalls to the class will continue and the
accumulated interest shortfalls will remain outstanding for a
prolonged period of time." The class currently has accumulated
interest shortfalls outstanding for seven consecutive months.

According to the Jan. 11, 2018, trustee remittance report, the
current monthly interest shortfalls totaled $113,556 and resulted
primarily from:

-- Interest not advanced due to a nonrecoverable determination of
$114,142; and

-- Special servicing fees totaling $338.

The current reported interest shortfalls have affected classes D
and E.

COMM 2005-LP5

S&P said, "We lowered our ratings to 'D (sf)' on the class G, H,
and J commercial mortgage pass-through certificates to reflect
accumulated interest shortfalls that we expect will remain
outstanding for the foreseeable future. The accumulated interest
shortfalls on these classes have been outstanding for eight
consecutive months. We also lowered our rating to 'B+ (sf)' on
class F to reflect credit support erosion that we expect would
occur upon the liquidation of the sole specially serviced asset,
the Lakeside Mall real estate-owned (REO) asset ($65.1 million,
81.1%), which recently had its appraisal value reduced."

According to the Jan. 10, 2018, trustee remittance report, the
current monthly interest shortfalls totaled $193,969 and resulted
primarily from:

-- Net ASER amounts totaling $174,871; and
-- Special servicing fees totaling $19,098.

The current reported interest shortfalls have affected all classes
subordinate to and including class G.

MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL I TRUST 2006-TOP21

S&P said, "We lowered our ratings to 'D (sf)' on the class E and F
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates to reflect
accumulated interest shortfalls that we expect will remain
outstanding for the foreseeable future. We also lowered our rating
to 'D (sf)' on the class G commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates to reflect principal losses totaling $1.3 million due
to the liquidation of the 1757 Tapo Canyon Road loan and the master
servicer's recovery of prior advances on the specially serviced
SBC-Hoffman Estates REO asset. The accumulated interest shortfalls
are currently outstanding on classes E and F for 12 consecutive
months."

According to the Jan. 12, 2018, trustee remittance report, the
trust reported a net interest recovery this period of $275,151, of
which classes D and E recovered prior interest shortfalls totaling
$457,865, while classes F through J experienced interest shortfalls
totaling $182,714. The net recoveries this month resulted primarily
from:

-- Interest not advanced due to a nonrecoverable determination of
$241,419;

-- Special servicing fees of $12,082; and

-- One-time recoveries of ASER and special servicing fees from the
liquidation of the 1757 Tapo Canyon Road loan of $406,507 and
$120,695, respectively.

The current reported interest shortfalls this period have affected
all classes subordinate to and including class F.

RATINGS LOWERED

  BEAR STEARNS COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES TRUST 2006-PWR12
  Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-PWR12
                Rating              
  Class     To          From        
  D         D (sf)      CCC- (sf)      
  COMM 2005-LP5
  Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2005-LP5
                Rating              
  Class     To          From        
  F         B+ (sf)     BBB- (sf)
  G         D (sf)      BB-(sf)   
  H         D (sf)      CCC- (sf)   
  J         D (sf)      CCC- (sf)   

  MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL I TRUST 2006-TOP21
  Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-TOP21
                Rating   
  Class     To          From   
  E         D (sf)      CCC- (sf)  
  F         D (sf)      CCC- (sf)  
  G         D (sf)      CCC- (sf)  


[*] S&P Lowers Ratings on Seven Classes From Two U.S. RMBS Deals
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of seven classes from two
U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions
issued in 2000 and 2005. Both of these transactions are backed by
prime jumbo collateral. The review yielded seven downgrades.

Analytical Considerations

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

As RMBS transactions season, the number of outstanding mortgage
loans backing them declines as loans are prepaid or default. As a
result, a liquidation and subsequent loss on one or a small number
of remaining loans at the tail end of a transaction's life may have
a disproportionate impact on remaining credit enhancement, which
could result in a level of credit instability that is inconsistent
with high ratings. According to S&P's criteria, additional minimum
loss projection estimations are calculated at each rating category
based on a certain number of loans defaulting and liquidating. To
address the potential that greater losses could result if the loans
with higher balances were to default, the criteria uses the largest
liquidation amounts for each rating category.

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

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

A list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at:

           http://bit.ly/2Gcq05t


[*] S&P Puts Ratings on 29 Classes From 8 CLO Deals on Watch Pos.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings placed its ratings on 29 tranches from eight
U.S. collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transactions on
CreditWatch with positive implications. The CreditWatch positive
placements follow S&P's surveillance review of U.S. cash flow
collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transactions. The affected
tranches had an original issuance amount of $694.70 million.

The CreditWatch positive placements resulted from enhanced
overcollateralization (O/C) due to paydowns to the senior tranches
of these CLO transactions. All of the transactions have exited
their reinvestment periods.

The table reflects the year of issuance for the nine transactions
whose ratings were placed on CreditWatch.

  Year of issuance    No. of deals
  2012                1
  2013                7
  2016                1

S&P said, "We expect to resolve today's CreditWatch placements
within 90 days after we complete a comprehensive cash flow analysis
and committee review for each of the affected transactions. We will
continue to monitor these transactions and take rating actions,
including CreditWatch placements, as we deem appropriate."

  RATINGS PLACED ON WATCH POSITIVE

  Cent CLO 17 Ltd.
                       Rating
  Class       To                    From
  A-2a        AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
  A-2b        AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
  B           A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
  C           BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)

  ECP CLO 2013-5 Ltd.
                       Rating
  Class       To                    From
  A-2         AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
  B           A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)

  Figueroa CLO 2013-1 Ltd.
                       Rating
  Class       To                    From
  A-2         AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
  B           A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
  C           BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)

  Mountain Hawk I CLO Ltd.
                       Rating
  Class       To                    From
  B-1         AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
  B-2         AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
  C (defer)   A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
  D (defer)   BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)

  OFSI Fund V Ltd.
                       Rating
  Class       To                    From
  A-2F-R      AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
  A-2L-R      AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
  A-3F-R      A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
  A-3L-R      A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
  B-1L-R      BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)
  B-2L        BB- (sf)/Watch Pos    BB- (sf)
  B-3L        B (sf)/Watch Pos      B (sf)

  Palmer Square Loan Funding 2016-3 Ltd.
                       Rating
  Class       To                    From
  A-2         AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
  B           A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
  C           BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)
  D           BB (sf)/Watch Pos     BB (sf)

  West CLO 2012-1 Ltd.
                       Rating
  Class       To                    From
  A-2R        AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
  B           A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)
  C           BBB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)

  WhiteHorse VI Ltd.
                       Rating
  Class       To                    From
  A-2-R       AA (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)
  A-3-R       A (sf)/Watch Pos      A (sf)


[*] S&P Takes Various Action on 38 Classes From 10 U.S. RMBS Deals
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 38 classes from 10 U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions issued
between 2003 and 2006. All of these transactions are backed by
subprime collateral. The review yielded 18 upgrades, 19
affirmations, and one discontinuance.

Analytical Considerations

S&P said, "We incorporate various considerations into our decisions
to raise, lower, or affirm ratings when reviewing the indicative
ratings suggested by our projected cash flows. These considerations
are based on transaction-specific performance or structural
characteristics (or both) and their potential effects on certain
classes." Some of these considerations include:

-- Collateral performance/delinquency trends;
-- Historical missed interest payments;
-- Priority of principal payments; and
-- Available subordination and/or overcollateralization.

Rating Actions

S&P said, "We raised our ratings by five or more notches on nine
ratings from seven transactions (see ratings list) due to increased
credit support, which is attributed to sequential principal
payments because of failing cumulative loss triggers. As a result,
the upgrades on these classes reflect the classes' ability to
withstand a higher level of projected losses than previously
anticipated."

A list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at:

          http://bit.ly/2rG6P11


[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 51 Classes From 12 US RMBS Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 51 classes from 12 U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions issued
between 2001 and 2006. All of these transactions are backed by
subprime, second-lien high loan-to-value (LTV), or document
deficient collateral. The review yielded 20 upgrades, 27
affirmations, and four discontinuances.

Analytical Considerations

S&P incorporates various considerations into our decisions to
raise, lower, or affirm ratings when reviewing the indicative
ratings suggested by S&P's projected cash flows. These
considerations are based on transaction-specific performance or
structural characteristics (or both) and their potential effects on
certain classes. Some of these considerations include:

-- Collateral performance/delinquency trends;
-- Historical missed interest payments;
-- Priority of principal payments;
-- Liquidity cap; and
-- Available subordination and/or overcollateralization.

Rating Actions

S&P said, "The affirmations of ratings reflect our opinion that our
projected credit support and collateral performance on these
classes has remained relatively consistent with our prior
projections.

"We raised our ratings by five or more notches on 11 ratings from
seven transactions due to increased credit support, which is
attributed to sequential principal payments because of failing
cumulative loss triggers. As a result, the upgrades on these
classes reflect the classes' ability to withstand a higher level of
projected losses than previously anticipated."

A list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at:

          http://bit.ly/2BrfzHN


[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 55 Classes From 13 US RMBS Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 55 classes from 13 U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions issued
between 2003 and 2005. All of these transactions are backed by
subprime collateral. The review yielded 20 upgrades, two
downgrades, 30 affirmations, and three discontinuances.

Analytical Considerations

S&P incorporates various considerations into its decisions to
raise, lower, or affirm ratings when reviewing the indicative
ratings suggested by its projected cash flows. These considerations
are based on transaction-specific performance or structural
characteristics (or both) and their potential effects on certain
classes. Some of these considerations include:

-- Collateral performance/delinquency trends;
-- Erosion of/increase in credit support;
-- Priority of principal payments;
-- Expected short duration; Missed interest payments; and
-- Available subordination and/or overcollateralization.

Rating Actions

The affirmations of ratings reflect S&P's opinion that its
projected credit support and collateral performance on these
classes has remained relatively consistent with our prior
projections.

S&P lowered its rating on class A from Terwin Mortgage Trust,
Series TMTS 2003-2HE to 'BBB (sf)' from 'AA (sf)' due to eroded
credit support. Credit support decreased to 49.61% (as of December
2017) from 56.79% during last review. Passing triggers continue to
divert principal to subordinate classes, eroding credit support
available to cover our projected losses at higher rating levels.

A list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at:

          http://bit.ly/2rCBgVw


[*] S&P Takes Various Actions on 66 Classes From 12 US RMBS Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 66 classes from 12 U.S.
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions issued
between 2003 and 2006. All of these transactions are backed by
prime jumbo collateral. The review yielded 23 upgrades, one
downgrade, 34 affirmations, and eight discontinuances.

Analytical Considerations

S&P said, "We incorporate various considerations into our decisions
to raise, lower, or affirm ratings when reviewing the indicative
ratings suggested by our projected cash flows. These considerations
are based on transaction-specific performance or structural
characteristics (or both) and their potential effects on certain
classes." Some of these considerations include:

-- Collateral performance/delinquency trends;
-- Historical interest shortfalls;
-- Priority of principal payments;
-- Proportion of reperforming loans in the pool;
-- Tail risk; and
-- Available subordination and/or overcollateralization.

Rating Actions

S&P said, "The affirmations of ratings reflect our opinion that our
projected credit support and collateral performance on these
classes has remained relatively consistent with our prior
projections.

"We raised our ratings by five or more notches on two classes from
Thornburg Mortgage Securities Trust 2004-1 due to increased credit
support, the overcollateralization account being fully funded, and
all the outstanding loans in their respective groups performing
over at least the past two years. As a result, the upgrades on
these classes reflect the classes' ability to withstand a higher
level of projected losses than previously anticipated."

A list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at:

          http://bit.ly/2naBajt


                            *********

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 2018.  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 ***