251026.mbx

251026.mbx T R O U B L E D C O M P A N Y R E P O R T E R Sunday, October 26, 2025, Vol. 29, No. 298 Headlines AIMCO CLO 20: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E-R Notes AMERICAN ROCK: S&P Affirms 'CCC+' ICR, Outlook Negative ANSONIA CDO 2006-1: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on Six Tranches ANTARES CLO 2021-1: S&P Assigns BB- (sf) Rating on Class E-R Notes APIDOS CLO XXXIX: Fitch Assigns 'BB+sf' Rating on Class E-R Notes APIDOS CLO XXXIX: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Class F-R Notes ATLAS SENIOR XXVI: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E Notes BAIN CAPITAL 2022-1: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Cl. E-R Notes BALLYROCK CLO 2019-2: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Cl. D-R3 Notes BANK5 2025-5YR17: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Final Rating on Two Tranches BARROW HANLEY II: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- (sf) Rating on E-RR Notes BAUHINIA ILBS 3: Moody's Assigns Ba1 Rating to $16MM Class D Notes BBCMS 2022-C17: Fitch Affirms B+ Rating on 2 Tranches BENEFIT STREET XVIII: S&P Assigns BB- (sf) Rating on E-R2 Notes BIRCH GROVE 7: Fitch Assigns 'BBsf' Rating on Class E-R Notes BIRCH GROVE 7: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to $250,000 Cl. F-R Notes BLACKROCK MT. HOOD X: S&P Assigns BB- (sf) Rating on Cl. E-R Notes BLUEMOUNTAIN CLO XXXIV: S&P Affirms BB- (sf) Rating on Cl. E Notes BMO 2025-C13: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Final Rating on Class J-RR Certs BSPRT 2023-FL10: Fitch Affirms 'B-sf' Rating on Class H Debt CARVAL CLO IV: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Rating on Class F-R Notes CASTLELAKE AIRCRAFT 2019-1: Fitch Ups Rating on Cl. C Notes to CCC+ CENT TRUST 2023-CITY: Fitch Lowers Rating on Cl. HRR Debt to 'Dsf' CIFC FUNDING 2025-VI: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E Notes CITIGROUP MORTGAGE 2025-RP4: Fitch Rates Class B-2 Note 'B(EXP)sf' COLLEGE PARENT: S&P Alters Outlook to Positive, Affirms 'CCC+' ICR CSTL COMMERCIAL 2025-GATE2: Fitch Gives B(EXP) Rating on HRR Certs DRYDEN 102: S&P Assigns BB- (sf) Rating on Class E-R Notes ELMWOOD CLO 21: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Rating on Class F-R2 Notes ELMWOOD CLO 45: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Rating on Class F Notes FANNIE MAE 2025-R06: S&P Assigns BB+ (sf) Rating on Cl 1B-1X Notes FLATIRON CLO 20: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Cl. E-R2 Notes FORTRESS CREDIT VIII: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Cl. E-R Notes GCAT 2025-NQM6: S&P Assigns Prelim B(sf) Rating on Class B-2 Certs GOLUB CAPITAL 19(B)-R3: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on E-R3 Notes GREAT LAKES V: S&P Assigns BB- (sf) Rating on Class E-R Notes GS MORTGAGE 2025-NQM5: S&P Assign Prelim 'B' Rating on B-2 Certs GS TRUST 2025-DSC2: S&P Assigns Prelim B (sf) Rating on B-2 Certs HARBOR PARK: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E-R2 Notes HAYFIN US XIV: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E-R Notes ILLINOIS HOUSING 20025: S&P Lowers Revenue Bond Rating to 'BB-' IMPRINT PAYMENTS 2025-A: Fitch Rates Class E Notes 'BBsf' JPMDB 2020-COR7: Fitch Lowers Rating on Class F-RR Certs to 'Bsf' KKR CLO 48: Fitch Assigns 'BBsf' Rating on Class E-R Notes KKR CLO 48: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to $200,000 Class F-R Notes LEHMAN MORTGAGE 2007-7: Moody's Ups Rating on 9 Tranches to Caa3 MADISON PARK LI: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E-R Notes MADISON PARK LI: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to $250,000 F-R Notes MARBLE POINT XXV: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E-RR Notes MARINER FINANCE 2025-B: S&P Assigns BB(sf) Rating on Class E Notes MASTR SPECIALIZED 2007-1: Moody's Ups Rating on Cl. A Certs to Caa2 MENLO CLO III: S&P Assigns B- (sf) Rating on Class F Notes MORGAN STANLEY 2025-5C2: Fitch Gives 'B-(EXP)' Rating on 2 Tranches MORGAN STANLEY 2025-NQM8:S&P Assigns Prelim 'B' Rating on B-2 Certs NASSAU LTD 2019-I: Moody's Cuts Rating on $28.25MM D Notes to Caa3 NAVESINK CLO 4: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- (sf) Rating on Cl. E Notes NEW AMI I: Fitch Affirms 'B' LongTerm IDR, Outlook Stable NEW RESIDENTIAL 2025-NQM5: S&P Assigns B- (sf) Rating on B-2 Notes NYC COMMERCIAL 2025-11X: Fitch Rates Class HRR Certs 'BB-' OCP CLO 202-8R: S&P Assigns BB- (sf) Rating on Class E-R2 Notes OCTAGON 70: Fitch Hikes Rating on Class E Notes to 'BB+sf' OHA CREDIT 16-R: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E Notes OPORTUN ISSUANCE 2025-D: Fitch Assigns BB-sf Rating on E Notes PIKES PEAK 15: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Final Rating on Cl. E-R Notes PMT LOAN 2025-INV10: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Cl. B-5 Certs PRPM 2025-RCF5: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Final Rating on Cl. M-2 Notes PRPM LLC 2024-RPL3: Moody's Raises Rating on Cl. M-2 Certs to Ba1 REGATTA XIX: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E-R Notes RIN IV LTD: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to $8MM Class E-R Notes ROCKFFORD TOWER 2022-2: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on E-R2 Notes ROCKFORD TOWER 2023-1: Fitch Assigns BB-sf Rating on Cl. E-R Notes RR 16: S&P Affirms BB- (sf) Rating on Class D Notes SEQUOIA MORTGAGE 2025-10: Fitch Assigns Bsf Rating on Cl. B5 Certs SIERRA TIMESHARE 2025-3: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Cl. D Notes STRUCTURED ASSET 2004-11: Moody's Ups Rating on Cl. M5 Certs to Ca TOWD POINT 2025-CES4: S&P Assigns 'B-' Rating on Class B2BX Notes TOWD POINT 2025-R2: Fitch Gives 'B-sf' Rating on Class B2 Notes TRIMARAN CAVU 2023-1: S&P Assigns Prelim 'BB-' Rating on E-R Notes TRINITAS CLO VI: S&P Affirms B- (sf) Rating on Class F Notes TRTX 2025-FL7: Fitch Assigns 'B-(EXP)sf' Rating on Class G Notes UPLAND CLO: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on $15.25MM D-R Notes VOYA CLO 2022-3: Fitch Assigns 'BB+sf' Rating on Class E-R2 Notes WELLFLEET CLO 2021-4: Moody's Gives (P)B3 Rating to $1MM F-R Notes WELLS FARGO 2025-C65: Fitch Assigns B-sf Final Rating on F-RR Certs [] Fitch Affirms 'BBsf' Rating on Two Exeter Automobile Deals [] Moody's Takes Rating Action on 22 Bonds from 10 US RMBS Deals [] Moody's Upgrades Ratings on 28 Bonds from 11 US RMBS Deals [] S&P Takes Various Actions on 217 Classes From 34 US CMBS Deals [] S&P Takes Various Actions on 274 Classes from 85 US RMBS Deals ********* AIMCO CLO 20: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E-R Notes ------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to AIMCO CLO 20, Ltd. reset transaction. Entity/Debt Rating ----------- ------ AIMCO CLO 20, LTD. A-1-R LT NRsf New Rating A-2-R LT AAAsf New Rating B-R LT AAsf New Rating C-R LT Asf New Rating D-1-R LT BBB-sf New Rating D-2-R LT BBB-sf New Rating E-R LT BB-sf New Rating Subordinated LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary AIMCO CLO 20, Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that is managed by Allstate Investment Management Company. The deal originally closed in November 2023. The existing secured notes will be refinanced in whole on Oct. 16, 2025. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $499.65 million of primarily first lien senior secured leveraged loans (excluding defaulted assets). KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B+/B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 22.19 and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 97.06% first lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 75.6% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 40% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with that of other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-2-R, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R, between 'Bsf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-1-R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2-R, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E-R. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-2-R notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R, 'AA+sf' for class C-R, 'A+sf' for class D-1-R, 'A-sf' for class D-2-R, and 'BBB+sf' for class E-R. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for AIMCO CLO 20, Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, program, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. AMERICAN ROCK: S&P Affirms 'CCC+' ICR, Outlook Negative ------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings affirmed its 'CCC+' issuer credit rating on American Rock Salt Co. LLC, its 'B' issue-level rating and '1' recovery rating on its first-out, first-lien term loan, 'CCC' rating and '5' recovery rating on its first-lien debt, and 'CCC-' rating and '6' recovery rating on the second-lien debt. The negative outlook reflects the likelihood of specific default scenarios developing over the next 12 months given the company's vulnerability to unpredictable winter weather. American Rock Salt Co. LLC's EBITDA could increase by at least 50% in fiscal 2026 on price increases from the 2025-2026 highway deicing salt tender season and a return to normal winter weather. Leverage could improve in fiscal 2026 to below 10x from a rolling-12-months measure of 21.6x as of June 30, 2025, and interest coverage to 1x-2x from 0.5x. At the same time, S&P believes American Rock Salt's capital structure is unsustainable in long term given the high interest expense associated with the most debt in the company's history and dependence on favorable winter weather to meet its financial obligations. American Rock Salt's business risk has weakened over the past three years. Rolling-12-months EBITDA margins declined to about 13% as of June 30 from about 24% in the comparable 2024 period and the average of about 35% from 2019-2022. S&P now assesses profitability as average, reflecting significant margin decline due to aggressive competition in a market that mostly rewards the lowest bidder during the highway deicing salt tender season. It also reflects the company's various operational adjustments to manage high inventory during consecutive milder-than-expected winters. S&P's view of the business risk also includes its small scale and asset concentration with a single mine and five-year average revenues of less than $250 million. The company also has limited product and geographic diversity, mainly producing highway deicing salt to serve markets in New York, Pennsylvania, and other East Coast and Midwest U.S. states. Despite its small size and weather-dependent business model, highway deicing salt is considered a nondiscretionary commodity to ensure road safety during the winter. The company has a good distribution network in the Northeastern U.S. Its mine is the newest in the U.S., with modern equipment that aids in low-cost, high-margin operations. Favorable tender results and normal volumes could improve earnings and margin. American Rock Salt secured favorable prices during the 2025-2026 highway deicing salt tender season, a sharp contrast to the previous tender season when the company locked in low prices for incremental volumes. As a result, EBITDA could increase at least 50% in fiscal 2026, assuming volumes associated with normal winter weather. EBITDA margins could increase to 28%-30% in fiscal 2026, mainly driven the significant price increases and the company's decision to exit low-margined businesses. S&P also expects lower unit costs from increased salt production, which was limited last season to help manage higher inventory from low demand during the mild 2023-2024 winter season. American Rock Salt's capital structure is unsustainable long term. Leverage could improve below 10x in fiscal 2026 from 21.6x as of June 30, 2025 on a rolling-12 months basis on stronger earnings. S&P said, "At the same time, we expect EBITDA interest coverage to improve to the middle of the 1x-2x range, which reduces the risk of payment default and compares favorably with 0.5x as of June 30, 2025 on a rolling-12-months basis. S&P said, "We expect the trend of free cash flow deficits will persist over the next 24 months as high interest expense from increasing debt limits cash flow, exacerbated further by higher sustaining capital expenditure on major mine rehabilitation. The company will likely draw on its delayed-draw term loan, which would further increase debt and interest expense. Furthermore, we believe American Rock Salt depends highly on favorable business conditions including increased snowfall events to meet its obligations. However, we consider default risk low with no liquidity shortfalls over the next 12 months." The negative outlook reflects American Rock Salt's dependence on favorable winter weather to meet its obligations. While S&P expects leverage below 10x and interest coverage of 1x-2x, we believe credit metrics could quickly deteriorate given the company's heightened sensitivity to weather and heavy debt load. S&P could lower its rating on American Rock Salt within the next 12 months if S&P: -- Envision specific default scenarios due to poor operating results or tightened liquidity. These could include missed interest payments, near-term liquidity shortfalls, breach of financial covenants, or loan documentation amendments that lead S&P to believe lenders will receive less than originally promised; or -- Believe the company is likely to consider a distressed exchange offer or redemption. -- S&P could revise its outlook to stable or raise its rating on American Rock Salt if credit metrics improve significantly due to a sustained recovery in earnings or debt reduction. In such a scenario, S&P would expect: -- Debt to EBITDA below 10x; -- Adequate liquidity; and -- EBITDA interest coverage above 1.5x. ANSONIA CDO 2006-1: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on Six Tranches -------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has affirmed 40 distressed classes from four CDO transactions, including two commercial real estate loan (CREL) CDOs and two commercial real estate (CRE) CDOs with exposure to CMBS securities. Fitch has also subsequently withdrawn the ratings on 14 classes from the two CREL CDO transactions. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- Ansonia CDO 2006-1 Ltd. / LLC B 036510AC9 LT Dsf Affirmed Dsf C 036510AD7 LT Dsf Affirmed Dsf D 036510AE5 LT Dsf Affirmed Dsf E 036510AF2 LT Dsf Affirmed Dsf F 036510AG0 LT Dsf Affirmed Dsf G 036510AH8 LT Dsf Affirmed Dsf H 036510AJ4 LT Csf Affirmed Csf J 036510AK1 LT Csf Affirmed Csf K 036510AL9 LT Csf Affirmed Csf L 036510AM7 LT Csf Affirmed Csf M 036510AN5 LT Csf Affirmed Csf N 036510AP0 LT Csf Affirmed Csf O 036510AQ8 LT Csf Affirmed Csf P 036510AR6 LT Csf Affirmed Csf Q 036510AS4 LT Csf Affirmed Csf S 036510AT2 LT Csf Affirmed Csf T 036510AU9 LT Csf Affirmed Csf LNR CDO III Ltd./Corp. A Floating Rate Notes 53944PAA0 LT Dsf Affirmed Dsf B Floating Rate Notes 53944PAB8 LT Dsf Affirmed Dsf C Floating Rate Notes 53944PAC6 LT Csf Affirmed Csf D Floating Rate Notes 53944PAD4 LT Csf Affirmed Csf E-FL Floating Rate Notes 53944PAF9 LT Csf Affirmed Csf E-FX Fixed Rate Notes 53944PAG7 LT Csf Affirmed Csf F-FL Floating Rate Notes 53944PAL6 LT Csf Affirmed Csf F-FX Fixed Rate Notes 53944PAH5 LT Csf Affirmed Csf G Floating Rate Notes 53944PAQ5 LT Csf Affirmed Csf N-Star REL CDO VI, Ltd./LLC J LT Dsf Affirmed Dsf J LT WDsf Withdrawn K LT Csf Affirmed Csf K LT WDsf Withdrawn N-Star REL CDO VIII, Ltd./LLC B 62940FAD1 LT Dsf Affirmed Dsf B 62940FAD1 LT WDsf Withdrawn C 62940FAE9 LT Dsf Affirmed Dsf C 62940FAE9 LT WDsf Withdrawn D 62940FAF6 LT Dsf Affirmed Dsf D 62940FAF6 LT WDsf Withdrawn E 62940FAG4 LT Csf Affirmed Csf E 62940FAG4 LT WDsf Withdrawn F 62940FAH2 LT Csf Affirmed Csf F 62940FAH2 LT WDsf Withdrawn G 62940FAJ8 LT Csf Affirmed Csf G 62940FAJ8 LT WDsf Withdrawn H 62940FAK5 LT Csf Affirmed Csf H 62940FAK5 LT WDsf Withdrawn J 62940BAA6 LT Csf Affirmed Csf J 62940BAA6 LT WDsf Withdrawn K 62940BAB4 LT Csf Affirmed Csf K 62940BAB4 LT WDsf Withdrawn L 62940BAC2 LT Csf Affirmed Csf L 62940BAC2 LT WDsf Withdrawn M 62940BAE8 LT Csf Affirmed Csf M 62940BAE8 LT WDsf Withdrawn N 62940BAF5 LT Csf Affirmed Csf N 62940BAF5 LT WDsf Withdrawn Fitch has withdrawn the ratings for N-Star REL CDO VI, Ltd./LLC and N-Star REL CDO VIII, Ltd./LLC as they are no longer considered to be relevant to the agency's coverage due to significant undercollateralization. KEY RATING DRIVERS The affirmation of classes at 'Dsf' indicates they are timely, non-deferrable classes that have experienced interest payment shortfalls. The affirmation of classes at 'Csf' indicates default is considered inevitable. These classes have negative credit enhancement due to substantial incurred realized losses. All four CDOs are significantly undercollateralized in excess of $510 million for Ansonia CDO 2006-1 Ltd. / LLC; $614 million for LNR CDO III Ltd./Corp.; $105 million for N-Star REL CDO VI, Ltd./LLC, and $379 million for N-Star REL CDO VIII, Ltd./LLC. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Classes already rated 'Csf' have limited sensitivity to downgrade given their highly distressed rating level. However, there is potential for classes to be downgraded to 'Dsf' at or prior to legal final maturity if they are non-deferrable classes that experience any interest payment shortfalls or should an event of default (as set forth in the transaction documents) occur. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrades to the 'Csf' rated classes are not expected as these classes are undercollateralized. Upgrades to the classes rated 'Dsf' are not possible as they are non-deferrable classes that have already experienced a timely interest payment shortfall and are undercollateralized or dependent on subordinate CRE debt or subordinate bonds for repayment, where no recoveries are expected. 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. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. ANTARES CLO 2021-1: S&P Assigns BB- (sf) Rating on Class E-R Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the replacement class A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, D-R, and E-R debt from Antares CLO 2021-1 Ltd./Antares CLO 2021-1 LLC, a CLO managed by Antares Capital Advisers LLC, a subsidiary of Antares Holdings L.P. that was originally issued in July 2021. As part of this transaction, Antares CLO 2021-1 Ltd. merged with Antares CLO 2020-1 Ltd., a CLO originally issued in October 2020, which underwent a partial refinancing in November 2021. At the same time, S&P withdrew its ratings on the previous class A-1, A-2, B, C, D, and E debt from Antares CLO 2021-1 Ltd. and class A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, D-R, and E debt from Antares CLO 2020-1 Ltd. following payment in full on the Oct. 15, 2025, refinancing date. The replacement debt for Antares CLO 2021-1 Ltd. was issued via a supplemental indenture, which outlines the terms of the replacement debt. According to the supplemental indenture: -- The replacement class A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, D-R, and E-R debt was issued at a lower spread over a three-month term SOFR than the existing debt from both the merging entities. -- The replacement class A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, D-R, and E-R debt were issued at floating spreads, replacing the current floating spreads. -- The non-call period was extended to Oct. 25, 2027. -- The reinvestment period was extended to Oct. 25, 2030. -- The legal final maturity dates for the replacement debt and the existing subordinated notes were extended to Oct. 25, 2038. Antares CLO 2020-1 Ltd. and Antares CLO 2021-1 Ltd. were merged on the refinancing date and the target initial par amount increased to $1.5 billion. There is an additional effective date, and the first payment date following the refinancing is Jan. 25, 2026. The required minimum overcollateralization and interest coverage ratios were amended. A portion of the subordinated notes from Antares CLO 2020-1, Ltd. were combined with the existing subordinated notes under Antares CLO 2021-1 Ltd. on the refinancing date, totaling $182.99 million. Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction data 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 the recoveries upon default under various interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios. S&P said, "Our analysis also considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or ultimate principal to each rated tranche. The results of the cash flow analysis (and other qualitative factors, as applicable) demonstrated, in our view, that the outstanding rated classes all have adequate credit enhancement available at the rating levels associated with the rating actions. "We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings assigned to the debt remain consistent with the credit enhancement available to support them and take rating actions as we deem necessary." Ratings Assigned Antares CLO 2021-1 Ltd./Antares CLO 2021-1 LLC Class A-1-R, $870.00 million: AAA (sf) Class A-2-R, $60.00 million: AAA (sf) Class B-R, $112.50 million: AA (sf) Class C-R (deferrable), $105.00 million: A (sf) Class D-R (deferrable), $82.50 million: BBB- (sf) Class E-R (deferrable), $90.00 million: BB- (sf) Ratings Withdrawn Antares CLO 2021-1 Ltd./Antares CLO 2021-1 LLC Class A-1 to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class A-2 to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class B to NR from 'AA (sf)' Class C to NR from 'A (sf)' Class D to NR from 'BBB- (sf)' Class E to NR from 'BB- (sf)' Antares CLO 2020-1 Ltd./Antares CLO 2020-1 LLC Class A-1-R to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class A-2-R to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class B-R to NR from 'AA (sf)' Class C-R to NR from 'A (sf)' Class D-R to NR from 'BBB- (sf)' Class E to NR from 'BB- (sf)' Other Debt Antares CLO 2021-1 Ltd./Antares CLO 2021-1 LLC Subordinated notes, $182.99 million: NR NR--Not rated. APIDOS CLO XXXIX: Fitch Assigns 'BB+sf' Rating on Class E-R Notes ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Outlooks to Apidos CLO XXXIX Ltd.'s reset transaction. Entity/Debt Rating ----------- ------ Apidos CLO XXXIX Ltd X-R LT NRsf New Rating A-1-R LT NRsf New Rating A-2-R LT AAAsf New Rating B-R LT AAsf New Rating C-R LT Asf New Rating D-1-R LT BBBsf New Rating D-2-R LT BBB-sf New Rating E-R LT BB+sf New Rating F-R LT NRsf New Rating Subordinated Notes LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary Apidos CLO XXXIX Ltd (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that is managed by CVC Credit Partners, LLC and originally closed in March 2022. The CLO's secured notes will be refinanced on Oct. 16, 2025 from proceeds of the new secured and subordinated notes. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $550 million of primarily first-lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 95.74% first-lien senior secured loans and has a weighted average recovery assumption of 73.14%. Fitch stressed the indicative portfolio by assuming a higher portfolio concentration of assets with lower recovery prospects and further reduced recovery assumptions for higher rating stresses. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 40% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity required by industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting to the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-2-R, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R, between 'B+sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-1-R, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2-R and between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB-sf' for class E-R. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-2-R notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R, 'AA+sf' for class C-R, 'A+sf' for class D-1-R, and 'A-sf' for class D-2-R and 'BBB+sf' for class E-R. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Apidos CLO XXXIX Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, programme, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. APIDOS CLO XXXIX: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Class F-R Notes -------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's Ratings has assigned ratings to three classes of CLO refinancing notes (the Refinancing Notes) issued by Apidos CLO XXXIX Ltd (the Issuer): US$5,500,000 Class X-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2038, Assigned Aaa (sf) US$352,000,000 Class A-1-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2038, Assigned Aaa (sf) US$550,000 Class F-R Mezzanine Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2038, Assigned B3 (sf) RATINGS RATIONALE The rationale for the ratings is based on Moody's methodologies and considers all relevant risks particularly those associated with the CLO's portfolio and structure. 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. At least 90.0% of the portfolio must consist of first lien senior secured loans and up to 10.0% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans, unsecured loans, first lien last out loans and permitted non-loan assets. CVC Credit Partners, LLC (the Manager) will continue to 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 extended five year reinvestment period. Thereafter, subject to certain restrictions, the Manager may reinvest unscheduled principal payments and proceeds from sales of credit risk assets. In addition to the issuance of the Refinancing Notes, other classes of secured notes and additional subordinated 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 the base matrix and modifiers. Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in the "Collateralized Loan Obligations" rating methodology published in October 2025. The key model inputs Moody's used in Moody's analysis, such as par, weighted average rating factor, diversity score and weighted average recovery rate, are based on Moody's published methodology and could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. For modeling purposes, Moody's used the following base-case assumptions: Portfolio par: $550,000,000 Diversity Score: 75 Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 3024 Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.10% Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 45.00% Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8.0 years Methodology Underlying the Rating Action The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in October 2025. 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. ATLAS SENIOR XXVI: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E Notes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to Atlas Senior Loan Fund XXVI, Ltd. Entity/Debt Rating ----------- ------ Atlas Senior Loan Fund XXVI, Ltd. X LT NRsf New Rating AY LT NRsf New Rating AN LT NRsf New Rating AZ LT NRsf New Rating B LT AAsf New Rating C LT Asf New Rating D1 LT BBBsf New Rating DJ LT BBB-sf New Rating E LT BB-sf New Rating Subordinated Notes LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary Atlas Senior Loan Fund XXVI, Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that will be managed by Crescent CLO Management LP. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $400 million of primarily first lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B+/B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 21.23 and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 96.64% first lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 75.6% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 45% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with that of other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B, between 'B+sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D1, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class DJ, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B, 'AAsf' for class C, 'Asf' for class D1, 'A-sf' for class DJ, and 'BBB+sf' for class E. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Atlas Senior Loan Fund XXVI, Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, program, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. BAIN CAPITAL 2022-1: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Cl. E-R Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Outlooks to the Bain Capital Credit CLO 2022-1 Limited reset transaction. Entity/Debt Rating ----------- ------ Bain Capital Credit CLO 2022-1, Limited A-1-R LT NRsf New Rating A-2-R LT AAAsf New Rating B-R LT AAsf New Rating C-R LT Asf New Rating D-1-R LT BBBsf New Rating D-2-R LT BBB-sf New Rating E-R LT BB-sf New Rating Subordinated Notes LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary Bain Capital Credit CLO 2022-1, Limited (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that will be managed by Bain Capital Credit, LP and that originally closed on March 17, 2022. This is the first refinancing where the existing secured notes will be refinanced in whole on Oct. 20, 2025. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $550 million of primarily first-lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 24.24, and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 96.44% first-lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 72.92% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 42.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-2-R, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R, between 'Bsf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-1-R, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2-R and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class ER. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-2-R notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R, 'AAsf' for class C-R, 'A+sf' for class D-1-R, and 'A-sf' for class D-2-R and 'BBB+sf' for class E-R. 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. DATA ADEQUACY The majority of the underlying assets or risk-presenting entities have ratings or credit opinions from Fitch and/or other nationally recognized statistical rating organizations and/or European Securities and Markets Authority-registered rating agencies. Fitch has relied on the practices of the relevant groups within Fitch and/or other rating agencies to assess the asset portfolio information. Overall, Fitch's assessment of the asset pool information relied upon for its rating analysis according to its applicable rating methodologies indicates that it is adequately reliable. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Bain Capital Credit CLO 2022-1, Limited. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, programme, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. BALLYROCK CLO 2019-2: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Cl. D-R3 Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the replacement class X-R3, A-1-R3, A-2-R3, B-R3, C-1-R3, C-2-R3, and D-R3 debt from Ballyrock CLO 2019-2 Ltd./Ballyrock CLO 2019-2 LLC, a CLO managed by Ballyrock Investment Advisors LLC that was originally issued in November 2019 and underwent a second refinancing in February 2024. At the same time, S&P withdrew its ratings on the previous class X, A-1-RR, A-2-RR, B-RR, C-RR, D-1-RR, and D-2-RR debt following payment in full on the Oct. 15, 2025, refinancing date. The replacement debt was issued via a supplemental indenture, which outlines the terms of the replacement debt. According to the supplemental indenture: -- The class C-RR debt was split into the class C-1-R3 and C-2-R3 debt. -- The pro rata class D-1-RR and D-2-RR debt was combined into the class D-R3 debt. -- The non-call period was extended to Oct. 15, 2027. -- The reinvestment period was extended to Oct. 25, 2030. -- The legal final maturity dates for the replacement debt and the existing subordinated notes were extended to Oct. 25, 2038. -- An additional $50.00 million of assets were purchased on the Oct. 15, 2025, refinancing date, and the target initial par amount is $500.0 million. There were no additional effective date or ramp-up period, and the first payment date following the refinancing is Jan. 25, 2026. -- An additional $16.35 million of subordinated notes were issued on the refinancing date. S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction data in the trustee report, to estimate future performance. In line with our criteria, our cashlow scenarios applied forward-looking assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of defaults and the recoveries upon default under various interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios. Our analysis also considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or ultimate principal to each of the rated tranches. The results of the cash flow analysis (and other qualitative factors, as applicable) demonstrated, in our view, that the outstanding rated classes all have adequate credit enhancement available at the rating levels associated with the rating actions. "We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings assigned to the debt remain consistent with the credit enhancement available to support them and take rating actions as we deem necessary." Ratings Assigned Ballyrock CLO 2019-2 Ltd./Ballyrock CLO 2019-2 LLC Class X-R3, $3.00 million: AAA (sf) Class A-1-R3, $310.00 million: AAA (sf) Class A-2-R3, $70.00 million: AA (sf) Class B-R3 (deferrable), $30.00 million: A (sf) Class C-1-R3 (deferrable), $25.00 million: BBB (sf) Class C-2-R3 (deferrable), $8.75 million: BBB- (sf) Class D-R3 (deferrable), $16.25 million: BB- (sf) Ratings Withdrawn Ballyrock CLO 2019-2 Ltd./Ballyrock CLO 2019-2 LLC Class X to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class A-1-RR to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class A-2-RR to NR from 'AA+ (sf)' Class B-RR to NR from 'A+ (sf)' Class C-RR to NR from 'BBB (sf)' Class D-1-RR to NR from 'BB- (sf)' Class D-2-RR to NR from 'BB- (sf)' Other Debt Ballyrock CLO 2019-2 Ltd./Ballyrock CLO 2019-2 LLC Subordinated notes, $61.50 million: NR NR--Not rated. BANK5 2025-5YR17: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Final Rating on Two Tranches ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned final ratings and Rating Outlooks to BANK5 2025-5YR17, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2025-5YR17 as follows: - $9,599,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $125,800,000ab class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class A-2-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $0abc class A-2-X1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class A-2-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $0abc class A-2-X2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $549,742,000ab class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class A-3-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $0abc class A-3-X1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class A-3-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $0abc class A-3-X2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $685,141,000c class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $106,442,000b class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class A-S-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class A-S-X1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class A-S-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class A-S-X2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $50,162,000b class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class B-1 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class B-X1 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class B-2 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class B-X2 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $35,480,000b class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class C-1 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class C-X1 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class C-2 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class C-X2 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $192,084,000c class X-B 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $29,363,000d class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $29,363,000cd class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $18,352,000d class F 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $18,352,000cd class X-F 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $11,012,000d class G 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $11,012,000cd class X-G 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable. The following classes are not rated by Fitch: - $42,821,437d class H; - $42,821,437cd class X-H; - $40,700,391e class RR; - $10,814,000e class RR Interest. (a) Since Fitch published its expected ratings on Sept. 23, 2025, the balances for classes A-2 and A-3 were finalized. The initial certificate balance of the class A-2 was expected to be in the range of $0 to $300,000,000, and the initial aggregate certificate balance of the class A-3 was expected to be in the range of $375,542,000 to $675,542,000. The final class balances for classes A-2 and A-3 are $125,800,000 and $549,742,000, respectively. The class A-2-X1 and class A-2-X2 trust components have initial notional amounts equal to the initial certificate balance of the class A-2 trust component. The class A-3-X1 and class A-3-X2 trust components have initial notional amounts equal to the initial certificate balance of the class A-3 trust component. (b) The class A-2, class A-2-1, class A-2-2, class A-2-X1, class A-2-X2, class A-3, class A-3-1, class A-3-2, class A-3-X1,class A-3-X2, class A-S, class A-S-1, class A-S-2, class A-S-X1, class A-S-X2, class B, class B-1, class B-2, class B-X1, class B-X2, class C, class C-1, class C-2, class C-X1 and class C-X2 are exchangeable certificates. Each class of exchangeable certificates may be exchanged for the corresponding classes of exchangeable certificates, and vice versa. The dollar denomination of each of the received classes of certificates must be equal to the dollar denomination of each of the surrendered classes of certificates. (c) Notional amount and interest only. (d) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144A. (e) Eligible Vertical-risk retention interest representing approximately 5.0% of the initial certificate balance of each class. Transaction Summary The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the trust, the primary assets of which are 44 loans secured by 66 commercial properties with an aggregate principal balance of $1,030,287,829 as of the cutoff date. The loans were contributed to the trust by JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC and Bank of America, National Association. The master servicer is Trimont LLC, the primary servicer is Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, and the special servicer is Torchlight Loan Services, LLC. Computershare Trust Company, National Association is the certificate administrator. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is the trustee. The operating advisor and asset representations reviewer is Pentalpha Surveillance LLC. These certificates follow a sequential paydown structure. KEY RATING DRIVERS Fitch Net Cash Flow: Fitch performed cash flow analysis on 20 loans totaling 76.8% of the pool by balance. Fitch's resulting aggregate net cash flow (NCF) of $104.0 million represents a 16.6% decline from the issuer's aggregate underwritten NCF of $124.7 million. Higher Fitch Leverage: The pool's Fitch-estimated leverage is slightly higher than in recent multiborrower transactions rated by Fitch. The pool's Fitch loan-to-value ratio (LTV) of 102.0% is higher than the 2025 YTD five-year multiborrower transaction average of 100.2% and the 2024 five-year multiborrower transaction average of 95.2%. The pool's Fitch NCF debt yield (DY) of 10.1% is higher than the 2025 YTD average of 9.7% but in line with the 2024 average of 10.2%. Investment-Grade Credit Opinion Loans: One loan, Vertex HQ, representing 8.7% of the pool by balance, received an investment-grade credit opinion of 'A-sf*' on a standalone basis. The pool's total credit opinion percentage is considerably lower than the 2025 YTD and 2024 averages of 11.6% and 12.6%, respectively. Excluding credit opinion and co-op loans, the pool's Fitch LTV and DY are 105.6% and 9.8%, respectively, compared with the equivalent 2025 YTD LTV and DY averages of 104.6% and 9.3%, respectively. Lower Pool Concentration: The pool is less concentrated than that of recent five-year multiborrower transactions rated by Fitch. The top 10 loans represent 55.6% of the pool, which is lower than both the 2025 YTD and 2024 averages of 61.8% and 60.2%, respectively. Fitch measures loan concentration risk with an effective loan count, which accounts for both the number and size of loans in the pool. The pool's effective loan count is 26.4. Fitch views diversity as a key mitigant to idiosyncratic risk. Fitch raises the overall loss for pools with effective loan counts below 40. Shorter-Duration Loans: Loans with five-year terms constitute 100% of the pool, whereas Fitch-rated multiborrower transactions have historically included mostly loans with 10-year terms. Fitch's historical loan performance analysis shows that five-year loans have a modestly lower probability of default (PD) than 10-year loans, all else being equal. This is mainly attributed to the shorter window of exposure to potential adverse economic conditions. Fitch considered the loan performance regression in its analysis of the pool RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Declining cash flow decreases property value and capacity to meet its debt service obligations. The list below indicates the model implied rating sensitivity to changes to the same variable, Fitch NCF: - Original Rating: 'AAAsf'/'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'/'B-sf'; - 10% NCF Decline: 'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'/'CCC+sf'/less than 'CCCsf'. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Improvement in cash flow increases property value and capacity to meet its debt service obligations. The list below indicates the model implied rating sensitivity to changes in one variable, Fitch NCF: - Original Rating: 'AAAsf'/'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'/'B-sf'; - 10% NCF Increase: 'AAAsf'/'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BB+sf'/'BB-sf'. USE OF THIRD PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G -10 Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E (Form 15E) as prepared by Ernst & Young LLP. The third-party due diligence described in Form 15E focused on a comparison and re-computation of certain characteristics with respect to each of the mortgage loans. Fitch considered this information in its analysis, and it did not have an effect on Fitch's analysis or conclusions. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. BARROW HANLEY II: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- (sf) Rating on E-RR Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to the replacement class A-1R, A-2R, B-R, C-R, D-1RR, D-2RR, and E-RR debt and proposed new class X debt from Barrow Hanley CLO II Ltd./Barrow Hanley CLO II LLC, a CLO managed by BH Credit Management LLC that was originally issued in September 2023 and underwent a partial refinancing in March 2025. The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 17, 2025. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings. On the Oct. 20, 2025, refinancing date, the proceeds from the replacement and proposed new debt will be used to redeem the existing debt. S&P said, "At that time, we expect to withdraw our ratings on the existing class A-1, A-2, B, C, D-R, and E-R debt and assign ratings to the replacement class A-1R, A-2R, B-R, C-R, D-1RR, D-2RR, and E-RR debt and proposed new class X debt. However, if the refinancing doesn't occur, we may affirm our ratings on the existing debt and withdraw our preliminary ratings on the replacement and proposed new debt." The replacement and proposed new debt will be issued via a proposed supplemental indenture, which outlines the terms of the replacement debt. According to the proposed supplemental indenture: -- The non-call period will be extended to Oct. 20, 2027. -- The reinvestment period will be extended to Oct. 20, 2030. -- The legal final maturity dates for the replacement debt and the existing subordinated notes will be extended to March 31, 2038. -- The target initial par amount will increase to $500 million. There will be no additional effective date or ramp-up period, and the first payment date following the refinancing is Jan. 20, 2026. -- New class X debt will be issued on the refinancing date and is expected to be paid down using interest proceeds during the first eight payment dates in equal installments, beginning with the January 2026 payment date. -- The required minimum overcollateralization will be amended. -- No additional subordinated notes will be issued on the refinancing date. S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction data 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 the recoveries upon default under various interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios. Our analysis also considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or ultimate principal to each of the rated tranches. "We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings assigned to the debt remain consistent with the credit enhancement available to support them and take rating actions as we deem necessary." Preliminary Ratings Assigned Barrow Hanley CLO II Ltd./ Barrow Hanley CLO II LLC (Refinancing And Extension) Class X, $3.60 million: AAA (sf) Class A-1R, $300.00 million: AAA (sf) Class A-2R, $10.00 million: AAA (sf) Class B-R, $70.00 million: AA (sf) Class C-R (deferrable), $30.00 million: A (sf) Class D-1RR (deferrable), $25.00 million: BBB- (sf) Class D-2RR (deferrable), $6.25 million: BBB- (sf) Class E-RR (deferrable), $17.50 million: BB- (sf) Other Debt Barrow Hanley CLO II Ltd./ Barrow Hanley CLO II LLC (Refinancing And Extension) Subordinated notes, $39.60 million: NR NR--Not rated. BAUHINIA ILBS 3: Moody's Assigns Ba1 Rating to $16MM Class D Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ Moody's Ratings has assigned definitive ratings to five classes of notes issued by Bauhinia ILBS 3 Limited (the Issuer). The complete rating action is as follows: Issuer: Bauhinia ILBS 3 Limited US$117,000,000 Class A1-SU Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 19 October 2045 (the "Class A1-SU Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) US$229,900,000 Class A1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 19 October 2045 (the "Class A1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) US$32,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 19 October 2045 (the "Class B Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) US$33,000,000 Class C Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 19 October 2045 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A3 (sf) US$16,000,000 Class D Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 19 October 2045 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba1 (sf) The Class A1-SU Notes, Class A1 Notes, Class B Notes, Class C Notes and Class D Notes are referred to herein as the "Rated Notes." In addition to the Rated Notes, the issuer issued US$22,594,000 of subordinated floating rate notes. RATINGS RATIONALE This is a project finance and corporate infrastructure collateralized loan obligation (CLO) cash flow securitization. The notes are initially collateralized by a portfolio of 33 bank-syndicated senior secured project finance loans and corporate infrastructure loans and bonds to 28 projects predominantly in Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, the Americas and Europe. The portfolio is not expected to be actively traded during the replenishment period. To evaluate the credit quality of the initial portfolio, Moody's assigned credit estimates to most assets, while a handful of assets are assessed by reference to Moody's ratings. Moody's ratings of the Rated Notes have taken into account the following key characteristics of the initial target portfolio at closing. 1. High credit quality portfolio: The WARF of the identified portfolio is 799 before applying the credit estimate notching adjustments, and 926 after applying the credit estimate notching adjustments. The WARF of the project finance loan portion of the portfolio is 781 before applying the credit estimate notching adjustments, and 952 after applying the credit estimate notching adjustments. The WARF of the corporate infrastructure loans and bonds portion of the portfolio is 851 before and after applying the credit estimate notching adjustments. 2. Mostly project finance loans with high asset recovery prospects: The weighted average mean recovery rate of the portfolio assumption is about 63.1%. The portfolio consists of predominantly bank-syndicated senior secured project finance loans (73.7% of the pool), which historically have had high recovery rates. The remaining portion of the pool consists of corporate infrastructure loans and bonds (26.3%). About 9.3% of the portfolio benefit from external credit support provided by export credit agencies or insurers and 3.0% of the portfolio benefit from credit support from highly rated entity, which will improve loan recovery prospects. 3. High project and sector concentrations: With only 28 projects, the portfolio is highly concentrated, with a large exposure to a few projects and in sub-sectors such as power renewables solar (21.5%), oil (21.0%), LNG (15.3%), gas distribution or transmission (11.9%) and data centers (11.5%). Certain projects also involve common off-takers, operators or sponsors. The exposures to the two largest obligor groups are about 10.7% and 9.0% of the portfolio, respectively, greater than the subordination of the Class C and D Notes. There are five other projects which each of them comprises about 5% or more of the portfolio. A significant credit deterioration of one of the largest projects would have a negative rating impact on the Rated Notes. 4. High country risk: Of the identified portfolio, about 38% portfolio exposure is to uncovered exposures (portions of assets not covered by export credit agencies or insurers) of projects located in countries with single-A or below foreign-currency country ceilings (FCC). The geographical distribution of the portfolio is widely diversified across 12 countries in different regions, and exposure to top three countries which have non-Aaa FCC are Brazil (11.6%, Baa1 FCC), India (9.3%, A3 FCC) and Mexico (9.0%, A1 FCC). The subordination of the Class C Notes is 8.6%, which is lower than the uncovered exposure to projects located in Brazil (11.6%, A3 local-currency country ceiling). 5. High participation exposures: The issuer invested in a portion of the portfolio via funded participation agreements with either The Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation Limited (HKMC, rated Aa3 with stable outlook), the sponsor and collateral manager (16.5% exposure), or with rated bank(s) (6.8% exposure) at closing, instead of being the lender of record. The issuer will rely on HKMC or the rated participation bank(s) to enforce its rights against the borrowers and be exposed to the credit risk of HKMC and these rated bank(s). This loan participation risk has been taken into account in the modeling. 6. Fixed rate and non-USD assets hedged with non-balance guaranteed swaps: assets from four borrowers, representing 13.8% of the identified portfolio are either not denominated in US dollars (12.0%) or paying fixed US dollars interest rate (1.8%). Cross-currency and fixed-floating interest rate swaps have been entered with two swap counterparties to hedge the asset-liability risk. The swaps are not balance-guaranteed, and the issuer may need to use interest or principal collections to make marked-to-market swap termination payment if the swap is terminated early following asset default or prepayment. This risk has been taken into account in the modeling. 7. Floating rate basis mismatch: The issuer is exposed to floating rate basis mismatch as all the rated notes interest payments are linked to daily compounded overnight Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR), while (on an after-swap basis) 67% of the initial target portfolio are linked to daily compounded overnight SOFR and 33% are linked to term SOFR. 8. Construction risk: Three data center projects, representing around 11.5% of the portfolio, are in various stages of construction, including data centers that are either in advanced stages of construction or operational. The credit estimates of these loans factor in the construction risk. Moody's used a loan-by-loan Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's CDOROM(TM) to model the portfolio loss distribution for this project finance CLO. At a portfolio level, Moody's note that: 1. The WARF of the portfolio, after applying the credit estimate notching adjustments, is 926. 2. The weighted average mean recovery rate assumption of the portfolio (before adjustment for swap termination) is about 63.1%. 3. The average asset correlation of the portfolio is about 23.8%. Moody's have assumed three years of recovery delay for the project finance loans and 1.5 years of recovery delay for the corporate infrastructure loans and bonds. In addition to the quantitative factors that Moody's model, Moody's have also considered qualitative factors, including the structural protections in the transaction, the risk of an event of default, the legal environment and specific documentation features. All information available, including macroeconomic forecasts, inputs from Moody's other analytical groups, market factors, and judgments regarding the nature and severity of credit stress on the transaction, influenced the rating decision. The target portfolio was fully acquired on the closing date, with all loans fully drawn. The transaction has a three-year reinvestment period, during which the collateral manager may direct the issuer to use unscheduled principal collections, undrawn lending commitments that are cancelled or have expired, principal amount of loans refinanced, and proceeds from the sale of credit-risk, defaulted or non-eligible sustainability assets to purchase new assets. The purchase of new assets is subject to certain conditions, including the satisfaction of the interest and par coverage tests. After the reinvestment period, the collateral manager may no longer direct the issuer to purchase additional assets, and unscheduled principal collections and proceeds from the sale of assets will be used to amortize the notes in sequential order. The transaction incorporates interest and par coverage tests that, if triggered, divert interest and principal proceeds to pay down the notes in the order of seniority. Apart from this, the issuer will use scheduled principal collection to amortize the Rated Notes in sequential order. The Class A1-SU Notes and Class A1 Notes rank pari passu to each other. This is the third CLO transaction of HKMC, the collateral manager of the transaction. The CLO transaction is managed by the Infrastructure Financing and Securitisation Division of HKMC. HKMC was established in Hong Kong SAR, China in 1997 and is wholly owned by the Hong Kong Government through the Exchange Fund, with reported total assets of HKD221.8 billion as of the end of December 2024. HKMC invested in the subordinated notes issued by the issuer. HKMC provided a bridging sponsor loan to the issuer at closing to fund the transaction's fees and expenses reserve account, and to support the liquidity of the issuer in meeting interest payments on the rated notes on the first payment date. In addition, HKMC provided a multipurpose sponsor loan to the issuer at closing to fund payments to procure or renew risk protections as and when necessary to safeguard the issuer against risks associated with the underlying assets, or to settle hedging related payments. RATINGS METHODOLOGY: The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Project Finance and Infrastructure Asset CLOs" published in July 2024. Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the ratings: The performance of the Rated Notes is sensitive to the performance of the underlying portfolio and the credit quality of the counterparties to the transaction, which in turn depend on uncertain economic and credit conditions that may change. The collateral manager's investment decisions and management of the transaction will also affect the performance of the Rated Notes. BBCMS 2022-C17: Fitch Affirms B+ Rating on 2 Tranches ----------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has affirmed all classes from two U.S. CMBS 2022 vintage conduit transactions, BBCMS Mortgage Trust 2022-C16 (BBCMS 2022-C16) and BBCMS Mortgage Trust 2022-C17 (BBCMS 2022-C17). The Rating Outlooks for nine classes have been revised to Stable from Negative across the two transactions. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- BBCMS 2022-C17 A-1 054976AA3 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-2 054976AB1 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-3 054976AC9 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-4 054976AD7 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-5 054976AE5 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-S 054976AJ4 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-SB 054976AF2 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf B 054976AK1 LT AA-sf Affirmed AA-sf C 054976AL9 LT A-sf Affirmed A-sf D 054976AR6 LT BBBsf Affirmed BBBsf E 054976AT2 LT BBB-sf Affirmed BBB-sf F 054976AV7 LT B+sf Affirmed B+sf G-RR 054976AX3 LT B-sf Affirmed B-sf X-A 054976AG0 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf X-B 054976AH8 LT A-sf Affirmed A-sf X-D 054976AM7 LT BBB-sf Affirmed BBB-sf X-F 054976AP0 LT B+sf Affirmed B+sf BBCMS 2022-C16 A-1 05552YAA4 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-2 05552YAB2 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-3 05552YAC0 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-4 05552YAD8 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-5 05552YAE6 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-S 05552YAJ5 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-SB 05552YAF3 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf B 05552YAK2 LT AA-sf Affirmed AA-sf C 05552YAL0 LT A-sf Affirmed A-sf D 05552YAX4 LT BBBsf Affirmed BBBsf E 05552YAZ9 LT BBB-sf Affirmed BBB-sf F 05552YBB1 LT BB-sf Affirmed BB-sf G 05552YBD7 LT B-sf Affirmed B-sf X-A 05552YAG1 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf X-B 05552YAH9 LT A-sf Affirmed A-sf X-D 05552YAM8 LT BBB-sf Affirmed BBB-sf X-F 05552YAP1 LT BB-sf Affirmed BB-sf X-G 05552YAR7 LT B-sf Affirmed B-sf KEY RATING DRIVERS Performance and 'Bsf' Loss Expectations: Deal-level 'Bsf' rating case losses are 3.5% (compared to 3.7% at the prior rating action) for BBCMS 2022-C16 and 4.7% (unchanged from the prior rating action) for BBCMS 2022-C17. Fitch Loans of Concern (FLOCs) comprise 10 loans (21.3% of the pool) in BBCMS 2022-C16, one of which is a performing specially serviced loan (6.1%), and nine loans (12.1%) in BBCMS 2022-C17, including the same performing specially serviced loan (2.2%) in BBCMS 2022-C16 and one other delinquent loan (0.7%). The affirmations across both transactions reflect overall stable pool loss expectations since the prior rating action. The Outlook revisions to Negative from Stable factor in performance stabilization of the Houston Multifamily Portfolio loan (7.1%) and the anticipated return of the specially serviced Yorkshire & Lexington Tower loan (6.1%) back to the master servicer in the BBCMS 2022-C16 transaction, and improved performance of A&R Hospitality Portfolio (4.4%) and Village Crossroads (2.6%) loans in the BBCMS 2022-C17 transaction. Largest FLOCs and Contributors to Loss: The largest FLOC in BBCMS 2022-C16 is the Houston Multifamily Portfolio loan (7.1% of the pool), secured by five garden-style apartment properties totaling 1,558 units in Houston, TX. Portfolio performance was significantly affected due to the pandemic but has shown recovery and stabilization. According to the borrower, many tenants were evicted for non-payment after the eviction moratorium ended. Additionally, the borrower is investing approximately $12.5 million to restore units to marketable condition as they needed extensive work following the evictions. Occupancy fell to 74% at YE 2023, improved to 92% at YE 2024, and was 87% as of March 2025. The YE 2023 and 2024 NOI was insufficient to cover debt service (DSCR of 0.46x and 0.98x, respectively). Despite the performance declines, the loan has remained current. Fitch's 'Bsf' rating case loss of 3.4% (prior to concentration adjustments) reflects an 8.75% cap rate and 5% stress to Fitch's sustainable cash flow derived at issuance. The next largest FLOC is the Yorkshire & Lexington Towers loan (6.1% of BBCMS 2022-C16 and 2.2% of BBCMS 2022-C17), which is secured by two multifamily buildings totaling 808 units and located in the Upper East Side neighborhood of Manhattan. The loan was transferred to special servicing in November 2024 following a technical default, as the borrower failed to fulfill its obligation to fund a reserve account. According to the servicer, the loan is paid current. The requirement for reserve funding is triggered by not achieving a 5% debt yield on the entire $714 million debt stack, which includes four mezzanine loans. The special servicer is finalizing a pre-negotiation agreement with the borrower and the four mezzanine lenders to determine a workout plan. As of YE 2024, the properties were 94% occupied, compared to 91% at YE 2023 and at the time of issuance. The servicer-reported NOI DSCR was 2.19x as of YE 2024, compared with 1.63x at YE 2023 and 2.05x at YE 2022. Due to the strong asset quality and location, Yorkshire & Lexington Towers remains a credit opinion loan, consistent with issuance. Fitch's analysis incorporates a 7% cap rate and Fitch's sustainable cash flow at issuance of $28.5 million. The largest contributor to loss expectations in BBCMS 2022-C17 is the A&R Hospitality Portfolio (4.4%), which is secured by a portfolio of eight extended stay hotels in Alabama and one extended stay hotel in Florida, totaling 924 rooms. The servicer-reported TTM June 2025 NOI DSCR improved to 1.78x from 1.45x at YE 2024 and 1.56x at YE 2023. The TTM June 2024 NCF remains slightly lower than Fitch's issuance expectations, primarily due to an increase in insurance expenses. Fitch's 'Bsf' rating case loss of 10.3% (prior to concentration adjustments) reflects an 11.50% cap rate to the TTM June 2024 NOI. The sole delinquent loan in BBCMS 2022-C22 is Frisch's Commissary Kitchen (0.7%), which is secured by a 77,286-sf warehouse/distribution property located in Cincinnati, OH. The loan transferred to special servicing in March 2025 when the single tenant (Frisch's) terminated its lease agreement after going insolvent in 2024. The servicer is dual tracking discussions for a deed-in-lieu with a foreclosure complaint and receivership. Fitch's 'Bsf' rating case loss of 55.4% (prior to concentration adjustments) reflects a stress to an updated appraisal resulting in a recovery value of $37/sf. Minimal Changes to Credit Enhancement (CE): As of the September 2025 distribution date, the BBCMS 2022-C16 and BBCMS 2022-C17 transactions have been paid down by 1% and 0.5%, respectively. No loans have defeased in either transaction. For BBBCMS 2022-C16, interest shortfalls of approximately $2,000 and $45,000 are affecting the non-rated vertical risk retention VRRC and class J, respectively. For BBBCMS 2022-C17, interest shortfalls of approximately $2,000 and $59,000 are affecting the non-rated vertical risk retention VRR and class H-RR, respectively. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Downgrades to 'AAAsf' rated classes are not expected due to expected increasing CE from continued amortization and loan repayments, but may occur if deal-level losses increase significantly and/or interest shortfalls occur or are expected to occur. Downgrades to the 'AAsf' and 'Asf' rated categories are not expected but could occur should deal-level losses increase significantly from outsized losses on larger FLOCs or if more loans than expected default at or prior to maturity. Downgrades to the 'BBBsf', 'BBsf', and 'Bsf' categories are possible with further loan performance deterioration of the FLOCs, additional transfers to special servicing, and/or with greater certainty of losses on the FLOCs. Downgrades would be possible if loan performance does not further stabilize on the FLOCs, particularly Houton Multifamily Portfolio in BBCMS 2022-C16 and A&R Hospitality Portfolio in BBCMS 2022-C17. Additionally, in BBCMS 2022-C17, downgrades to these rating categories are also possible with lower-than-expected recoveries from the specially serviced Frisch's Commissary Kitchen loan. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrades to 'AAsf' and 'Asf' rated categories may be possible with improved CE and/or defeasance, coupled with stable pool-level loss expectations from performance stabilization of the FLOCs. Upgrades to 'BBBsf' rated categories would be limited based on sensitivity to concentrations or the potential for future concentration. Classes would not be upgraded above 'AA+' if there is likelihood for interest shortfalls. Upgrades to the 'BBsf' and 'Bsf' rated categories are not likely until the later years in a transaction and only if the performance of the remaining pool is stable, recoveries on the FLOCs are better than expected and there is sufficient CE to the classes. 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. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. BENEFIT STREET XVIII: S&P Assigns BB- (sf) Rating on E-R2 Notes --------------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the replacement class A-R2, B-R2, C-R2, D-1-R2, D-2-R2, and E-R2 debt from Benefit Street Partners CLO XVIII Ltd./Benefit Street Partners CLO XVIII LLC, a CLO managed by BSP CLO Management LLC, a subsidiary of Franklin Templeton, that was originally issued in Nov. 2021. At the same time, S&P withdrew its ratings on the previous class A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, D-R, and E-R debt following payment in full on the Oct. 15, 2025, refinancing date. The replacement debt was issued via a supplemental indenture, which outlines the terms of the replacement debt. According to the supplemental indenture: -- The replacement class A-R2, B-R2, C-R2, D-1-R2, D-2-R2, and E-R2 debt was issued at a lower spread over three-month CME Term SOFR than the previous debt. -- The replacement class A-R2, B-R2, C-R2, D-1-R2, D-2-R2, and E-R2 debt was issued at a floating spread, replacing the current floating spread. -- The non-call period was extended to Oct. 15, 2027. -- The reinvestment period was extended to Oct. 15, 2030. -- The legal final maturity date for the replacement debt and the existing subordinated notes was extended to Oct. 15, 2038. -- The required minimum overcollateralization and interest coverage ratios were amended. -- An additional $17.52 million in subordinated notes was issued on the refinancing date. -- The target initial par amount was updated to $600 million, and the first payment date following the refinancing is Jan. 15, 2026. S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction data 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 the recoveries upon default under various interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios. Our analysis also considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or ultimate principal to each rated tranche. "We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings assigned to the debt remain consistent with the credit enhancement available to support them and take rating actions as we deem necessary." Ratings Assigned Benefit Street Partners CLO XVIII Ltd./ Benefit Street Partners CLO XVIII LLC Class A-R2, $384.00 million: AAA (sf) Class B-R2, $72.00 million: AA (sf) Class C-R2 (deferrable), $36.00 million: A (sf) Class D-1-R2 (deferrable), $36.00 million: BBB- (sf) Class D-2-R2 (deferrable), $6.00 million: BBB- (sf) Class E-R2 (deferrable), $18.00 million: BB- (sf) Ratings Withdrawn Benefit Street Partners CLO XVIII Ltd./ Benefit Street Partners CLO XVIII LLC Class A-1-R to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class A-2-R to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class B-R to NR from 'AA (sf)' Class C-R (deferrable) to NR from 'A (sf)' Class D-R (deferrable) to NR from 'BBB- (sf)' Class E-R (deferrable) to NR from 'BB- (sf)' Other Debt Benefit Street Partners CLO XVIII Ltd./ Benefit Street Partners CLO XVIII LLC Subordinated notes, $70.87 million: NR NR--Not rated. BIRCH GROVE 7: Fitch Assigns 'BBsf' Rating on Class E-R Notes ------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Outlooks to the Birch Grove CLO 7, Ltd. reset transaction. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- Birch Grove CLO 7 Ltd. A-1-R LT NRsf New Rating A-R-L LT NRsf New Rating A-2 09077RAC3 LT PIFsf Paid In Full AAAsf A-2-R LT AAAsf New Rating B 09077RAE9 LT PIFsf Paid In Full AAsf B-R LT AA+sf New Rating C 09077RAG4 LT PIFsf Paid In Full Asf C-R LT A+sf New Rating D 09077RAJ8 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BBB-sf D-1-R LT BBB-sf New Rating D-2-R LT BBB-sf New Rating E 09077QAA9 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BB-sf E-R LT BBsf New Rating F-R LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary Birch Grove CLO 7 Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that is managed by Birch Grove Capital LP. The CLO was originally rated by Fitch and closed in November 2023. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $460 million of primarily first-lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 95.51% first-lien senior secured loans and has a weighted average recovery assumption of 74.63%. Fitch stressed the indicative portfolio by assuming a higher portfolio concentration of assets with lower recovery prospects and further reduced recovery assumptions for higher rating stresses. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 39% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity required by industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting to the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-2-R, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R, between 'B+sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-1-R, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2-R and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E-R. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-2-R notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R, 'AA+sf' for class C-R, 'A+sf' for class D-1-R, and 'Asf' for class D-2-R and 'BBB+sf' for class E-R. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Birch Grove CLO 7, Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, programme, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. BIRCH GROVE 7: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to $250,000 Cl. F-R Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ Moody's Ratings has assigned ratings to two classes of CLO refinancing notes and one class of refinancing loans (the Refinancing Debts) incurred by Birch Grove CLO 7 Ltd. (the Issuer): US$239,800,000 Class A-1-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2038, Assigned Aaa (sf) US$50,000,000 Class A-R Loans maturing 2038, Assigned Aaa (sf) US$250,000 Class F-R Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2038, Assigned B3 (sf) RATINGS RATIONALE The rationale for the ratings is based on Moody's methodologies and considers all relevant risks particularly those associated with the CLO's portfolio and structure. 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. At least 90% of the portfolio must consist of first lien senior secured loans and up to 10% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans, unsecured loans and bonds. Birch Grove Capital LP (the Manager) will continue to 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 extended five year reinvestment period. Thereafter, subject to certain restrictions, the Manager may reinvest unscheduled principal payments and proceeds from sales of credit risk assets. In addition to the issuance of the Refinancing Debts and the other classes of secured 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; and changes to the base matrix and modifiers. Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in the "Collateralized Loan Obligations" rating methodology published in October 2025. The key model inputs Moody's used in Moody's analysis, such as par, weighted average rating factor, diversity score and weighted average recovery rate, are based on Moody's published methodology and could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. For modeling purposes, Moody's used the following base-case assumptions: Portfolio par: $460,000,000 Diversity Score: 75 Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 3101 Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.00% Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 45.00% Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years Methodology Underlying the Rating Action: The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in October 2025. Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the ratings: The performance of the Refinancing Debts is subject to uncertainty. The performance of the Refinancing Debts 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 Debts. BLACKROCK MT. HOOD X: S&P Assigns BB- (sf) Rating on Cl. E-R Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the replacement class A-R, A-L-R, B-R, C-R, D-1R, D-2R, and E-R debt and new class X-R debt from BlackRock Mt. Hood CLO X LLC, a CLO managed by BlackRock Capital Investment Advisors LLC that was originally issued in May 2023. At the same time, S&P withdrew its ratings on the previous class X, A-1, A-2, A-L1, A-L2, B-1, B-2, C, D, and E debt following payment in full on the Oct. 17, 2025, refinancing date. The replacement debt was issued via a supplemental indenture, which outlines the terms of the replacement debt. According to the supplemental indenture: -- The non-call period was extended to Oct. 17, 2027. -- The reinvestment period was extended to Oct. 20, 2029. -- The legal final maturity date for the replacement debt and the variable dividend notes was extended to October 2037. -- No additional assets were purchased on the Oct. 17, 2025, refinancing date, and the target initial par amount was updated to $345 million. There was no additional effective date or ramp-up period and the first payment date following the refinancing is Jan. 20, 2026. -- New class X-R debt was issued on the refinancing date. This debt is expected to be paid down using interest proceeds during the first 22 payment dates in equal installments of $0.81 million, beginning with the Jan. 20, 2026, payment date. -- The required minimum overcollateralization and interest coverage ratios were amended. S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction data 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 the recoveries upon default under various interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios. Our analysis also considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or ultimate principal to each rated tranche. "We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings assigned to the debt remain consistent with the credit enhancement available to support them and take rating actions as we deem necessary." Ratings Assigned BlackRock Mt. Hood CLO X LLC Class X-R, $17.90 million: AAA (sf) Class A-R, $150.10 million: AAA (sf) Class A-L-R loans(i), $50.00 million: AAA (sf) Class B-R, $34.50 million: AA (sf) Class C-R (deferrable), $27.60 million: A (sf) Class D-1R (deferrable), 17.25 million: BBB (sf) Class D-2R (deferrable), $6.04 million: BBB- (sf) Class E-R (deferrable), $18.11 million: BB- (sf) Ratings Withdrawn BlackRock Mt. Hood CLO X LLC Class X to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class A-1 to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class A-2 to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class A-L1 to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class A-L2 to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class B-1 to NR from 'AA (sf)' Class B-2 to NR from 'AA (sf)' Class C (deferrable) to NR from 'A- (sf)' Class D (deferrable) to NR from 'BBB- (sf)' Class E (deferrable) to NR from 'BB- (sf)' Other Debt BlackRock Mt. Hood CLO X LLC Variable dividend notes, $64.02 million: NR (i)The class A-L-R debt will be issued in loan form and can be converted, all or a portion, into class A-R notes. The class A-R notes cannot be converted into class A-L-R loans. NR--Not rated. BLUEMOUNTAIN CLO XXXIV: S&P Affirms BB- (sf) Rating on Cl. E Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the replacement class A-R, B-1R, C-R, and D-R debt from BlueMountain CLO XXXIV Ltd./BlueMountain CLO XXXIV LLC, a CLO managed by Sound Point Capital Management LP. that was originally issued in April 2022. At the same time, S&P withdrew its ratings on the previous class A, B-1, C, and D debt following payment in full on the Oct. 15, 2025, refinancing date. S&P also affirmed its ratings on the class B-2 and E debt, which were not refinanced. The replacement debt was issued via a supplemental indenture, which outlines the terms of the replacement debt. According to the supplemental indenture: -- The non-call period was extended to July 15, 2026. -- No additional assets were purchased on the Oct. 15, 2025, refinancing date, and the target initial par amount remains the same. There was no additional effective date or ramp-up period, and the first payment date following the refinancing is Oct. 20, 2025. -- No additional subordinated notes were issued on the refinancing date. S&P said, "On a standalone basis, our cash flow analysis indicated a lower rating on the class E debt (which was not refinanced). However, we affirmed our 'BB- (sf)' rating on the class E debt after considering the margin of failure and the relatively stable overcollateralization ratio since our last rating action on the transaction. However, any further credit deterioration or lack of improvement could lead to potential negative rating actions in the future." Replacement And Previous Debt Issuances Replacement debt -- Class A-R, $315.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.15% -- Class B-1R, $47.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.60% -- Class C-R (deferrable), $30.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.90% -- Class D (deferrable), $30.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 3.55% Previous debt -- Class A, $315.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.36% -- Class B-1, $47.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 2.05% -- Class C (deferrable), $30.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 2.40% -- Class D (deferrable), $30.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 3.75% S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction data 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 the recoveries upon default under various interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios. Our analysis also considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or ultimate principal to each of the rated tranches. The results of the cash flow analysis (and other qualitative factors, as applicable) demonstrated, in our view, that the outstanding rated classes all have adequate credit enhancement available at the rating levels associated with the rating actions. "We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings assigned to the debt remain consistent with the credit enhancement available to support them and take rating actions as we deem necessary." Ratings Assigned BlueMountain CLO XXXIV Ltd./BlueMountain CLO XXXIV LLC Class A-R, $315.00 million: AAA (sf) Class B-1R, $47.00 million: AA (sf) Class C-R (deferrable), $30.00 million: A (sf) Class D-R (deferrable), $30.00 million: BBB- (sf) Ratings Withdrawn BlueMountain CLO XXXIV Ltd./BlueMountain CLO XXXIV LLC Class A to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class B-1 to NR from 'AA (sf)' Class C to NR from 'A (sf)' Class D to NR from 'BBB- (sf)' Ratings Affirmed BlueMountain CLO XXXIV Ltd./BlueMountain CLO XXXIV LLC Class B-2: AA (sf) Class E: BB- (sf) Other Debt BlueMountain CLO XXXIV Ltd./BlueMountain CLO XXXIV LLC Subordinated notes, $43.40 million: NR NR--Not rated. BMO 2025-C13: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Final Rating on Class J-RR Certs ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned final ratings and Rating Outlooks to BMO 2025-C13 Mortgage Trust, commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2025-C13 as follows: - $4,159,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $140,000,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $417,660,000 class A-5 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $8,116,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $569,935,000a class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $154,045,000a class X-B 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $84,472,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $40,710,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $28,863,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $8,142,000ab class X-D 'BBB+sf'; Outlook Stable; - $8,142,000b class D 'BBB+sf'; Outlook Stable; - $11,847,000bc class E-RR 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable; - $8,142,000bc class F-RR 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $13,230,000bc class G-RR 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $12,213,000bc class J-RR 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable. Fitch does not rate the following classes: - $11,195,000bc class K-RR; - $25,444,332bc class L-RR. (a) Notional amount and interest only. (b) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144a. (c) Horizontal risk retention. Since Fitch published its expected ratings on Sept. 22, 2025, the following changes have occurred. - The balances for classes A-4 and A-5 were finalized. At the time the expected ratings were published, the initial aggregate certificate balance of the A-4 class was expected to be in the range of $0-$250,000,000, subject to a variance of plus or minus 5%. The final class balance for class A-4 is $140,000,000. The initial aggregate certificate balance of the A-5 class was expected to be in the range of $307,660,000 to $557,660,000, subject to a variance of plus or minus 5%. The final class balance for class A-5 is $417,660,000. Transaction Summary The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the trust, the primary assets of which are 47 loans secured by 89 commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of $814,193,333 as of the cutoff date. The loans were contributed to the trust by Bank of Montreal, German American Capital Corporation, KeyBank National Association, Citi Real Estate Funding Inc., Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Zions Bancorporation, N.A., BSPRT CMBS Finance, LLC, LMF Commercial, LLC, Starwood Mortgage Capital LLC and Greystone Commercial Mortgage Capital LLC. The master servicer is Midland Loan Services and the special servicer is Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC. KeyBank National Association is the primary servicer with respect to 15 of the mortgage loans (12.4%) to be sold by itself, in its capacity as a mortgage loan seller, to the depositor. The operating advisor is Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, the trustee is Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB and the certificate administrator is Citibank, N.A. The certificates are expected to follow a sequential paydown structure. KEY RATING DRIVERS Fitch Net Cash Flow (NCF): Fitch performed cash flow analyses on 28 loans totaling 84.4% of the pool balance. Fitch's aggregate pool NCF of $82.6 million represents a 15.1% decline from the issuer's underwritten aggregate pool NCF of $97.2 million. Fitch Leverage: The pool exhibits higher leverage than recent 10-year multiborrower transactions rated by Fitch, with a Fitch loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 97.9%, compared to the 2025 YTD and 2024 averages of 87.5% and 84.5%, respectively. The pool's Fitch NCF debt yield (DY) of 10.1% is lower the 2025 YTD and 2024 averages of 12.3% and12.3%, respectively. Excluding credit opinion loans, the pool's Fitch LTV and DY are 103.4% and 9.9%, respectively, compared to the equivalent 2025 YTD LTV and DY averages of 97.6% and 10.0%, respectively. Investment Grade Credit Opinion Loans: Three loans, representing 15.8% of the pool by balance received an investment-grade credit opinion. BioMed MIT Portfolio (9.5% of the pool) received a standalone credit opinion of 'A-sf*'. Washington Square (5.0% of the pool) received a standalone credit opinion of 'BBB-sf*'. Rentar Plaza (1.2% of the pool) received a standalone credit opinion of 'BBB+sf*'. The pool's total credit opinion percentage is considerably lower than the 2025 YTD and 2024 averages of 23.7% and 21.4%, respectively. Lower Loan Concentration: The pool is less concentrated than recent 10-year multiborrower transactions rated by Fitch. The top 10 loans make up 57.2% of the pool, which is lower than the 2025 YTD average of 63.5% and the 2024 average of 63.0%. Fitch measures loan concentration risk using an effective loan count, which accounts for both the number and size of loans in the pool. The pool's effective loan count is 22.5. Fitch views diversity as a key mitigant to idiosyncratic risk. Fitch raises the overall loss for pools with effective loan counts below 40. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Declining cash flow decreases property value and capacity to meet its debt service obligations. The table below indicates the model-implied rating sensitivity to changes in one variable, Fitch NCF: - Original Rating: 'AAAsf'/'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A sf'/'BBB+sf'/'BBBsf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'; - 10% NCF Decline: 'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BBsf'/'BB-sf'/ 'B-sf'. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Improvement in cash flow increases property value and capacity to meet its debt service obligations. The table below indicates the model-implied rating sensitivity to changes to in one variable, Fitch NCF: - Original Rating: 'AAAsf'/'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBB+sf'/'BBBsf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'; - 10% NCF Increase: 'AAAsf'/'AAAsf'/'AA+sf'/'A+sf'/'Asf'/'BBB+sf'/'BBBsf'/'BB+sf'. USE OF THIRD PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G -10 Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E (Form 15E) as prepared by Ernst & Young LLP. The third-party due diligence described in Form 15E focused on a comparison and re-computation of certain characteristics with respect to each of the mortgage loans. Fitch considered this information in its analysis and it did not have an effect on Fitch's analysis or conclusions. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. BSPRT 2023-FL10: Fitch Affirms 'B-sf' Rating on Class H Debt ------------------------------------------------------------ Fitch Ratings has affirmed all classes of BSPRT 2023-FL10 Issuer, LLC (BSPRT 2023-FL10). The Rating Outlooks are Stable for all classes. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- BSPRT 2023-FL10 A 05610VAA0 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-S 05610VAC6 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf B 05610VAE2 LT AA-sf Affirmed AA-sf C 05610VAG7 LT A-sf Affirmed A-sf D 05610VAJ1 LT BBBsf Affirmed BBBsf E 05610VAL6 LT BBB-sf Affirmed BBB-sf F 05610VAN2 LT BB+sf Affirmed BB+sf G 05610VAQ5 LT BB-sf Affirmed BB-sf H 05610VAS1 LT B-sf Affirmed B-sf KEY RATING DRIVERS Increased Credit Enhancement (CE); 'Bsf' Loss Expectations: The affirmations reflect increased CE since issuance, largely from loan payoffs, relative to overall loss expectations, as well as the progression and realization of sponsors' business plans for most of the loans in the pool. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in 2Q25. Fitch's current ratings incorporate a 'Bsf' rating case loss of 8.41%. Fitch identified seven Fitch Loans of Concern (FLOCs; 23.5% of the pool), including five specially serviced loans (18.3%). As of the September 2025 distribution date, the pool's aggregate principal balance has paid down by 13.8% to $772.7 million from $896.6 million at issuance. Two additional loans, Insulet Headquarters (mixed-use [office/industrial]; 4.3% of the pool) and Apex at Royal Oaks (multifamily; 0.2%), were repaid after the September 2025 distribution. Other loans repaid since the end of the reinvestment period include The Oliver (multifamily), HI & HIX Jacksonville (hotel), Cheslyn Place (multifamily), Hotel Shocard (hotel) and Southwest Industrial Portfolio (industrial). The remaining loans in the pool have fully extended maturity dates between 2025 and 2029, with the largest concentrations in 2027 (33.9%) and 2028 (36.3%). FLOCs; Specially Serviced Loans; Largest Contributors to Loss: The largest contributor to overall pool loss expectations is the specially serviced Nola Sky Apartments Phase I loan (4.3% of the pool), secured by a 160-unit, garden-style multifamily property located in Las Vegas, NV. The loan transferred to special servicing in November 2024 for maturity default. In July 2025, the loan's maturity was further extended to November 2025 in conjunction with the borrower's change in organizational structure. The mezzanine lender foreclosed the former sponsor out of the joint venture, making itself the sole sponsor with a new guarantor. Amortization on the loan began with the July 2025 payment. As of September 2025 remittance, the loan was reported as late with a paid through date of August 2025. The borrower reportedly intends to refinance the property at or prior to maturity. As of June 30, 2025, the property was 94% occupied, with average in-place rent of $1,995 per unit. Fitch's 'Bsf' rating case loss of 22.4% (prior to a concentration adjustment) is based on an 8.75% cap rate, Fitch's stabilized net cash flow of $2.0 million and factors an increased probability of default given the loan's specially serviced status. The second largest contributor to overall pool loss expectations is the largest loan, Alexan Waterloo (10.2% of the pool), secured by a 272-unit, 30-story, 2022-vintage luxury high-rise multifamily property located in Downtown Austin, TX. The loan is interest-only, with a 24-month initial maturity in August 2026 and a fully extended maturity in August 2028. The sponsor's business plan has been progressing as expected, with improved cash flow since issuance. As of June 30, 2025, the property was 95.2% occupied, with average rents of $2,819 per unit, outperforming its submarket in both metrics. The borrower has achieved the targeted occupancy and is focusing on tenant retention and growing rents. The increased supply in the Austin multifamily market has put pressure on occupancy and rents. Fitch's 'Bsf' rating case loss of 7.8% (prior to a concentration adjustment) is based on an 8.25% cap rate and a 15% stress to the June 2025 trailing 12 months (TTM) net cash flow to account for elevated level of supply in the submarket. The third largest contributor to overall pool loss expectations is the specially serviced Hillside Villas Apartments loan (4.0% of the pool), secured by a 249-unit, garden-style multifamily property located in Austin, TX. The loan transferred to special servicing in March 2025 for maturity default. The asset became REO in April 2025. The borrower's original business plan was to renovate 90% of the total units (224 out of 249) by May 2025; however, as of April 2025, the borrower had only renovated 27% (60 of 224 units), and unit renovations were permanently suspended in February 2024. The property is still in the process of stabilization, with ongoing efforts to address deferred maintenance identified at takeover. As of June 30, 2025, the property was 75% occupied, with an average monthly rent of $1,217 per unit, underperforming its submarket in both metrics. A formal disposition strategy has not yet been established. Fitch's 'Bsf' rating case loss of 19.5% (prior to a concentration adjustment) is based on a haircut to the updated June 2025 appraisal. The fourth largest contributor to overall pool loss expectations is the AKA Foggy Bottom Hotel loan, secured by a 152-key extended-stay hotel located in Washington, D.C. that has been branded as an independent property. While the business plan continues to progress, this FLOC was flagged as the property has not fully stabilized following its PIP in 2024 and faces a tougher path to maximum market penetration as an independent operator. The TTM June 2025 NOI was negative. In August 2025, the loan was extended by one year to August 2026. As part of the extension, the senior loan principal was paid down by $1 million, a $1 million shortfall reserve was established, and the third-party mezzanine loan was extended to remain co-terminus with the senior loan. Fitch's 'Bsf' rating case loss of 15.2% (prior to a concentration adjustment) is based an 11% cap rate and Fitch's stabilized cash flow of $2.3 million. The largest specially serviced loan is Point at Caldwell Station (7.3% of the pool), secured by a 297-unit, garden-style multifamily property located in Huntersville, NC (18 miles north of Charlotte). The loan was originally transferred to special servicing in May 2024 and again in August 2025 for maturity default. The loan is interest-only, with an 18-month initial maturity in March 2024. In August 2025, the maturity was extended to Nov. 9, 2025, and all further extension options were removed. The borrower failed to make the June, July and September 2024 debt service payments, but made the August payment. In October 2024, the mezzanine lender took title to the property through a UCC foreclosure after the borrower failed to meet the business plan's completion date. Fitch's 'Bsf' rating case loss of less than 2% takes into consideration the updated April 2025 appraisal value, which exceeds the current loan amount, factoring potential workout-related costs and fees/expenses. Pool Concentrations: Over 77% of the pool is secured by multifamily properties with concentrations in Sunbelt markets comprising more than 65% of the pool, including MSAs of Austin (14.6%), Charlotte (10.5%), Dallas-Fort Worth (7.2%), Jacksonville (5.4%), Houston (5.2%) and Las Vegas (4.3%). Collateral Attributes: A portion of the pool is secured by properties that have not yet completely stabilized, are in varying stages of lease-up or are undergoing renovation. The associated risks, including cash flow interruption during renovation, lease-up and completion, are mitigated by experienced sponsorship, credible business plans and loan structural features that include guaranties, reserves, cash management and performance triggers, and additional funding mechanisms. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Downgrades to classes rated in the 'AAAsf', 'AAsf' and 'Asf' categories are not expected due to increasing CE, expected continued paydowns from loan repayments and amortization, and progression of sponsors' business plans on most loans in the pool, but may occur if deal-level losses increase significantly and/or interest shortfalls impact or are expected to impact 'AAAsf' rated classes. Downgrades to classes rated in the 'BBBsf' categories could occur with an increase in pool-level losses from further performance deterioration of FLOCs, including declining cash flow which decreases property value and capacity to meet its debt service obligations, and further value degradation and/or extended workout of the specially serviced loans. These FLOCs include The Point at Caldwell Station, AKA Foggy Bottom Hotel, Nola Sky Apartments Phase I, Hillside Villas Apartments, Varsity Georgetown - 1000 29th Street Northwest, Varsity Georgetown - 1111 30th Street Northwest, and Lake Village North. Downgrades to classes rated in the 'BBsf' and 'Bsf' categories are possible with further performance deterioration of FLOCs, particularly if there are more loan transfers to special servicing and as losses become more certain or are realized. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrades to classes rated in the 'AAsf' and 'Asf' categories may be possible with significantly increased CE from paydowns, coupled with stable-to-improved pool-level loss expectations from improved performance on the FLOCs. Upgrades to the 'BBBsf' category rated classes would be limited based on sensitivity to concentrations or the potential for future concentration. Classes would not be upgraded above 'AA+' if there is likelihood for interest shortfalls. Upgrades to the 'BBsf' and 'Bsf' category rated classes are not likely until the later years in a transaction and only if the performance of the remaining pool is stable, recoveries on the FLOCs — including improved recovery prospects of the loans in special servicing — are better than expected and there is sufficient CE to the classes. 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. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. CARVAL CLO IV: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Rating on Class F-R Notes ------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to the CarVal CLO IV Ltd. reset transaction. Entity/Debt Rating ----------- ------ CarVal CLO IV Ltd. X LT NRsf New Rating A-1-R LT NRsf New Rating A-2-R LT AAAsf New Rating B-R LT AAsf New Rating C-1-R LT A+sf New Rating C-2-R LT Asf New Rating D-1-R LT BBBsf New Rating D-2-R LT BBB-sf New Rating E-R LT BB-sf New Rating F-R LT B-sf New Rating Subordinated LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary CarVal CLO IV Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that will be managed by CarVal CLO Management, LLC. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $400 million of primarily first lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 24.16, and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 98.31% first-lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 73.7% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 39% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-2-R notes, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R notes, between 'BB-sf' and 'A-sf' for class C-1-R notes, between 'B+sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-2-R notes, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-1-R notes, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2-R notes, between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E-R notes and less than 'B-sf' for class F-R notes. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-2-R notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R notes, 'AA+sf' for class C-1-R notes, 'AAsf' for class C-2-R notes, 'A+sf' for class D-1-R notes, 'A-sf' for class D-2-R notes, 'BBB+sf' for class E-R notes and 'BB+sf' for class F-R notes. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for CarVal CLO IV Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, programme, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. CASTLELAKE AIRCRAFT 2019-1: Fitch Ups Rating on Cl. C Notes to CCC+ ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has taken various actions on Castlelake Aircraft Structured Trust 2018-1 (CLAS 2018-1) and Castlelake Aircraft Structured Trust 2019-1 (CLAS 2019-1). Fitch has affirmed the series A note at 'Asf' for CLAS 2018-1, upgraded the series B note to 'BBB+sf' from 'BBBsf" and affirmed the series C note at 'Bsf'. The Outlooks for the series A and C notes are Stable. Following the upgrade, the series B note was assigned a Positive Outlook. Fitch has upgraded the series A note to 'Asf' for CLAS 2019-1 from 'BBBsf', upgraded the series B note to 'BB+sf' from 'BBsf' and upgraded the series C note to 'CCC+sf' from 'CCCsf'. The Outlook for the series A note is Stable. Following the upgrade, the series B and series C notes were assigned a Positive Outlook. The Positive Outlook on the CLAS 2018-1 class B notes is supported by deleveraging of the class A notes as they continue to sweep cash and pay down principal ahead of schedule resulting in improvement in the class B note's LTV. Positive Outlooks on the CLAS 2019-1 class B and C notes are reflective of expectations for the transaction to delever further when four aircraft subject to executed sales purchase agreements close, which is anticipated in the near-term. The ratings reflect current transaction performance, Fitch's cash flow projections, and its expectation for the structures to withstand rating-specific stresses under Fitch's criteria and cash flow modeling. Rating considerations include lease terms, lessee credit quality and performance, updated aircraft values, and Fitch's assumptions and stresses, which inform Fitch's modeled cash flows and coverage levels. Fitch's updated rating assumptions for airlines are based on a variety of performance metrics and airline characteristics. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- Castlelake Aircraft Structured Trust 2019-1 A 14855MAA6 LT Asf Upgrade BBBsf B 14855MAB4 LT BB+sf Upgrade BBsf C 14855MAC2 LT CCC+sf Upgrade CCCsf Castlelake Aircraft Structured Trust 2018-1 A 14856CAA7 LT Asf Affirmed Asf B 14856CAB5 LT BBB+sf Upgrade BBBsf C 14856CAC3 LT Bsf Affirmed Bsf Transaction Summary CLAS 2018-1: Rental collections have been slightly lower than Fitch's prior expectations, primarily because of the sale of four engines that reduced rent collections and minor delinquencies across two leases. As of the September 2025 monthly report, the class A notes are significantly ahead of schedule, the class B notes have not received principal since March 2022, and the class C notes have not received principal since March 2020 and continue to capitalize interest. The transaction features two sources of potentially large cash inflows that could materially delever the transaction: Russian aircraft insurance proceeds and end-of-lease (EOL) payments. The servicer is pursuing insurance claims on an aircraft seized in Russia, and all remaining eight assets in the pool are on leases that include EOL provisions. Receipt of insurance proceeds and substantial EOL payments could materially reduce leverage and support positive rating action, but the amount and timing of these cashflows remains speculative. CLAS 2019-1: Overall collections have increased significantly since the prior review, driven by the sale of four aircraft. These sales delevered the transaction and improved the LTVs. The class A notes have paid down closer to schedule but are still about 9% behind. Additionally, four executed SPAs are expected to close in the near term, further deleveraging the transaction. Rent collections have been below Fitch's expectations due to delinquencies of some lessees. The transaction remains in breach of the rapid amortization and cash trap triggers, leading to sequential pay. The class B notes are $54 million behind schedule and haven't received principal payments in four years, while the class C notes haven't received any payments since March 2020 and continue to capitalize interest. Similar to CLAS 2018-1, two sources of potentially large cash inflows could materially delever the transaction: Russian aircraft insurance proceeds and EOL payments. The servicer is pursuing insurance claims on two aircraft seized in Russia, and 14 of 17 aircraft in the pool are on leases that include EOL provisions; however, the amounts and timing of the Russian aircraft proceeds and the cash inflows from EOL payments remains speculative. Overall Market Recovery: Demand for air travel continues to grow, albeit at a slower pace. August YTD 2025 global passenger traffic measured in revenue passenger kilometers (RPK) was up 4.6% compared to 2024, per IATA. International traffic led the way with 6.6% YTD RPK growth; domestic traffic grew at 1.5% YTD. Growth rates vary across geographies, with Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East leading the overall growth in traffic. North America grew by 0.5% August YTD 2025 versus 2024. Aircraft Collateral and Asset Value: Aircraft ABS transaction servicers report continued strong demand for aircraft, particularly those with maintenance green time remaining. In addition, appraiser market value is currently higher than base value for many aircraft types, which has not occurred for several years. Fitch is also seeing continued strong aircraft sale proceeds. Engines with maintenance green time remaining are particularly in demand. Macro Risks: Fitch recently revised its sector outlook for aircraft ABS to 'deteriorating' from 'neutral'. This change reflects expectations for a slowdown in global air travel growth, consistent with its forecast for weaker global GDP growth in 2025 and 2026. Global air travel is highly correlated to global GDP. Fitch also expects increased divergence in performance across several categories including domestic versus international travel, geographic footprint, lessee credit strength, and aircraft type and age. Some domestic markets contracted through May 2025, and there is significant uncertainty around how trade relations and conflicts will be resolved. Conclusive resolutions to tariff conflicts, for example, may prompt Fitch to reevaluate its sector outlook. Despite an anticipated slowdown in the growth rate of air travel, Fitch expects aircraft values will remain supported by the ongoing under-supply of aircraft. This is driven by continued impediments to the construction and delivery of new aircraft and by engine shop capacity issues that reduce total capacity. Fitch expects these supply-side constraints to mitigate demand reductions. ABS performance may be affected by deteriorating credit quality of airline lessees. Despite benefiting from longer-term fixed rental leases and staggered lease expiries, given sufficient financial headwinds, some airlines may seek payment relief through restructures which could reduce cash flows to ABS. Fitch expects securitizations with younger to mid-life aircraft and with adequate lessee quality and diversification, to be better positioned to withstand potential pressures on cash flows needed to meet debt service. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Values: The aircraft in the Castlelake transactions are mid-aged with a weighted-average age (by value) of approximately 14 and 15 years for CLAS 2018-1 and 2019-1, respectively. Using mean maintenance-adjusted base value in order to make period-to-period comparisons and to control for changes in Fitch's approach to determining the Fitch Value, the LTV for the CLAS 2018-1 and CLAS 2019-1 notes have improved since Fitch's last review (October 2024). The LTVs are as follows: - CLAS 2018-1: A Note 48% to 34%, B note 86% to 70%, and C note from 116% to 100%. - CLAS 2019-1: A Note 75% to 58%, B note 94% to 82%, and C note from 110% to 107%. In determining the Fitch Value of each pool, Fitch used appraisals from April 2025 for the 2018-1 transaction and from August 2025 for the 2019-1 transaction and adjusted for depreciation. Fitch values are derived from base values unless the remaining leasable life is less than three years, in which case a market value is used, with maintenance adjustments to aircraft over 15 years of age. Fitch then uses the lesser of mean and median of the given value. The depreciated Fitch Value for each of the transactions is as follows: - CLAS 2018-1: $208 million. - CLAS 2019-1: $383 million. Tiered Collateral Quality: Fitch utilizes three tiers when assessing the desirability and therefore the liquidity of aircraft collateral, with Tier 1 being the most liquid. As aircraft in the pool reach an age of 15 and then 20 years, pursuant to Fitch's criteria, the aircraft tier will migrate one level lower. Additional detail regarding Fitch's tiering methodology can be found here. The weighted average age and tier for each of the transactions is as follows: - CLAS 2018-1: Age — 13.7 years; Tier — 1.7. - CLAS 2019-1: Age — 15.1 years; Tier — 1.9. Pool Concentration: The aircraft count and number of lessees by transaction are as follows: - CLAS 2018-1: 8 aircraft with 5 lessees. - CLAS 2019-1: 17 aircraft; 8 lessees. As pools age and aircraft are assumed to be sold at the end of their leasable lives, pool concentrations are assumed to increase. Fitch stresses cash flows based on the effective aircraft count, due to the increased volatility of the cash flows, particularly maintenance cash flows for smaller pools. The effective count for CLAS 2018-1 and CLAS 2019-1 is 7 and 13, respectively. Lessee Credit Risk: Fitch considers the credit risk posed by incumbent lessees to be moderate to high. Lessee performance has remained consistent since its prior review. Both transactions continue to experience delinquencies across several leases, however, Castlelake anticipates ultimately collecting from these lessees. The lessee credit risk has particular importance in these transactions, as both include a high proportion of lessees who are EOL payers. Fitch received projected EOL payments for each pool and applied a haircut based on lessee credit quality and forecasted payment time horizon. Operation and Servicing Risk: Fitch has found Castlelake, L.P. to be an effective servicer based on its experience as a lessor, overall servicing capabilities, and historical ABS performance to date. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade An increase in delinquencies, lower lease rates, or sales of aircraft below Fitch's projections could lead to a downgrade. The aircraft ABS sector has a rating cap of 'Asf'. All subordinate tranches carry ratings lower than the senior tranche. Fitch ran a sensitivity that assumes 'CCC' rated follow-on lessees, reflecting historical payment performance and the nature of the lessees in the pools. This scenario also assumes that no Russian proceeds are received. In this scenario, the class A note MIR does not change and the class B and C note MIR decrease by one notch. Fitch also ran a combination of the sensitivity above with an increased haircut to aggregate EOL payments. EOL payments pose a material risk to the transaction as they represent a significant source of expected cash flows, yet their timing and collectability can be uncertain. Leases can be extended, pushing out the timing of forecasted cash flows, and collectability is dependent on the credit quality of the lessees. In CLAS 2018-1, this sensitivity results in no change in the MIR for the class A note, and a one- and two-notch decrease for the class B and C notes, respectively. For CLAS 2019-1, this sensitivity results in a one-notch decrease in the MIR for all classes of notes. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade If contractual lease rates outperform modeled cash flows or lessee credit quality improves materially, an upgrade could follow. Similarly, if assets in the pool exhibit higher values and stronger rent generation than Fitch's stressed scenarios, this could also lead to an upgrade. As stated above, EOL payments are often volatile; therefore, Fitch's base case scenario assumes a haircut on the EOL forecasts provided by mba and Castlelake. In this scenario, EOL payments haircuts are reduced relative to Fitch's central case, aligning more closely with mba's base case forecast and give additional credit to the stronger lessees in the pool. In CLAS 2018-1, this sensitivity results in MIRs that are unchanged for the class A and B notes. The class C notes' MIR increases by one notch. For CLAS 2019-1, this sensitivity results in no change in the MIR for the class A note. The MIR for the class B and C notes increases by one notch. 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. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. CENT TRUST 2023-CITY: Fitch Lowers Rating on Cl. HRR Debt to 'Dsf' ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fitch Rating has taken various rating actions on CENT 2023-CITY class HRR. The class was paid in full on Sept. 5, 2025. Prior to being reimbursed, it incurred a temporary realized loss. To accurately reflect the sequence of events, Fitch has corrected the previous 'PIF' rating action, downgraded class HRR to 'Dsf' and then revised the rating to 'PIF'. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- CENT TRUST 2023-CITY Class HRR 12516WAE1 LT Dsf Downgrade A+sf Class HRR 12516WAE1 LT PIFsf Paid In Full KEY RATING DRIVERS Temporary Realized Loss; Subsequent Reimbursement: The loan securing the CENT 2023-CITY transaction was repaid on July 3, 2025 during its open period prior to the final maturity date. Consistent with the loan documents there was no prepayment premium required. The related bonds in the transaction were repaid on July 14, 2025. Per the trustee, based on the accrued interest between the loan repayment date and the determination date for the bond payments, interest in the amount of $5.5 million had accrued, of which $3.5 million were paid resulting in a $2,011,968.40 shortfall, which resulted in a realized loss to class HRR. On Sept. 5, 2025, the shortfall was reimbursed by the issuer, and a restated trustee report was issued indicating that class HRR was paid in full. To reflect the temporary realized loss between July 14, 2025 and Sept. 5, 2025, Fitch has downgraded class HRR to 'Dsf' and then revised the rating to 'PIF'. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Negative rating sensitivities are not applicable as these bonds have no remaining balance. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Positive rating sensitivities are not applicable as these bonds have no remaining balance. 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. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. CIFC FUNDING 2025-VI: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to CIFC Funding 2025-VI, Ltd. Entity/Debt Rating ----------- ------ CIFC Funding 2025-VI, Ltd. A-1 LT NRsf New Rating A-2 LT AAAsf New Rating B LT AAsf New Rating C LT Asf New Rating D-1 LT BBB-sf New Rating D-2 LT BBB-sf New Rating E LT BB-sf New Rating Subordinated LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary CIFC Funding 2025-VI, Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that will be managed by CIFC Asset Management LLC. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $400 million of primarily first lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 23.83, and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 99.76% first-lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 73.19% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 45% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-2, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B, between 'B+sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-1, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2 and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-2 notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B, 'AAsf' for class C, 'Asf' for class D-1, and 'A-sf' for class D-2 and 'BBB+sf' for class E. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for CIFC Funding 2025-VI, Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, program, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose in the key rating drivers any ESG factor which has a significant impact on the rating on an individual basis. CITIGROUP MORTGAGE 2025-RP4: Fitch Rates Class B-2 Note 'B(EXP)sf' ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fitch Ratings has assigned expected ratings to the residential mortgage-backed notes to be issued by Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2025-RP4 (CMLTI 2025-RP4). Entity/Debt Rating ----------- ------ CMLTI 2025-RP4 A-1 LT AAA(EXP)sf Expected Rating A-2 LT AA(EXP)sf Expected Rating M-1 LT A(EXP)sf Expected Rating M-2 LT BBB(EXP)sf Expected Rating B-1 LT BB(EXP)sf Expected Rating B-2 LT B(EXP)sf Expected Rating B-3 LT NR(EXP)sf Expected Rating X LT NR(EXP)sf Expected Rating SA LT NR(EXP)sf Expected Rating PT LT NR(EXP)sf Expected Rating R LT NR(EXP)sf Expected Rating Transaction Summary The CMLTI 2025-RP4 transaction is expected to close on Oct. 27, 2025. The notes are supported by 1,752 seasoned performing loans (SPLs) and reperforming loans (RPLs) with a total balance of about $262.4 million, including $23.8 million, or 9.1%, of the aggregate pool balance in non-interest-bearing deferred principal amounts as of the cutoff date. The borrowers have a weighted-average (WA) FICO of 683, as determined by Fitch, and a current mark-to-market (MtM) combined loan-to-value ratio (cLTV) of 46.1%. All loans in the transaction were originated in 2020 or earlier and are seasoned at least 24 months. An updated broker price opinion (BPO) was provided. Of the pool, 50.4% of the loans have had a clean payment history over the past 12 months and 29.7% are currently delinquent. Distributions of principal and interest (P&I) and loss allocations are based on a traditional, senior-subordinate, sequential structure. The sequential-pay structure locks out principal to the subordinated notes until the most senior notes outstanding are paid in full. The structure includes a reserve fund comprised of seven pre-closing REO properties which will provide additional structural protection. Any proceeds from the disposition of any pre-closing date REO properties will be used to cover realized losses and the funds will be held by the trust administrator. The figures in the presale only reference the non-pre-close REO properties. The servicer will not advance delinquent monthly payments of P&I. KEY RATING DRIVERS Credit Risk of Mortgage Assets: RMBS transactions are directly affected by the performance of the underlying residential mortgages or mortgage-related assets. Fitch analyzes loan-level attributes and macroeconomic factors to assess the credit risk and expected losses. CMLTI 2025-RP4 has a final probability of default (PD) of 55.7% in the 'AAAsf' rating stress. Fitch's final loss severity (LS) in the 'AAAsf' rating stress is 22.0%. The expected loss in the 'AAAsf' rating stress is 12.3% (see Highlights and Asset Analysis sections for more details). Structural Analysis: The mortgage cash flow and loss allocation in CMLTI 2025-RP4 are based on a sequential-pay structure, whereby the subordinated classes do not receive principal until the senior classes are repaid in full. Losses are allocated in reverse-sequential order. Furthermore, the provision to reallocate principal to pay interest on the 'AAAsf' rated notes prior to other principal distributions is highly supportive of timely interest payments in the absence of servicer advancing. Interest and interest shortfalls are paid sequentially. CMLTI 2025-RP4 has a step-up coupon for the A-1, A-2 and M-1 classes. After four years, the classes pay the lesser of a 100-bp increase to the fixed coupon or the net weighted average coupon (WAC) rate. The M-2 class will step-down, and coupon will be a per annum rate of 0.00%. The B-1, B-2 and B-3 classes will convert to Principal Only (PO) bonds on the step-up date and will not accrue interest. The transaction includes a reserve fund comprised of seven pre-close REO properties which will provide extra protection to the structure as a form of credit enhancement. Any disposition of a pre-close REO property will be used to cover realized losses for the most senior notes. The pre-close REO properties were not included in the mortgage loans definition and were not included in Fitch's asset analysis. Fitch analyzes the capital structure to determine the adequacy of the transaction's credit enhancement (CE) to support payments on the securities under multiple scenarios incorporating Fitch's loss projections derived from the asset analysis. Fitch applies its assumptions for defaults, prepayments, delinquencies and interest rate scenarios. The CE for all ratings were sufficient for the given rating levels. The CE for a given rating exceeded the expected losses of that rating stress. Operational Risk Analysis: Fitch considers originator and servicer capability, third-party due diligence results, and the transaction-specific representation, warranty and enforcement (RW&E) framework to derive a potential operational risk adjustment. The only consideration that has a direct impact on Fitch's loss expectations is due diligence. Third-party due diligence was performed on 100.0% of the loans in the transaction by loan count. Fitch expects SPL/RPL pools to have full diligence completed. Specifically, for loans that have an application date on or after Jan. 10, 2014, Fitch expects a full due diligence scope that includes a review of credit, regulatory compliance and property valuation. For loans with an application date prior to Jan. 10, 2014, Fitch primarily receives a regulatory compliance review to ensure loans were originated in accordance with predatory lending regulations. Fitch's review of the operational risk for this transaction did not have an impact on the analysis. Counterparty and Legal Analysis: Fitch expects all relevant transaction parties to conform with the requirements described in its "Global Structured Finance Rating Criteria." Relevant parties are those whose failure to perform could have a material impact on the performance of the transaction. Additionally, all legal requirements should be satisfied to fully de-link the transaction from any other entities. Fitch expects CMLTI 2025-RP4 to be fully de-linked and a bankruptcy-remote, special-purpose vehicle (SPV) at closing. All transaction parties and triggers align with Fitch's expectations. Rating Cap Analysis: Common rating caps in U.S. RMBS may include, but are not limited to, new product types with limited or volatile historical data and transactions with weak operational or structural/counterparty features. These considerations do not apply to CMLTI 2025-RP4, and, therefore, Fitch is comfortable assigning the highest possible rating of 'AAAsf' without any rating caps. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Fitch incorporates a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate how the ratings would react to steeper market value declines (MVDs) than assumed at the metropolitan statistical area level. Sensitivity analysis was conducted at the state and national levels to assess the effect of higher MVDs for the subject pool as well as lower MVDs, illustrated by a gain in home prices. The defined negative rating 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 37.9% at 'AAAsf'. The analysis indicates there is some potential rating migration with higher MVDs compared to the model projection. Specifically, a 10% additional decline in home prices would lower all rated classes by one full category. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Fitch incorporates a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate how the ratings would react to steeper MVDs than assumed at the MSA level. Sensitivity analysis was conducted at the state and national levels to assess the effect of higher MVDs for the subject pool as well as lower MVDs, illustrated by a gain in home prices. This defined positive rating sensitivity analysis demonstrates how the ratings would react to positive home price growth of 10% with no assumed overvaluation. Excluding the senior class, which is already rated 'AAAsf', the analysis indicates there is potential positive rating migration for all the rated classes. Specifically, a 10% gain in home prices would result in a full category upgrade for the rated class, excluding those assigned ratings of 'AAAsf'. USE OF THIRD PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G -10 Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E (Form 15E) as prepared by SitusAMC. The third-party due diligence review was completed on 100% of the loans in this transaction. The scope of the due diligence review was consistent with Fitch criteria for seasoned collateral. Fitch considered this information in its analysis and, as a result, Fitch made the following adjustments: increased the LS due to HUD-1 issues, missing modification agreements, as well as delinquent taxes and outstanding liens. These adjustments resulted in an increase in the 'AAAsf' expected loss of approximately 18bps. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. COLLEGE PARENT: S&P Alters Outlook to Positive, Affirms 'CCC+' ICR ------------------------------------------------------------------ S&P Global Ratings revised its outlook on College Parent L.P. (dba Yahoo) to positive from stable and affirmed its 'CCC+' issuer credit rating. S&P said, "At the same time, we affirmed our 'CCC+' issuer credit rating on Yahoo's financing subsidiary, AP Core Holdings II LLC, and our 'CCC+' issue-level rating on AP Core's senior secured debt. We also revised our recovery rating on AP Core's debt to '3' from '4'. The '3' recovery rating indicates our expectation for meaningful (50%-70%; rounded estimate: 50%) recovery in the event of a default. "The positive outlook reflects that we could raise our rating on Yahoo over the next 12 months if it continues to improve its performance such that we expect it will generate sustainably positive FOCF and EBITDA interest coverage of more than 1x." S&P Global Ratings expects Yahoo will generate sustainably positive free operating cash flow (FOCF) in 2026, while improving its EBITDA interest coverage above 1x, supported by the increased revenue and reduced expenses from its multi-year restructuring initiatives. S&P said, "The positive outlook reflects our improved performance expectations for the company. We expect College Parent will generate reported FOCF of $180 million in 2026 while improving its EBITDA interest coverage above 1x. The company has not generated positive FOCF since 2022. We still expect Yahoo will generate a FOCF deficit of $20 million in 2025, though this is a significant improvement from the $181 million deficit it reported in 2024. "We attribute this expected change in the company's cash flow dynamics to its multi-year restructuring efforts, which include workforce reductions, product re-launches, the revamping of its sales force, and partnerships with third parties Google-ad-manager (GAM) and Taboola to monetize its ad inventory. Combined, these factors have reduced the company's cost base and increased the ad yield among its current users, which has positioned it favorably for growth." Yahoo has ongoing restructuring initiatives, including a costly data cloud migration, that will dampen its cash flow over the next several years. However, the company has already recognized most of the expenses tied to its other restructuring initiatives, which will likely support a sustained improvement in its cash flow. S&P said, "If Yahoo maintains its current performance trajectory, we believe this will increase the likelihood it will be able to refinance its $502.7 million delayed-draw term loan (DDTL) due August 2026 and $1.6 billion of term loan debt due September 2027 at rates that enable it to sustain positive FOCF. We view the company as favorably positioned to refinance its 2026 debt because it is held by company owners Apollo and Verizon. We believe the holders of Yahoo's 2027 term loans would be more likely to provide it with refinancing opportunities if it demonstrates a sustainable expansion and consistent positive FOCF generation ahead of its upcoming maturities." The 'CCC+' rating reflects the company's dependance on favorable business and economic conditions to meet its future financial obligations. Given Yahoo's weak performance and cash flow deficits over the past few years, it is imperative for it to demonstrate strong year-end 2025 results, and to maintain this momentum through the beginning of next year, as it enters refinancing negotiations. A ratings upgrade is predicated on a further increase in our confidence in the company's ability to successfully refinance its 2026 and 2027 debt. S&P said, "We note the visibility into Yahoo's future performance remains highly limited, given the short lead times for digital advertising. We also note the company's business is dependent on cyclical factors, including corporate advertising, marketing expenditure, and consumer discretionary spending. If economic conditions weaken, this could cause the company to underperform our operating expectation and generate sustained negative FOCF. "Furthermore, we anticipate Yahoo will depend on operating leverage improvements, efficiency gains in its cost base, and increases in its ad yield among its current users to expand its EBITDA and FOCF. The company has a stable cohort of users, owing to its brand equity and product offerings; however, we view its potential for gaining new users as limited due to the heightened competition for users' time, including from other large competitors in the space, as well as social media, AI, and other chat-based platforms. "The positive outlook reflects that we could raise our rating on Yahoo over the next 12 months if it continues to improve its performance such that we expect it will generate sustainably positive FOCF and EBITDA interest coverage of more than 1x. "We could revise our outlook on Yahoo to stable or negative over the next 12 months if we no longer believe it will generate sustainably positive FOCF and EBITDA interest coverage of more than 1x in 2026, which would reduce our confidence in its ability to refinance its 2026 and 2027 debt maturities." S&P could raise its rating on Yahoo over the next 12 months if it continues to improve its operating performance such that S&P expects: -- It will generate sustainably positive FOCF; -- It will maintain EBITDA interest coverage of comfortably above 1x; and -- S&P has increasing confidence in its ability to successfully refinance its 2026 and 2027 debt maturities. CSTL COMMERCIAL 2025-GATE2: Fitch Gives B(EXP) Rating on HRR Certs ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fitch Ratings has assigned the following expected ratings and Rating Outlooks to CSTL Commercial Mortgage Trust 2025-GATE2, commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2025-GATE2: - $277,600,000 class A 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $46,500,000 class B 'AA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $42,300,000 class C 'A(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $77,000,000 class D 'BBB-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $79,100,000 class E 'BB-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $27,500,000(a) class HRR 'B(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable. (a) Horizontal risk retention interest representing at least 5.0% of the estimated fair value of all classes. KEY RATING DRIVERS Fitch Net Cash Flow: Fitch's stressed net cash flow (NCF) for the portfolio is estimated at $41.2 million. This is 7.2% lower than the issuer's NCF but 3.8% above the TTM ended in August 2025 NCF. Fitch's NCF is higher than the TTM ended in August 2025 NCF due to lower administrative expenses and greater other income from the newly acquired properties included in the portfolio, as well as lower insurance premiums resulting from the portfolio being added to the borrower's blanket insurance policy. Assuming TTM other income, administrative and insurance expenses, Fitch's NCF would be 2.2% below the TTM ended in August 2025 NCF. Fitch applied a 7.5% cap rate, resulting in a Fitch value of approximately $549.2 million. Fitch Leverage: The $550 million total mortgage loan ($169,701 per unit) has a Fitch stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR), loan-to-value ratio (LTV) and debt yield (DY) of 0.88x, 100.2% and 7.5%, respectively. Based on total debt of $600 million ($185,128 per unit), inclusive of the $50 million mezzanine loan, the Fitch stressed DSCR, LTV and DY are 0.81x, 109.3% and 6.9%, respectively. The mortgage loan represents approximately 70.1% of the portfolio appraised value of $785.1 million. The total debt represents approximately 76.4% of the portfolio appraised value. Geographically Diverse Portfolio: The portfolio is secured by 3,241 units across eight multifamily properties located in six states across seven markets. The largest property contains 22.9% of all units and 22.7% of the allocated loan amount (ALA). No other property constitutes more than 20.8% of all units or 18.6% of the ALA. No state or market represents more than 25.3% of the ALA. The portfolio's effective geographic count is 6.15. Institutional Sponsorship and Management: The loan sponsor and property manager, West Shore, is a fully integrated real estate investment firm focused on acquiring and managing multifamily assets. West Shore currently owns and operates a portfolio comprising over 15,000 units across 46 multifamily properties. West Shore's portfolio spans the U.S., with a focus on the Sunbelt region. Led by Steve and Lee Rosenthal, who have decades of experience in the multifamily market, West Shore has raised over $1.0 billion across six funds. Investors in these funds include ultra-high-net-worth individuals and family offices. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Declining cash flow decreases property value and capacity to meet its debt service obligations. The table below indicates the model-implied rating sensitivity to changes in one variable, Fitch NCF: - Original Rating: 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'/'Bsf'; - 10% NCF Decline: 'AA+sf'/'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BBsf'/'Bsf'/'B-sf' Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Improvement in cash flow increases property value and capacity to meet its debt service obligations. The table below indicates the model-implied rating sensitivity to changes to in one variable, Fitch NCF: - Original Rating: 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'/'Bsf'; - 10% NCF Increase: 'AAAsf'/'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'BBBsf'/'BBsf'/'BB-sf'. USE OF THIRD PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G -10 Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E (Form 15E) as prepared by KPMG LLP. The third-party due diligence described in Form 15E focused on comparison and re-computation of certain characteristics with respect to each of the mortgage loans. Fitch considered this information in its analysis, and it did not have an effect on Fitch's analysis or conclusions. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. DRYDEN 102: S&P Assigns BB- (sf) Rating on Class E-R Notes ---------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the replacement class A-R, B-R, C-R, D-1-R, D-2-R, and E-R debt from Dryden 102 CLO Ltd./Dryden 102 CLO LLC, a CLO managed by PGIM Inc that was originally issued in October 2023. At the same time, S&P withdrew its ratings on the previous class A-1, B, C, D, and E debt following payment in full on the Oct. 15, 2025, refinancing date. The replacement debt was issued via a proposed supplemental indenture, which outlines the terms of the replacement debt. According to the proposed supplemental indenture: -- The replacement class A-R, B-R, C-R, D-1-R, D-2-R, and E-R debt was issued at a lower spread over three-month SOFR than the original debt. -- The original class A-1 and A-2 debt was replaced by the A-R debt. -- The non-call period was extended to Oct. 15, 2027. -- The reinvestment period was extended to Oct. 15, 2030. -- The legal final maturity dates for the replacement debt and the existing subordinated notes were extended to Oct. 15, 2038. -- The required minimum overcollateralization and interest coverage ratios were amended. -- No additional subordinated notes were issued on the refinancing date. S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction data 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 the recoveries upon default under various interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios. Our analysis also considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or ultimate principal to each of the rated tranches. "We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings assigned to the debt remain consistent with the credit enhancement available to support them and take rating actions as we deem necessary." Ratings Assigned Dryden 102 CLO Ltd./Dryden 102 CLO LLC Class A-R, $256.00 million: AAA (sf) Class B-R, $48.00 million: AA (sf) Class C-R (deferrable), $24.00 million: A (sf) Class D-1-R (deferrable), $24.00 million: BBB- (sf) Class D-2-R (deferrable), $4.00 million: BBB- (sf) Class E-R (deferrable), $12.00 million: BB- (sf) Ratings Withdrawn Dryden 102 CLO Ltd./Dryden 102 CLO LLC Class A-1 to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class B to NR from 'AA+ (sf)' Class C to NR from 'A+ (sf)' Class D to NR from 'BBB- (sf)' Class E to NR from 'BB- (sf)' Other Debt Dryden 102 CLO Ltd./Dryden 102 CLO LLC Subordinated notes, $36.00 million: NR NR--Not rated. ELMWOOD CLO 21: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Rating on Class F-R2 Notes --------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to Elmwood CLO 21 Ltd. reset transaction. Entity/Debt Rating ----------- ------ Elmwood CLO 21 Ltd. A-R2 LT AAAsf New Rating B-R2 LT AAsf New Rating C-R2 LT Asf New Rating D-1-R2 LT BBB+sf New Rating D-2-R2 LT BBB-sf New Rating E-R2 LT BB-sf New Rating F-R2 LT B-sf New Rating Subordinated Notes LT NRsf New Rating Elmwood CLO 21 Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) managed by Elmwood Asset Management LLC, which originally closed in November 2022 and later refinanced in October 2023 (both not rated by Fitch). On the 2025 refinancing date, net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $300 million primarily first-lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B+/B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 22.35, and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 95.56% first lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 74.77% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 44.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with that of other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-R2 notes, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R2 notes, between 'Bsf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-R2 notes, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BBB-sf' for class D-1-R2 notes, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2-R2 notes, between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E-R2 notes, and less than 'B-sf' for class F-R2 notes. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-R2 notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R2 notes, 'AAsf' for class C-R2 notes, 'A+sf' for class D-1-R2 notes, 'Asf' for class D-2-R2 notes, 'BBB+sf' for class E-R2 notes, and 'BBB-sf' for class F-R2 notes. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Elmwood CLO 21 Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, program, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. ELMWOOD CLO 45: Fitch Assigns 'B-sf' Rating on Class F Notes ------------------------------------------------------------ Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to Elmwood CLO 45 Ltd. Entity/Debt Rating ----------- ------ Elmwood CLO 45, Ltd A-1 LT AAAsf New Rating A-2 LT AAAsf New Rating B LT AAsf New Rating C LT Asf New Rating D LT BBB-sf New Rating E LT BB-sf New Rating F LT B-sf New Rating Subordinated LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary Elmwood CLO 45 Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that will be managed by Elmwood Asset Management LLC. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $400 million of primarily first lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B+/B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 21.42 and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 96.85% first-lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 75.29% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 44.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 7% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a 5-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'A-sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-1, between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-2, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B, between 'B+sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E and less than 'B-sf' for class F. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-1 and class A-2 notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B, 'AA-sf' for class C, 'A-sf' for class D, and 'BBB-sf' for class E and 'BB+sf' for class F. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Elmwood CLO 45 Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, program, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose in the key rating drivers any ESG factor which has a significant impact on the rating on an individual basis. FANNIE MAE 2025-R06: S&P Assigns BB+ (sf) Rating on Cl 1B-1X Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ S&P Global Ratings assigned ratings to Fannie Mae Connecticut Avenue Securities Trust 2025-R06's notes. The note issuance is an RMBS securitization backed by fully amortizing, first-lien, fixed-rate residential mortgage loans, secured by one- to four-family residences, planned-unit developments, condominiums, manufactured housing, and cooperatives, made mostly to prime borrowers. The ratings reflect S&P's view of: -- The credit enhancement provided by the subordinated reference tranches and the associated structural deal mechanics; -- The REMIC structure, which reduces the counterparty exposure to Fannie Mae for periodic principal and interest payments but also pledges the support of Fannie Mae (as a highly rated counterparty) to cover any shortfalls on interest payments and make up for any investment losses; -- The issuer's aggregation experience and the alignment of interests between the issuer and the noteholders in the transaction's performance, which we believe enhance the notes' strength; -- The enhanced credit risk management and quality control processes Fannie Mae uses in conjunction with the underlying R&W framework; and -- S&P said, "Our outlook that considers our current projections for U.S. economic growth, unemployment rates, and interest rates, as well as our view of housing fundamentals. Our outlook is updated, if necessary, when these projections change materially." Ratings Assigned Fannie Mae Connecticut Avenue Securities Trust 2025-R06 Class 1A-H(i), $16,316,237,687: NR Class 1A-1, $204,060,000: A+ (sf) Class 1A-1H, $10,740,391: NR Class 1M-1, $204,060,000: A- (sf) Class 1M-1H, $10,740,391: NR Class 1M-2A(ii), $40,812,000: A- (sf) Class 1M-AH, $2,148,078: NR Class 1M-2B(ii), $40,812,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1M-BH, $2,148,078: NR Class 1M-2C(ii), $40,812,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1M-CH, $2,148,078: NR Class 1M-2(ii), $122,436,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1B-1A(ii), $57,136,000: BBB (sf) Class 1B-AH, $3,008,109: NR Class 1B-1B(ii), $57,136,000: BB+ (sf) Class 1B-BH, $3,008,109: NR Class 1B-1, $114,272,000: BB+ (sf) Class 1B-2H(i), $103,104,188: NR Class 1B-3H(i), $85,920,158: NR Class X-IO, not applicable: NR Class R, not applicable: NR Class RL, not applicable: NR Related combinable and recombinable exchangeable classes(iii): Class 1E-A1, $40,812,000: A- (sf) Class 1A-I1, $40,812,000(iv): A- (sf) Class 1E-A2, $40,812,000: A- (sf) Class 1A-I2, $40,812,000(iv): A- (sf) Class 1E-A3, $40,812,000: A- (sf) Class 1A-I3, $40,812,000(iv): A- (sf) Class 1E-A4, $40,812,000: A- (sf) Class 1A-I4, $40,812,000(iv): A- (sf) Class 1E-B1, $40,812,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1B-I1, $40,812,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-B2, $40,812,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1B-I2, $40,812,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-B3, $40,812,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1B-I3, $40,812,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-B4, $40,812,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1B-I4, $40,812,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-C1, $40,812,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1C-I1, $40,812,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-C2, $40,812,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1C-I2, $40,812,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-C3, $40,812,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1C-I3, $40,812,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-C4, $40,812,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1C-I4, $40,812,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-D1, $81,624,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-D2, $81,624,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-D3, $81,624,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-D4, $81,624,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-D5, $81,624,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-F1, $81,624,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-F2, $81,624,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-F3, $81,624,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-F4, $81,624,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1E-F5, $81,624,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1-X1, $81,624,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1-X2, $81,624,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1-X3, $81,624,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1-X4, $81,624,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1-Y1, $81,624,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1-Y2, $81,624,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1-Y3, $81,624,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1-Y4, $81,624,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1-J1, $40,812,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1-J2, $40,812,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1-J3, $40,812,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1-J4, $40,812,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1-K1, $81,624,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1-K2, $81,624,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1-K3, $81,624,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1-K4, $81,624,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1M-2Y, $122,436,000: BBB+ (sf) Class 1M-2X, $122,436,000(iv): BBB+ (sf) Class 1B-1Y, $114,272,000: BB+ (sf) Class 1B-1X, $114,272,000(iv): BB+ (sf) (i)Reference tranche only; will not have corresponding notes. Fannie Mae retains the risk of these tranches. (ii)The class 1M-2 noteholders may exchange all or part of that class for proportionate interests in the class 1M-2A, 1M-2B, and 1M-2C notes and vice versa. The class 1B-1 noteholders may exchange all or part of that class for proportionate interests in the class 1B-1A and 1B-1B notes and vice versa. (iii)See the offering documents for more detail on possible combinations. (iv)Notional amount. NR--Not rated NR--Not rated. FLATIRON CLO 20: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Cl. E-R2 Notes --------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to Flatiron CLO 20 Ltd.'s second refinancing. Entity/Debt Rating ----------- ------ Flatiron CLO 20 Ltd._New Reset X-R LT NRsf New Rating A-1-R2 LT NRsf New Rating A-2-R2 LT AAAsf New Rating B-R2 LT AAsf New Rating C-R2 LT Asf New Rating D-1-R2 LT BBB-sf New Rating D-2-R2 LT BBB-sf New Rating E-R2 LT BB-sf New Rating Subordinated Notes LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary Flatiron CLO 20 Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) managed by NYL Investors LLC that originally closed in November 2020 and was subsequently refinanced for the first time in April 2024. On the second refinancing date, the existing secured notes will be redeemed in full with refinancing proceeds. Net proceeds from the issuance of the second refinancing notes and the existing subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $400 million of primarily first lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 23.69 and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 99.79% first lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 75.32% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 39% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 10% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a 5.1-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The weighted average life (WAL) used for the transaction stress portfolio and analysis of matrices is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-2-R2, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R2, between 'B+sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-R2, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-1-R2, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2-R2, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E-R2. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-2-R2 notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R2, 'AAsf' for class C-R2, 'A+sf' for class D-1-R2, 'A-sf' for class D-2-R2, and 'BBB+sf' for class E-R2. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Flatiron CLO 20 Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, programme, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. FORTRESS CREDIT VIII: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Cl. E-R Notes ----------------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to the replacement class A-1RR, A-1TR, A-1LR, A-2R, B-R, C-R, D-1TR, D-1FR, D-2R, and E-R debt and proposed new class X-R debt from Fortress Credit Opportunities VIII CLO LLC, a CLO managed by FCOO CLO Management LLC that was originally issued in November 2023. The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 17, 2025. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings. On the Oct 22, 2025, refinancing date, the proceeds from the replacement and proposed new debt will be used to redeem the existing debt. S&P said, "At that time, we expect to withdraw our ratings on the existing class A-1R, A-1T, A-2, B, C, D, and E debt and assign ratings to the replacement class A-1RR, A-1TR, A-1LR, A-2R, B-R, C-R, D-1TR, D-1FR, D-2R, and E-R debt and proposed new class X-R debt. However, if the refinancing doesn't occur, we may affirm our ratings on the existing debt and withdraw our preliminary ratings on the replacement and proposed new debt." The replacement and proposed new debt will be issued via a proposed supplemental indenture, which outlines the terms of the replacement debt. According to the proposed supplemental indenture: -- The replacement class A-1RR, A-1TR, A-1LR, A-2R, B-R, C-R, D-1TR, D-1FR, D-2R, and E-R debt and proposed new class X-R debt is expected to be issued at a lower coupon/spread over three-month term SOFR than the existing debt. -- The replacement class A-1RR, A-1TR, A-1LR, A-2R, B-R, C-R, D-1TR, D-2R, and E-R debt is expected to be issued at a floating spread, and D-1FR debt is expected to be issued at a fixed coupon, replacing the current floating spread. -- The stated maturity/reinvestment period date will be extended by three years, and the non-call period/weighted average life test date will be extended by two years. -- The non-call period will be extended to Oct. 22, 2027. -- The reinvestment period will be extended to Oct. 22, 2029. -- The legal final maturity dates for the replacement debt and the existing subordinated notes will be extended to Oct. 22, 2037. -- Additional assets are expected to be purchased on the Oct. 22, 2025, refinancing date, and the target initial par amount will remain at $300 million. There will be no additional effective date or ramp-up period, and the first payment date following the refinancing is Jan. 22, 2026. -- New class X-R debt will be issued on the refinancing date. This debt is expected to be paid down using interest proceeds during the first 14 payment dates in equal installments of $285,714, beginning on the second payment date. -- Class A-1RR is a variable-funding note (VFN) that can be drawn on to fund revolving or delayed draw obligations and to purchase new collateral obligations during the reinvestment period. The VFN can also be repaid. S&P said, "If our short-term issuer credit rating on the class A-1RR loan holder falls below 'A-1', the loan holder must fully fund its unfunded commitment for the CLO's benefit. We modeled the A-1RR revolving tranche as both fully funded and fully unfunded." -- The preliminary rating on the class A-1RR loans addresses only the full and timely payment of principal and the base interest amount, which includes the stated interest rate on the funded amounts and any commitment fee due on the undrawn commitment. It does not include any capped amounts. -- The preliminary ratings do not reflect the payment of any increased costs on the class A-1RR loans, which are additional payments, based on changes in law, made to the lender. The costs may not be predictable or quantifiable. Increased cost payments are subordinate to principal and interest distributions on the rated debt in the payment waterfall and, therefore, do not affect scheduled distributions to the rated notes. -- There is no concentration limit on 'CCC' rated assets, but a haircut is taken in the overcollateralization (O/C) test if they exceed 30.00% of the pool. The transaction structure passed our cash flow analysis, assuming a sensitivity of 92.50% exposure to 'CCC' rated assets -- The required minimum O/C and interest coverage ratios will be amended. -- No additional subordinated notes will be issued on the refinancing date. -- The transaction was updated to conform to current rating agency methodology. S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction data 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 the recoveries upon default under various interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios. Our analysis also considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or ultimate principal to each rated tranche. "We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings assigned to the debt remain consistent with the credit enhancement available to support them and take rating actions as we deem necessary." Preliminary Ratings Assigned Fortress Credit Opportunities VIII CLO LLC Class X-R, $4.00 million: AAA (sf) Class A-1RR loans, $54.00 million: AAA (sf) Class A-1TR, $58.00 million: AAA (sf) Class A-1LR loans, $50.00 million: AAA (sf) Class A-2R, $9.00 million: AAA (sf) Class B-R, $15.00 million: AA (sf) Class C-R (deferrable), $24.00 million: A (sf) Class D-1TR (deferrable), $11.00 million: BBB (sf) Class D-1FR (deferrable), $10.00 million: BBB (sf) Class D-2R (deferrable), $6.00 million: BBB- (sf) Class E-R (deferrable), $12.00 million: BB- (sf) Other Debt Fortress Credit Opportunities VIII CLO LLC Subordinated notes, $50.70 million: NR NR--Not rated. GCAT 2025-NQM6: S&P Assigns Prelim B(sf) Rating on Class B-2 Certs ------------------------------------------------------------------ S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to GCAT 2025-NQM6 Trust's mortgage pass-through certificates. The certificate issuance is an RMBS securitization backed by first-lien, fixed- residential mortgage loans, including mortgage loans with initial interest-only periods, to prime and nonprime borrowers. The loans are secured by single-family residential properties, planned-unit developments, condominiums, and two- to four-family residential properties. The pool has 647 loans, which are either QM/non-HPML (APOR), QM/HPML, non-QM/ATR-compliant, or ATR-exempt. The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 15, 2025. 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 transaction's credit enhancement, associated structural mechanics, geographic concentration, and representation and warranty framework; -- The mortgage aggregator, Blue River Mortgage V LLC; the transaction-specific review on the mortgage originator, Arc Home LLC; and any S&P Global Ratings-reviewed mortgage originators; and -- S&P's outlook that considers its current projections for U.S. economic growth, unemployment rates, and interest rates, as well as its view of housing fundamentals, and is updated, if necessary, when these projections change materially. Preliminary Ratings Assigned GCAT 2025-NQM6 Trust(i) Class A-1A, $235,415,000: AAA (sf) Class A-1B, $34,393,000: AAA (sf) Class A-1, $269,808,000: AAA (sf) Class A-2, $15,992,000: AA (sf) Class A-3, $32,501,000: A (sf) Class M-1, $13,413,000: BBB- (sf) Class B-1, $4,643,000: BB (sf) Class B-2, $4,643,000: B (sf) Class B-3, $2,923,804: NR Class A-IO-S, Notional(ii): NR Class X, Notional(ii): NR Class R, N/A: NR (i)The preliminary ratings address S&P's expectation for the ultimate payment of interest and principal. (ii)The notional amount equals the aggregate stated principal balance of the loans. NR--Not rated. N/A--Not applicable. GOLUB CAPITAL 19(B)-R3: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on E-R3 Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to Golub Capital Partners CLO 19(B)-R3, Ltd. reset transaction. Entity/Debt Rating ----------- ------ Golub Capital Partners CLO 19(B)-R3, Ltd. A-1-R3 38181YAA4 LT AAAsf New Rating A-2-R3 38181YAC0 LT AAAsf New Rating B-R3 38181YAE6 LT AAsf New Rating C-1-R3 38181YAG1 LT Asf New Rating C-2-R3 38181YAJ5 LT Asf New Rating D-1-R3 38181YAL0 LT BBBsf New Rating D-2-R3 38181YAN6 LT BBB-sf New Rating E-R3 38182CAA1 LT BB-sf New Rating Subordinated Notes 38182CAC7 LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary Golub Capital Partners CLO 19(B)-R3, Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that will be managed by OPAL BSL LLC. The original transaction closed in May 2017 and was refinanced in April 2021. On the second refinancing date, net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $525 million of primarily first lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B'/'B-', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 25.67 and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 99.24% first lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 76.17% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 50.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 7.25% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a three-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-1-R3, between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-2-R3, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R3, between 'B+sf' and 'A-sf' for class C-1-R3, between 'Bsf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-2-R3, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BBB-sf' for class D-1-R3, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2-R3, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'BBsf' for class E-R3. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-1-R3 and class A-2-R3 notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R3, 'AA+sf' for class C-1-R3, 'AAsf' for class C-2-R3, 'A+sf' for class D-1-R3, 'Asf' for class D-2-R3, and 'BBB+sf' for class E-R3. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Golub Capital Partners CLO 19(B)-R3, Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, programme, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. GREAT LAKES V: S&P Assigns BB- (sf) Rating on Class E-R Notes ------------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the replacement class A-R, A-R-L, B-R, C-R, D-R, and E-R debt and new class X-R debt from Great Lakes CLO V Ltd./Great Lakes CLO V LLC, a CLO managed by BMO Asset Management Corp. that was originally issued in April 2021. At the same time, S&P withdrew its ratings on the previous class A, B, C, D, and E debt following payment in full on the Oct. 15, 2025, refinancing date. The replacement and new debt was issued via a proposed supplemental indenture, which outlines the terms of the replacement debt. According to the proposed supplemental indenture: -- The non-call period was extended to Oct. 15, 2027. -- The reinvestment period was extended to Oct. 15, 2029. -- The legal final maturity dates (for the replacement debt and the existing subordinated notes) were extended to Oct. 15, 2037. -- The target initial par amount is $285.00 million. There is no additional effective date or ramp-up period, and the first payment date following the refinancing is Jan. 15, 2026. -- The new class X debt was issued on the refinancing date. This debt is expected to be paid down using interest proceeds during the first 15 payment dates in equal installments of $700,000, beginning on the second payment date. -- The required minimum overcollateralization ratios were amended. -- No additional subordinated notes were issued on the refinancing date. S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction data 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 the recoveries upon default under various interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios. Our analysis also considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or ultimate principal to each rated tranche. "We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings assigned to the debt remain consistent with the credit enhancement available to support them and take rating actions as we deem necessary." Ratings Assigned Great Lakes CLO V Ltd./Great Lakes CLO V LLC Class X-R, $10.50 million: AAA (sf) Class A-R, $142.30 million: AAA (sf) Class A-R-L, $23.00 million: AAA (sf) Class B-R, $28.50 million: AA (sf) Class C-R (deferrable), $22.80 million: A (sf) Class D-R (deferrable), $17.10 million: BBB- (sf) Class E-R (deferrable), $17.10 million: BB- (sf) Ratings withdrawn Great Lakes CLO V Ltd./Great Lakes CLO V LLC Class A to NR from 'AAA (sf) Class B to NR from 'AA (sf)' Class C to NR from 'A (sf)' Class D to NR from 'BBB (sf)' Class E to NR from 'BB (sf)' Other Debt Great Lakes CLO V Ltd./Great Lakes CLO V LLC Subordinated notes, $35.62 million: NR NR--Not rated. GS MORTGAGE 2025-NQM5: S&P Assign Prelim 'B' Rating on B-2 Certs ---------------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to GS Mortgage-Backed Securities Trust 2025-NQM5's mortgage-backed certificates. The certificate issuance is an RMBS securitization backed by first-lien, fixed- and adjustable-rate, fully amortizing residential mortgage loans, including mortgage loans with initial interest-only periods, to both prime and nonprime borrowers. The loans are secured by single-family residential properties, townhomes, planned-unit developments, condominiums, two- to four-family residential properties, and co-operatives. The pool consists of 956 loans backed by 970 properties, which are qualified mortgage (QM)/non-higher-priced mortgage loan (safe harbor), non-QM/ability to repay (ATR)-compliant, and ATR-exempt loans. The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 15, 2025. 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 transaction's credit enhancement, associated structural mechanics, representation and warranty framework, and geographic concentration; -- The mortgage aggregator and mortgage originators; and -- S&P's economic outlook, which considers its current projections for U.S. economic growth, unemployment rates, and interest rates, as well as its view of housing fundamentals, and is updated, if necessary, when these projections change materially. Preliminary Ratings Assigned GS Mortgage-Backed Securities Trust 2025-NQM5(i) Class A-1, $244,337,000: AAA (sf) Class A-2, $19,358,000: AA (sf) Class A-3, $27,980,000: A (sf) Class M-1, $12,851,000: BBB (sf) Class B-1, $8,948,000: BB (sf) Class B-2, $7,320,000: B (sf) Class B-3, $4,555,292: NR Class X, notional(ii): NR Class SA(iii): NR Class PT, $325,349,292: NR Class R, N/A: NR (i)The collateral and structural information in this report reflect the term sheet dated Sept. 10, 2025. The preliminary ratings address the ultimate payment of interest and principal, and do not address payment of the cap carryover amounts. (ii)The notional amount for the class X certificates equals the non-retained interest percentage (95%) of the loans' aggregate unpaid principal balance, initially $325,349,292. (iii)Balance equal to the non-retained interest percentage of the amount of pre-existing servicing advances as of the closing date. Entitled to the class SA monthly remittance amount, if any. N/A—Not applicable. NR--Not rated. GS TRUST 2025-DSC2: S&P Assigns Prelim B (sf) Rating on B-2 Certs ----------------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to GS Mortgage-Backed Securities Trust 2025-DSC2's mortgage-backed certificates. The certificate issuance is an RMBS transaction backed by first-lien, fixed- and adjustable-rate, fully amortizing residential mortgage loans, including mortgage loans with initial interest-only periods, to both prime and nonprime borrowers. The loans are secured by single-family residential properties, townhomes, planned-unit developments, condominiums, and two- to four-family residential properties. The pool consists of 1,428 business-purpose investment property loans that are all ability-to-repay exempt. The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 17, 2025. 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 transaction's credit enhancement, associated structural mechanics, representation and warranty framework, and geographic concentration; -- The mortgage aggregator and mortgage originators; -- The 100% due diligence results consistent with represented loan characteristics; and -- S&P's economic outlook, which considers its current projections for U.S. economic growth, unemployment rates, and interest rates, as well as its view of housing fundamentals, and is updated, if necessary, when these projections change materially. Preliminary Ratings Assigned(i) GS Mortgage-Backed Securities Trust 2025-DSC2 Class A-1, $204,966,000: AAA (sf) Class A-2, $19,725,000: AA (sf) Class A-3, $32,184,000: A (sf) Class M-1, $15,424,000: BBB (sf) Class B-1, $10,678,000: BB (sf) Class B-2, $8,602,000: B (sf) Class B-3, $5,043,424: NR Class X, $296,622,424: NR Class SA, $79,486(ii): NR Class R, not applicable: NR (i)The ratings address the ultimate payment of interest and principal. They do not address payment of the cap carryover amounts. (ii)The class SA certificates will be entitled to receive pre-existing servicing advances as of the cutoff date and will not be entitled to any interest or other principal payments. NR--Not rated. HARBOR PARK: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E-R2 Notes ------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to Harbor Park CLO, Ltd. refinancing notes. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- Harbor Park CLO, Ltd. A-R LT PIFsf Paid In Full AAAsf A-R2 LT AAAsf New Rating B-R2 LT AAsf New Rating C-R2 LT Asf New Rating D-R2 LT BBB-sf New Rating E-R2 LT BB-sf New Rating Transaction Summary Harbor Park CLO, Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that is managed by Blackstone CLO Management LLC. This is the third refinancing of the transaction. It is undergoing a full refinancing of all secured notes. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $400 million of primarily first lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B'/'B-', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 25.87 and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 99.23% first lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 74.99% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 50% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction is out of the reinvestment period and contains reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is approximately 10 months greater than the WAL covenant to reach the minimum four-year risk horizon required by Fitch's CLO criteria. Key Provision Changes The refinancing is being implemented via the fourth supplemental indenture, which amended certain provisions of the transaction. - All notes are being refinanced with overall lower spreads across all tranches; - The non-call period for the refinanced notes is extended to April 20, 2026; - Introduced Fitch Test Matrix applicable on the refinancing date; - The weighted average life test is changing from 2.50 years to 3.15 years; - Stated maturity on the refinanced notes and the reinvestment period end date remain the same as the original notes. Fitch Analysis The portfolio includes 192 assets from 175 primarily high-yield obligors. The portfolio balance (excluding defaults and including principal cash) is approximately $400 million. As of the latest trustee report prior to the refinance date, the transaction was not passing its maximum weighted average life test and its 'CCC' concentration limitations. All other collateral quality tests, coverage tests, and concentration limitations were passing. The weighted average rating of the current portfolio is 'B'. Fitch has an explicit rating, credit opinion or private rating for 50.2% of the current portfolio par balance. Ratings for 49.3% of the portfolio were derived using Fitch's Issuer Default Rating equivalency map and 0.5% were unrated. The analysis focused on the Fitch stressed portfolio (FSP), and cash flow model analysis was conducted for this refinancing. The FSP included the following concentrations, reflecting the maximum limitations per the indenture or maintained at the current level: - Largest five obligors: 2.5% each, for an aggregate of 12.5%; - Largest three industries: 25.0%, 12.5%, and 12.5%, respectively; - Assumed risk horizon: four years; - Minimum weighted average spread: 3.00%; - Minimum weighted average recovery rate: 66.90%; - Maximum weighted average rating factor: 27.00; - Fixed-rate assets: 5.00%; - Minimum weighted average coupon: 5.00%. The transaction exited its reinvestment period on Jan. 20, 2024. Fitch Asset and Cash Flow Analysis The Fitch model outputs are shown below at the example matrix point. For each class, the notes passed all nine cash flow scenarios under the assigned rating scenarios with the minimum default cushions indicated. Current Portfolio Model Outputs: - Class A-R2: 'AAAsf'/Default 42.50%/Recovery 40.00%/Cushion 13.50%; - Class B-R2: 'AAsf'/Default 40.20%/Recovery 48.76%/Cushion 11.20%; - Class C-R2: 'Asf'/Default 35.70%/Recovery 58.54%/Cushion 10.30%; - Class D-R2: 'BBB-sf'/Default 27.10%/Recovery 67.53%/Cushion 10.60%; - Class E-R2: 'BB-sf'/Default 22.50%/Recovery 72.89%/Cushion 13.70%. FSP Model Outputs: - Class A-R2: 'AAAsf'/Default 48.90%/Recovery 34.72%/Cushion 4.10%; - Class B-R2: 'AAsf'/Default 46.20%/Recovery 41.21%/Cushion 0.60%; - Class C-R2: 'Asf'/Default 41.30%/Recovery 51.21%/Cushion 0.00%; - Class D-R2: 'BBB-sf'/Default 31.80%/Recovery 60.40%/Cushion 1.40%; - Class E-R2: 'BB-sf'/Default 26.60%/Recovery 65.66%/Cushion 3.40%. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'A-sf' and 'AAAsf' for class A-R2, between 'BBB-sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R2, between 'BB-sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-R2, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-R2, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E-R2. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-R2 notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R2, 'AA-sf' for class C-R2, 'A-sf' for class D-R2, and 'BBB+sf' for class E-R2. 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. DATA ADEQUACY The majority of the underlying assets or risk-presenting entities have ratings or credit opinions from Fitch and/or other nationally recognized statistical rating organizations and/or European Securities and Markets Authority-registered rating agencies. Fitch has relied on the practices of the relevant groups within Fitch and/or other rating agencies to assess the asset portfolio information. Overall, Fitch's assessment of the asset pool information relied upon for its rating analysis according to its applicable rating methodologies indicates that it is adequately reliable. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Harbor Park CLO, Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, programme, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. HAYFIN US XIV: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E-R Notes -------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to Hayfin US XIV, Ltd. reset transaction. Entity/Debt Rating ----------- ------ Hayfin US XIV, Ltd. A-1R LT NRsf New Rating A-JR LT AAAsf New Rating B-R LT AAsf New Rating C-R LT Asf New Rating D-1R LT BBB-sf New Rating D-JR LT BBB-sf New Rating E-R LT BB-sf New Rating Subordinated Notes LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary Hayfin US XIV, Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that is managed by Hayfin Capital Management LLC and originally closed in August 2021. The CLO's secured notes will be refinanced on Oct. 20, 2025, from proceeds of the new secured and subordinated notes. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $475 million of primarily first lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B+/B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 23.08, and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 100% first lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 74.74% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 45% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with that of other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-JR, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R, between 'B+sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-1R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-JR, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E-R. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-JR notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R, 'AAsf' for class C-R, 'Asf' for class D-1R, 'A-sf' for class D-JR, and 'BBB+sf' for class E-R. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Hayfin US XIV, Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, program, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. ILLINOIS HOUSING 20025: S&P Lowers Revenue Bond Rating to 'BB-' --------------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings lowered its long-term rating to 'BB-' from 'BB' on the Illinois Housing Development Authority's series 2005 multifamily housing revenue bonds, issued for Preservation Housing Management and Crestview Preservation Associates L.P.'s Crestview Village apartments project. The outlook is stable. The downgrade reflects weakened credit quality due to S&P's projection that assets will be insufficient to cover the final bond maturity on Sept. 15, 2037. S&P has analyzed the transaction's environmental, social, and governance risks relative to its legal framework, operational risk framework, cash flow and enhancement type, and view these risks as neutral in its credit analysis. The stable outlook reflects S&P Global Ratings' opinion that sufficient revenue will be available to cover debt service and fees over the one-year outlook period, and also that the expected time to default is unlikely to change over that period. S&P said, "If current DSC trends stay on track, and we continue to view Sept. 15, 2037, as a date of potential default, we could apply a rating cap of 'B+' once the DSC shortfall is less than 10 years away. If DSC trends worsen significantly and we project that default could occur sooner than 2037, we could lower the rating by multiple notches. "Although this is unlikely, in our view, we could take a positive rating action if the transaction's fund balances increase from better-than-expected reinvestment earnings or if there is an additional deposit of funds sufficient to cover our projected shortfall." IMPRINT PAYMENTS 2025-A: Fitch Rates Class E Notes 'BBsf' --------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings to the inaugural credit card ABS, Series 2025-A notes issued by Imprint Payments Credit Card Master Trust (PRNT). The fixed-rate notes are backed by a revolving pool of receivables primarily from co-branded Visa, Mastercard and American Express credit card accounts originated and owned by First Electronic Bank (FEB) and First Bank & Trust (FB&T), and serviced by Imprint Payments, Inc. (Imprint). The Rating Outlook on the notes is Stable. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- Imprint Payments Credit Card Master Trust, Series 2025-A A LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf B LT AAsf New Rating AA(EXP)sf C LT Asf New Rating A(EXP)sf D LT BBBsf New Rating BBB(EXP)sf E LT BBsf New Rating BB(EXP)sf Transaction Summary After launching the 2025-A transaction, Imprint acquired a co-branded credit card program from a third-party originator and transferred the related credit card accounts to FB&T. FB&T then designated certain accounts from the acquired portfolio to the transferor and transferred the related receivables to the trust. The account addition has improved geographic and merchant diversification of the collateral pool. The transaction has been upsized to USD300 million from its initial USD200 million at launch, with both the initial principal amounts of each class of notes and the initial subordinated transferor amount proportionally adjusted to maintain the credit enhancement (CE). KEY RATING DRIVERS Receivables' Performance and Collateral Characteristics: Imprint began operating the Imprint Program in 2022 by offering co-branded credit cards with various merchants and originating partner banks. In October 2023, the trust was created to support the Imprint Program's expansion through organic balance growth, as well as future portfolio acquisitions. Due to Imprint's limited historical data, Fitch supplemented its asset analysis of the trust with comparable market performance data from peer credit card platforms. Additionally, Fitch considered potential risks of the economic environment, as well as collateral characteristics of a relatively unseasoned and concentrated co-branded card portfolio, to derive steady states and rating case assumptions. As of the August 2025 collection period, 60+ day delinquencies increased to 3.28% from 2.89% in May 2025, while gross charge-offs decreased to 6.73% from 7.31% over the same period. The monthly payment rate (MPR) remained strong at 34.26%, compared to 34.27% three months prior, and gross yield increased to 29.79% from 28.72%. Available CE is adequate, with loss multiples in line with the expected ratings and Fitch's applicable criteria. The Stable Outlook on the notes reflects Fitch's expectation that performance will remain supportive of the ratings. Originator and Servicer Quality: Fitch performed an operational review of Imprint and considers it to be an acceptable servicer. Fitch also reviewed the credit card programs between Imprint and its partner banks and considers the Imprint Programs' origination operation to be comparable with other nonbank credit card providers. Additionally, the availability of a warm backup servicer and the depth of the servicing market further mitigate operational risk. Counterparty Risk: Fitch's ratings of the notes depend on the financial strength of certain counterparties. Fitch believes this risk is mitigated by the ratings of the applicable counterparties to the transactions and contractual remedial provisions in the transaction documents that are in line with Fitch's counterparty criteria. Interest Rate Risk: The transaction carries a degree of interest rate mismatch, in line with the market. Interest rate risk is mitigated by the available initial hard CE, which comprises subordination (not available to class E), overcollateralization (OC) in the form of the initial subordinated transferor amount (STA) at 3.40%, and a reserve account. CE supporting class A, B, C, D, and E notes is 26.10%, 19.30%, 14.35%, 8.40% and 3.40%, respectively. The reserve account will be funded if the three-month average excess spread (XS) percentage falls below 2.00% on and after the February 2026 payment date and will not be funded at closing. Steady State Assumptions - Annualized Charge-offs: 9.50%; - MPR: 23.00%; - Annualized Yield: 22.00%; - Purchase Rate: 100.00%. Rating Case Assumptions for class A, B, C, D and E notes: 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/ 'Asf'/ 'BBBsf'/ 'BBsf' - Charge-offs (multiple): 5.00x/4.00x/3.25x/2.50x/1.75x; - MPR (haircut): 55.00%/50.60%/46.20%/39.60%/30.80%; - Yield (haircut): 35.00%/30.00%/25.00%/20.00%/15.00%; - Purchase Rate (haircut): 100.00% across rating categories. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Rating sensitivity to increased charge-off rate: Ratings for class A, B, C, D and E notes (steady state: 9.50%): 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BBsf' - Increase steady state by 25%: 'AA+sf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'; - Increase steady state by 50%: 'AA+sf'/'Asf'/'BBB+sf'/'BB+sf'/'B+sf'; - Increase steady state by 75%: 'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBBsf'/'BBsf'/'Bsf'. Rating sensitivity to reduced MPR: Ratings for class A, B, C, D and E notes (steady state: 23.00%): 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BBsf' - Reduce steady state by 15%: 'AA+sf'/'A+sf'/'BBB+sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'; - Reduce steady state by 25%: 'AAsf'/'A-sf'/'BBBsf'/'BB+sf'/'B+sf'; - Reduce steady state by 35%: 'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BB+sf'/'BB-sf'/'Bsf'. Rating sensitivity to reduced purchase rate: Ratings for class A, B, C, D and E notes (100% base assumption): 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BBsf' - Reduce steady state by 50%: 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BBsf'; - Reduce steady state by 75%: 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BBsf'; - Reduce steady state by 100%: 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BBsf'. Rating sensitivity to reduced yield: Ratings for class A, B, C, D and E notes (steady state: 22.00%): 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BBsf' - Reduce steady state by 15%: 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BB-sf'; - Reduce steady state by 25%: 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'A-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'; - Reduce steady state by 35%:'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'B+sf'. Rating sensitivity to increased charge-off rate and reduced MPR: Ratings for class A, B, C, D and E notes (charge-off steady state: 9.50%; MPR steady state: 23.00%): 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BBsf' - Increase charge-off steady state by 25% and reduce MPR steady state by 15%: 'AAsf'/'A-sf'/'BBBsf'/'BB+sf'/'B+sf'; - Increase charge-off steady state by 50% and reduce MPR steady state by 25%: 'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BB+sf'/'BB-sf'/'Bsf'; - Increase charge-off steady state by 75% and reduce MPR steady state by 35%: 'BBBsf'/'BB+sf'/'BB-sf'/'Bsf'/below 'Bsf' Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Rating sensitivity to reduced charge-off rate: Ratings for class A, B, C, D, and E notes (charge-off steady state: 9.50%): 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BBsf' - Reduce steady state by 50%: 'AAAsf'/'AAAsf'/'AA+sf'/'AA-sf'/'BBB+sf'. Some of the subordinate classes of PRNT, Series 2025-A may be able to support higher ratings based on the output of Fitch's proprietary cashflow model. Since the credit card program is set up as a continuous funding program and requires that any new issuance does not affect the ratings of existing tranches, the CE levels are set up to maintain a constant rating level per class of issued notes and may provide more than the minimum CE necessary to retain issuance flexibility. Therefore, Fitch may decide not to assign or maintain ratings above the ratings in anticipation of future issuances. USE OF THIRD PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G -10 Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E (Form 15E) as prepared by Deloitte & Touch LLP. The third-party due diligence described in Form 15E focused on the comparison and recomputation of certain information with respect to 150 credit card receivable accounts, selected from a credit card receivable listing with respect to 350,836 credit card receivable accounts. Fitch considered this information in its analysis, and it did not have an effect on Fitch's analysis or conclusions. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. JPMDB 2020-COR7: Fitch Lowers Rating on Class F-RR Certs to 'Bsf' ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has downgraded 10 and affirmed five classes of JPMDB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2020-COR7 (JPMDB 2020-COR7) commercial mortgage pass-through certificates. Fitch has also assigned Negative Rating Outlooks to nine classes following the downgrades. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- JPMDB 2020-COR7 A-3 46652JAU6 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-4 46652JAV4 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-5 46652JAW2 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf A-S 46652JBA9 LT AAsf Downgrade AAAsf A-SB 46652JAX0 LT AAAsf Affirmed AAAsf B 46652JBB7 LT Asf Downgrade AA-sf C 46652JBC5 LT BBBsf Downgrade A-sf D 46652JAC6 LT BB+sf Downgrade BBBsf E 46652JAE2 LT BBsf Downgrade BBB-sf F-RR 46652JAG7 LT Bsf Downgrade BB-sf G-RR 46652JAJ1 LT CCCsf Downgrade B-sf H-RR 46652JAL6 LT CCCsf Affirmed CCCsf X-A 46652JAY8 LT AAsf Downgrade AAAsf X-B 46652JAZ5 LT Asf Downgrade AA-sf X-D 46652JAA0 LT BBsf Downgrade BBB-sf KEY RATING DRIVERS Increase in 'Bsf' Loss Expectations: The downgrades reflect higher pool losses than at the prior rating action, driven primarily by an updated appraisal value on the largest loan, the LA County Office Portfolio (10.2% of the pool), which recently transferred to the special servicer. Additionally, performance has deteriorated on several office Fitch Loans of Concern (FLOCs)--including 675 Creekside Way (6.6%), Hampton Roads Office Portfolio (5.9%), Frick Building (5%), Whitehall III & V (4.9%), 1340 Concord (3.3%), Apollo Education Group HQ Campus (2.2%), and NOV Headquarters (1.5%)--of which four (13.6%) have exposure to a single tenant that is currently dark. The Negative Outlooks reflect the potential for further downgrades due to the significant concentration of loans with office exposure (79.9%) and the possibility that office FLOC performance may not stabilize or deteriorates further, or if there is a prolonged workout for the loan in special servicing. Fitch's current ratings incorporate a higher 'Bsf' rating-case loss of 7.4%, up from 5.6% at the prior rating action. Eleven loans are classified as FLOCs (47.6% of the pool), including one loan (10.2%) in special servicing. Largest Increases in Loss Expectations/Largest Loss Contributors: The largest increase in loss since the prior rating action and the largest contributor to overall pool loss expectations is the LA County Office Portfolio loan. The loan is secured by a portfolio of five office buildings totaling 346,786 sf in the Los Angeles metropolitan service area (MSA). The loan transferred to special servicer in June 2025 for imminent monetary default. The borrower requested a short-term forbearance due to PennyMac (15% of portfolio NRA) vacating at the July 2025 lease expiration. Occupancy declined to 61% as of July 2025 from 81% as of June 2024 and 91% as of YE 2022 and it remains below issuance occupancy of 98%. The portfolio has near-term lease rollover of approximately 6.4% in 2025, 2% in 2026, and 11.5% in 2027. The TTM June 2025 NOI is down 17% compared to YE 2024 and remains 51% below the originator's underwritten NOI from issuance. Fitch's 'Bsf' rating-case loss of 26.6% (prior to concentration add-ons) is based on the most recent appraised value, reflecting a value of $145 psf. Fitch's 'Bsf' rating-case loss for this loan at the prior rating action was 11.6%. The second-largest contributor to overall pool loss expectations is the Frick Building (5%). The loan is secured by a 353,677-sf office property in downtown Pittsburgh, PA. Property performance continues to underperform with occupancy at 60% as of June 2025 compared to 59% at YE 2024 and YE 2023. This remains below the 67% occupancy at the end of YE 2022. Occupancy had declined from issuance due to the departure of the second largest tenant, Goehring, Rutter Boehm (7.5% of NRA) in 2021 at lease expiration. YE 2024 NOI was down 16% year-over-year and remains 42% below the originator's underwritten NOI from issuance. The YE 2024 NOI DSCR was 1.07x, a decline from 1.27x at YE 2023 and 1.35x as of YE 2022. Fitch's 'Bsf' rating-case loss of 19.9% (prior to concentration add-ons) reflects a 10% cap rate, 10% stress to the YE 2024 NOI and factors in an increased probability of default due to the deteriorating cash flow driving heightened default concerns. The third-largest contributor to overall pool loss expectations is 675 Creekside (6.6%). The loan is secured by a 177,815-sf office building located in Campbell, CA. The single tenant, 8x8, vacated the building but continues to pay rent. The tenant has a lease expiration of December 2030 but has a one-time termination option in December 2028 if they provide one year of notice, and are required to pay a termination fee of $10.3 million. Fitch's 'Bsf' rating-case loss of 13.7% (prior to concentration add-ons) reflects a 10.5% cap rate, 30% stress to the YE 2023 NOI to reflect the dark property in a submarket with a high vacancy. The fourth-largest contributor to overall pool loss expectations is the Hampton Roads Office Portfolio (5.9%). The loan is secured by a portfolio of 16 office buildings totaling 1.32 million sf in Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, and Hampton, VA. The loan was modified and recently transferred back to the master servicer in August 2025 after originally transferring to the special servicer in November 2023 for imminent monetary default. The portfolio was 73% occupied as of June 2025, down from 90.5% at issuance. The portfolio reported an NOI DSCR of 1.25x as of YE 2024, which compares with 1.32x as of YE 2023 and 1.24x as of YE 2022. The YE 2024 NOI remains 23% below the originator's underwritten NOI from issuance. Fitch's 'Bsf' ratings-case loss of 11% (prior to concentration add-ons) reflects a 10% stress to the YE 2024 NOI with a cap rate of 10.5% for the portfolio. Single-Tenant Office Exposure: Nondefeased loans representing 16.1% of the pool are secured by single-tenant office properties, which include 675 Creekside Way (6.6% of pool), 1340 Concord (3.3%), Apollo Education Group HQ Campus (2.2%), NOV Headquarters (1.5%), Staples Headquarters (1.5%), and Guidepost Montessori (1.0%). Several of the tenants at these properties have vacated and the buildings remain dark, including 675 Creekside Way, 1340 Concord, Apollo Education Group HQ Campus, and NOV Headquarters. Loans with dark tenant exposure have elevated losses, mitigated by loan structures that include cash sweeps and longer-term lease expirations. Changes to Credit Enhancement: As of the October 2025 distribution date, the pool's aggregate principal balance has paid down by 9.4% to $659.4 million from $727.4 million at issuance. Three loans are defeased (8.8%). Cumulative interest shortfalls totaling $227,114 are affecting the non-rated class NR-RR. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Downgrades to the senior 'AAAsf' rated classes are not expected, due to the position in the capital structure and expected continued amortization and loan repayments, but may occur if deal-level losses increase significantly and/or interest shortfalls occur or are expected to occur. Downgrades to classes rated in the 'AAsf' and 'Asf' categories will occur if deal-level losses increase significantly from outsized losses on larger FLOCs or more loans than expected experience performance deterioration or default at or before maturity. Downgrades to the 'BBBsf', 'BBsf', and 'Bsf' categories are possible with higher-than-expected losses from continued underperformance of the FLOCs, in particular office loans with deteriorating performance or with greater certainty of losses on FLOCs. Loans of particular concern include LA County Office Portfolio, 675 Creekside Way, Hampton Roads Office Portfolio, Frick Building, 1340 Concord, Apollo Education Group HQ Campus, and NOV Headquarters. Classes with distressed ratings will be downgraded if additional loans transfer to special servicing or default, as losses are realized or become more certain. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrades to classes rated in the 'AAsf' and 'Asf' category may be possible with significantly increased credit enhancement (CE) from paydowns and/or defeasance, coupled with stable-to-improved pool-level loss expectations and improved performance on the FLOCs. Classes will not be upgraded above 'AA+sf' if there is a likelihood of interest shortfalls. Upgrades to the 'BBBsf' and 'BBsf' categories would be limited based on sensitivity to concentrations or the potential for future concentration. Upgrades to classes rated in the 'Bsf' category are unlikely until the later years of the transaction and only if the performance of the remaining pool is stable, recoveries on the FLOCs are better than expected, and there is sufficient CE for the classes. Upgrades to distressed ratings are not expected but would be possible with better-than-expected recoveries on the specially serviced loan or significantly higher values on FLOCs. 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. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. KKR CLO 48: Fitch Assigns 'BBsf' Rating on Class E-R Notes ---------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Outlooks to KKR CLO 48 Ltd. reset transaction. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- KKR CLO 48 Ltd. X-R LT NRsf New Rating A-2 48256EAC3 LT PIFsf Paid In Full AAAsf A-R LT NRsf New Rating B 48256EAE9 LT PIFsf Paid In Full AAsf B-R LT AAsf New Rating C 48256EAG4 LT PIFsf Paid In Full Asf C-R LT Asf New Rating D-1 48256EAJ8 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BBB+sf D-1-R LT BBB-sf New Rating D-2 48256EAL3 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BBB-sf D-2-R LT BBB-sf New Rating E 48256FAA4 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BB+sf E-R LT BBsf New Rating F-R LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary KKR CLO 48 Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) managed by KKR Financial Advisors II, LLC. which originally closed in November 2023 and was rated by Fitch. On Oct. 20, 2025, all of the existing secured notes will be paid in full by net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes, which will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $400 million of primarily first-lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 96.09% first-lien senior secured loans and has a weighted average recovery assumption of 74.25%. Fitch stressed the indicative portfolio by assuming a higher portfolio concentration of assets with lower recovery prospects and further reduced recovery assumptions for higher rating stresses. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 40% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 11.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity required by industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting to the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R, between 'B+sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-1-R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2-R and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E-R. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R, 'AAsf' for class C-R, 'Asf' for class D-1-R, and 'A-sf' for class D-2-R and 'BBBsf' for class E-R. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for KKR CLO 48 Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, programme, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. KKR CLO 48: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to $200,000 Class F-R Notes ----------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's Ratings has assigned ratings to three classes of refinancing notes (the Refinancing Notes) issued by KKR CLO 48 Ltd. (the Issuer): US$2,000,000 Class X-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2038, Assigned, Aaa (sf) US$256,000,000 Class A-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2038, Assigned Aaa (sf) US$200,000 Class F-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2038, Assigned B3 (sf) RATINGS RATIONALE The rationale for the ratings is based on Moody's methodologies and considers all relevant risks particularly those associated with the CLO's portfolio and structure. 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. At least 90% of the portfolio must consist of first lien senior secured loans and up to 10% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans, unsecured loans and permitted non-loan assets. KKR Financial Advisors II, LLC (the Manager) will continue to 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 extended five year reinvestment period. Thereafter, subject to certain restrictions, the Manager may reinvest unscheduled principal payments and proceeds from sales of credit risk assets. In addition to the issuance of the Refinancing Notes and other classes of secured 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 the base matrix and modifiers. Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in "Collateralized Loan Obligations" rating methodology published in October 2025. The key model inputs Moody's used in Moody's analysis, such as par, weighted average rating factor, diversity score and weighted average recovery rate, are based on Moody's published methodology and could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. For modeling purposes, Moody's used the following base-case assumptions: Portfolio par: $400,000,000 Diversity Score: 75 Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 3135 Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.10% Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 46.00% Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years Methodology Underlying the Rating Action: The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in October 2025. 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. LEHMAN MORTGAGE 2007-7: Moody's Ups Rating on 9 Tranches to Caa3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's Ratings has upgraded the ratings of 19 bonds issued by Lehman Mortgage Trust 2007-7. The collateral backing this deal consists of Alt-A mortgage loans. A comprehensive review of all credit ratings for the respective transaction(s) has been conducted during a rating committee. The complete rating actions are as follows: Issuer: Lehman Mortgage Trust 2007-7 Cl. 4-A1, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Caa3 (sf) Cl. 4-A2*, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Caa3 (sf) Cl. 4-A3, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Caa3 (sf) Cl. 4-A5, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Caa3 (sf) Cl. 4-A6, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Caa3 (sf) Cl. 4-A7, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Caa3 (sf) Cl. 4-A8, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Ca (sf) Cl. 4-A10, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Ca (sf) Cl. 5-A1, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Ca (sf) Cl. 5-A2*, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Ca (sf) Cl. 5-A3*, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Ca (sf) Cl. 5-A4, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Ca (sf) Cl. 5-A6, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Ca (sf) Cl. 5-A7, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Ca (sf) Cl. 6-A1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf) Cl. 6-A2*, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf) Cl. 6-A4, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf) Cl. 6-A5, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Ca (sf) Cl. AP2, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Dec 22, 2010 Downgraded to Ca (sf) *Reflects Interest-Only Classes. RATINGS RATIONALE The rating actions reflect the current levels of credit enhancement available to the bonds, the recent performance, analysis of the transaction structures, Moody's updated loss expectations on the underlying pools and Moody's revised loss-given-default expectation for each bond. Each of the bonds experiencing a rating change has either incurred a missed or delayed disbursement of an interest payment or is currently, or expected to become, undercollateralized, which may sometimes be reflected by a reduction in principal (a write-down). Moody's expectations of loss-given-default assesses losses experienced and expected future losses as a percent of the original bond balance. No actions were taken on the other rated classes in these deals because their expected losses remain commensurate with their current ratings, after taking into account the updated performance information, structural features, credit enhancement and other qualitative considerations. Principal Methodologies The principal methodology used in rating all classes except interest-only classes was "US Residential Mortgage-backed Securitizations: Surveillance" published in December 2024. 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 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. 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 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. An IO bond may be upgraded or downgraded, within the constraints and provisions of the IO methodology, based on lower or higher realized and expected loss due to an overall improvement or decline in the credit quality of the reference bonds. 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. In addition, improvements in reporting formats and data availability across deals and trustees may provide better insight into certain performance metrics such as the level of collateral modifications. MADISON PARK LI: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E-R Notes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Outlooks to the Madison Park Funding LI, Ltd. reset transaction. Entity/Debt Rating ----------- ------ Madison Park Funding LI, Ltd. A-1-R LT NRsf New Rating A-2-R LT AAAsf New Rating B-R LT AAsf New Rating C-R LT Asf New Rating D-1-R LT BBB+sf New Rating D-2-R LT BBB-sf New Rating E-R LT BB-sf New Rating F-R LT NRsf New Rating Subordinated LT NRsf New Rating X-R LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary Madison Park Funding LI, Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) managed by UBS Asset Management (Americas) LLC. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $496 million of primarily first-lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B/B-', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 95.9% first-lien senior secured loans and has a weighted average recovery assumption of 73.73%. Fitch stressed the indicative portfolio by assuming a higher portfolio concentration of assets with lower recovery prospects and further reduced recovery assumptions for higher rating stresses. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 41% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity required by industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting to the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-2-R, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R, between 'B+sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BBB-sf' for class D-1-R, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2-R and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E-R. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-2-R notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R, 'AA+sf' for class C-R, 'A+sf' for class D-1-R, and 'A+sf' for class D-2-R and 'BBB+sf' for class E-R. CRITERIA VARIATION Not applicable 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Madison Park Funding LI, Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, programme, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. MADISON PARK LI: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to $250,000 F-R Notes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's Ratings has assigned ratings to three classes of CLO refinancing notes (the Refinancing Notes) issued by Madison Park Funding LI, Ltd. (the Issuer): US$8,000,000 Class X Floating Rate Senior Notes due 2038, Assigned Aaa (sf) US$320,000,000 Class A-1-R Floating Rate Senior Notes due 2038, Assigned Aaa (sf) US$250,000 Class F-R Deferrable Floating Rate Junior Notes due 2038, Assigned B3 (sf) RATINGS RATIONALE The rationale for the ratings is based on Moody's methodologies and considers all relevant risks particularly those associated with the CLO's portfolio and structure. 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. At least 90.0% of the portfolio must consist of first lien senior secured loans and up to 10.0% of the portfolio may consist of not senior secured loans. UBS Asset Management (Americas) 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 extended five year reinvestment period. Thereafter, subject to certain restrictions, the Manager may reinvest unscheduled principal payments and proceeds from sales of credit risk assets. In addition to the issuance of the Refinancing Notes and the other classes of secured 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 the base matrix and modifiers. Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in the "Collateralized Loan Obligations" rating methodology published in October 2025. The key model inputs Moody's used in Moody's analysis, such as par, weighted average rating factor, diversity score and weighted average recovery rate, are based on Moody's published methodology and could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. For modeling purposes, Moody's used the following base-case assumptions: Portfolio par: $500,000,000 Diversity Score: 72 Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 3029 Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.25% Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 45.25% Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8.0 years Methodology Underlying the Rating Action: The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in October 2025. 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. MARBLE POINT XXV: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E-RR Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to Marble Point CLO XXV Ltd.'s second refinancing notes. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- Marble Point CLO XXV Ltd. A-1RR LT NRsf New Rating A-2R 565923AS8 LT PIFsf Paid In Full AAAsf A-2RR LT AAAsf New Rating B-R 565923AU3 LT PIFsf Paid In Full AAsf B-RR LT AAsf New Rating C-R 565923AW9 LT PIFsf Paid In Full Asf C-RR LT Asf New Rating D-R 565923AY5 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BBB-sf D-RR LT BBB-sf New Rating E-R 565915AE5 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BB-sf E-RR LT BB-sf New Rating X-RR LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary Marble Point CLO XXV, Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) managed by Marble Point CLO Management LLC that originally closed in November 2022. The CLO's secured notes were refinanced for the first time on Nov. 23, 2023. On the second refinancing date, all secured notes from the existing transaction will be redeemed in full with refinancing proceeds. Net proceeds from the issuance of the second refinancing notes and new subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $398 million of primarily first lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality (Negative): The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 23.89 and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security (Positive): The indicative portfolio consists of 96.53% first lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 75.34% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition (Positive): The largest three industries may comprise up to 40% of the portfolio balance in aggregate, while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management (Neutral): The transaction has a three-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis (Positive): Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The weighted average life (WAL) used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. Key Provision Changes The refinancing is being implemented via the first supplemental indenture, which amended certain provisions of the transaction. - All notes are being refinanced with lower spreads across all tranches; - The non-call period for the refinanced notes is Jan. 10, 2027; - Updated Fitch Test Matrix applicable on the refinancing date; - Stated maturity on the refinanced notes and the reinvestment period end date remain the same as the original notes. Fitch Analysis The portfolio includes 322 assets from 294 primarily high yield obligors. The portfolio balance (excluding defaults an including principal cash) is approximately $398 million. As of the latest trustee report prior to the refinance date the transaction was not passing the following tests: the minimum weighted average recovery rate, minimum Fitch floating spread test, minimum WAC and WAS tests. All other collateral quality tests, coverage tests, and concentration limitations were passing. The weighted average rating of the current portfolio is 'B'. Fitch has an explicit rating, credit opinion or private rating for 45.1% of the current portfolio par balance, ratings for 54.9% of the portfolio were derived using Fitch's Issuer Default Rating equivalency map, there were no unidentified or unrated assets. The analysis focused on the Fitch stressed portfolio (FSP), and cash flow model analysis was conducted for this refinancing. The FSP included the following concentrations, reflecting the maximum limitations per the indenture or maintained at the current level: - Largest five obligors: 2.5% each, for an aggregate of 12.5%; - Largest three industries: 15.0%, 12.5%, and 12.5%, respectively; - Assumed risk horizon: seven years; - Minimum weighted average spread of 3.00%; - Minimum weighted average recovery rate of 69.70%; - Maximum weighted average rating factor of 25.00; - Fixed-rate assets: 5.00%; - Minimum weighted average coupon of 7.00%. The transaction will exit its reinvestment period on Oct. 20, 2028. Fitch Asset and Cash Flow Analysis The Fitch model outputs are shown below. For each class, the notes passed all nine cash flow scenarios under the assigned rating scenarios with the minimum default cushions indicated. Current Portfolio Model Outputs: - Class A-2RR: 'AAAsf' / Default 42.00% / Recovery 38.33% / Cushion 12.80%; - Class B-RR: 'AAsf' / Default 39.20% / Recovery 47.45% / Cushion 11.20%; - Class C-RR: 'Asf' / Default 34.60% / Recovery 56.94% / Cushion 12.20%; - Class D-RR: 'BBB-sf' / Default 26.40% / Recovery 66.29% / Cushion 11.70%; - Class E-RR: 'BB-sf' / Default 22.00% / Recovery 71.82% / Cushion 8.90%. Fitch Stress Portfolio (FSP) Model Outputs: - Class A-2RR: 'AAAsf' / Default 52.30% / Recovery 36.51% / Cushion 2.10%; - Class B-RR: 'AAsf' / Default 48.80% / Recovery 43.73% / Cushion 0.00%; - Class C-RR: 'Asf' / Default 43.60% / Recovery 53.73% / Cushion 2.00%; - Class D-RR: 'BBB-sf' / Default 34.50% / Recovery 63.20% / Cushion 3.60%; - Class E-RR: 'BB-sf' / Default 29.10% / Recovery 68.41% / Cushion 2.00%. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics. The results under the sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-2RR, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-RR, between 'B+sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-RR, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-RR, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E-RR. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-RR, 'A+sf' for class C-RR, 'A+sf' for class D-RR, and 'BBB+sf' for class E-RR. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Marble Point CLO XXV Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, programme, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. MARINER FINANCE 2025-B: S&P Assigns BB(sf) Rating on Class E Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to Mariner Finance Issuance Trust 2025-B's asset-backed notes. The note issuance is ABS transaction backed by personal consumer loan receivables. The ratings reflect: -- An initial hard enhancement of approximately 38.10%, 30.10%, 21.85%, 15.90%, and 7.75% for the class A, B, C, D, and E notes, respectively, including the nonamortizing reserve account. -- The fully funded, nonamortizing reserve account of $2.02 million (approximately 0.50% of the initial loan pool). -- The characteristics of the pool being securitized and receivables expected to be purchased during the revolving period. -- S&P said, "Our worst-case, weighted average base-case loss for this transaction of 16.92%, which is a function of the transaction-specific reinvestment criteria and actual loan performance. Our base case also accounts for historical volatility observed in annualized gross loss rates for Mariner Finance LLC's managed loan portfolio over time." -- S&P's expectation for timely interest and full principal payments, based on stressed cash flow modeling scenarios appropriate to the assigned ratings. -- S&P's expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress scenario, all else being equal, the assigned ratings will be within the limits specified in the credit stability section in "S&P Global Ratings Definitions," Dec. 2, 2024. -- The transaction's fully sequential payment structure, which is designed to maintain overcollateralization of approximately $29.31 million (approximately 7.25% of the initial loan pool). -- The transaction's legal structure. Ratings Assigned Mariner Finance Issuance Trust 2025-B Class A, $252,290,000: AAA (sf) Class B, $32,350,000: AA (sf) Class C, $33,360,000: A (sf) Class D, $24,060,000: BBB (sf) Class E, $32,940,000: BB (sf) MASTR SPECIALIZED 2007-1: Moody's Ups Rating on Cl. A Certs to Caa2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's Ratings has upgraded the rating of Class A issued by MASTR Specialized Loan Trust 2007-1, backed by Scratch and Dent mortgages. A comprehensive review of all credit ratings for the respective transaction(s) has been conducted during a rating committee. The complete rating action is as follows: Issuer: MASTR Specialized Loan Trust 2007-1 Cl. A, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 29, 2025 Upgraded to Caa3 (sf) RATINGS RATIONALE The rating action reflects the current level of credit enhancement available to the bond, the recent performance, analysis of the transaction structure, Moody's updated loss expectation on the underlying pool and Moody's revised loss-given-default expectation for the bond. The bond experiencing a rating change is currently undercollateralized. Moody's expectations of loss-given-default assesses loss experienced and expected future loss as a percent of the original bond balance. Principal Methodology The principal methodology used in this rating was "US Residential Mortgage-backed Securitizations: Surveillance" published in December 2024. Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating: 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. 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 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. 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. In addition, improvements in reporting formats and data availability across deals and trustees may provide better insight into certain performance metrics such as the level of collateral modifications. MENLO CLO III: S&P Assigns B- (sf) Rating on Class F Notes ---------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to Menlo CLO III Ltd./Menlo CLO III LLC's floating-rate debt. The debt issuance is a CLO securitization governed by investment criteria and backed primarily by broadly syndicated speculative-grade (rated 'BB+' or lower) senior secured term loans. The transaction is managed by Permira US CLO Manager LLC, a subsidiary of Permira Credit LLC. The ratings reflect S&P's view of: -- The diversification of the collateral pool; -- The credit enhancement provided through subordination, excess spread, and overcollateralization; -- The experience of the collateral manager's team, which can affect the performance of the rated debt through portfolio identification and ongoing management; and -- The transaction's legal structure, which is expected to be bankruptcy remote. Ratings Assigned Menlo CLO III Ltd./Menlo CLO III LLC Class A, $336.0 million: AAA (sf) Class B, $63.0 million: AA (sf) Class C (deferrable), $31.5 million: A (sf) Class D (deferrable), $31.5 million: BBB- (sf) Class E (deferrable), $21.0 million: BB- (sf) Class F (deferrable), $3.9 million: B- (sf) Subordinated notes, $43.9 million: Not rated NR--Not rated. MORGAN STANLEY 2025-5C2: Fitch Gives 'B-(EXP)' Rating on 2 Tranches ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned expected ratings and Rating Outlooks to Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2025-5C2, commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2025-5C2 as follows: - $112,500,000ab class A-2 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class A-2-1 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class A-2-X1 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class A-2-2 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class A-2-X2 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $386,984,000ab class A-3 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class A-3-1 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class A-3-X1 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class A-3-2 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class A-3-X2 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $499,484,000c class X-A 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $69,571,000b class A-S 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class A-S-1 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class A-S-X1 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class A-S-2 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class A-S-X2 'AAAs(EXP)f'; Outlook Stable; - $37,462,000b class B 'AA-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class B-1 'AA-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class B-X1 'AA-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class B-2 'AA-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class B-X2 'AA-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $27,650,000b class C 'A-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class C-1 'A-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class C-X1 'A-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0b class C-2 'A-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $0bc class C-X2 'A-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $134,683,000c class X-B 'A-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $24,082,000d class D 'BBB-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $24,082,000d class X-D 'BBB-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $15,163,000d class E 'BB-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $15,163,000cd class X-E 'BB-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $9,811,000d class F 'B-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $9,811,000d class X-F 'B-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable. The following classes are not expected to be rated by Fitch: - $7,136,000d class G; - $7,136,000d class X-G; - $23,190,499d class H-RR. (a) The exact initial certificate balances or notional amounts of the class A-2, class A-2-X1, class A-2-X2, class A-3, class A 3-X1 and class A-3-X2 trust components (and consequently, the exact initial certificate balance or notional amount of each class of class A-2 Exchangeable Certificates and class A-3 Exchangeable Certificates) are unknown and will be determined based on the final pricing of the certificates. However, the initial certificate balances, assumed final distribution dates, weighted average lives and principal windows of the class A-2 and class A-3 trust components are expected to be within the applicable ranges reflected in the following chart. The aggregate of the initial certificate balances of the class A-2 and class A-3 trust components is expected to be approximately $499,484,000, subject to a variance of plus or minus 5%. The class A-2-X1 and class A-2-X2 trust components will have initial notional amounts equal to the initial certificate balance of the class A-2 trust component. The class A-3 X1 and class A-3-X2 trust components will have initial notional amounts equal to the initial certificate balance of the class A-3 trust component. In the event that the class A-3 trust component is issued with an initial certificate balance of $499,484,000, the class A-2 trust component (and, correspondingly, the class A-2 Exchangeable Certificates) will not be issued. The balances above reflect the midpoint value of each range. (b) The classes A2, A3, A-S, B and C are exchangeable certificates. Each class of exchangeable certificates may be exchanged for the corresponding classes of exchangeable certificates, and vice versa. The dollar denomination of each of the received classes of certificates must be equal to the dollar denomination of each of the surrendered classes of certificates. (c) Notional Amount and interest only. (d) Privately Placed and pursuant to Rule 144A. (e) Vertical-risk retention interest representing approximately 4.35% of the initial certificate balance of each class. Transaction Summary The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the trust, primary assets of which are 36 loans secured by 164 commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of $713,549,500 as of the cutoff date. The loans were contributed to the trust by Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC (42.1%), Bank of America, National Association (21.4%), Starwood Mortgage Capital LLC (19.6%), KeyBank National Association (15.1%) and Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC / Bank of America, National Association (1.8%). The master servicer is expected to be Trimont LLC, and the special servicer is expected to be LNR Partners, LLC. The trustee is expected to be Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. The certificate administrator is expected to be Computershare Trust Company, National Association. The certificates are expected to follow a sequential paydown structure. KEY RATING DRIVERS Fitch Net Cash Flow: Fitch performed cash flow analyses on 19 loans totaling 84.6% of the pool by balance. Fitch's resulting aggregate net cash flow (NCF) of $61.7 million represents a 12.3% decline from the issuer's aggregate underwritten NCF of $70.4 million. Higher Fitch Leverage: The pool 's Fitch leverage is higher than recent multiborrower transactions rated by Fitch. The pool's Fitch loan-to-value ratio (LTV) of 106.0% is higher than the 2025 YTD five-year multiborrower transaction average of 100.2% and the 2024 five-year multiborrower transaction average of 95.2%. The pool's Fitch NCF debt yield (DY) of 8.7% is lower than the 2025 YTD average of 9.7% and the 2024 average of 10.2%. Investment Grade Credit Opinion Loans: Two loans representing 10.9% of the pool by balance received investment-grade credit opinion. Vertex HQ (9.1% of pool) received an investment-grade credit opinion of 'A-sf*' on a standalone basis. ILPT 2025 Portfolio (1.8% of pool) received an investment-grade credit opinion of 'A-sf*' on a standalone basis. The pool's total credit opinion percentage is lower than the 2025 YTD average of 11.9% and the 2024 average of 12.6% for five-year multiborrower transactions. Excluding the credit opinion loans, the pool's Fitch LTV and DY are 110.8% and 8.3%, respectively, compared to the equivalent five-year multiborrower 2025 YTD LTV and DY averages of 104.8% and 9.3%, respectively. Pool Concentration: The pool concentration is in line with recently rated Fitch transactions. The top-10 loans make up 59.4%, which is lower than the 2025 YTD five-year multiborrower average of 62.1% and in line with the 2024 average of 60.2%. The pool's effective loan count of 21.4 is below the 2025 YTD and 2024 10-year averages of 21.2 and 22.7, respectively. Fitch views diversity as a key mitigant to idiosyncratic risk. Fitch raises the overall loss for pools with effective loan counts below 40. Shorter-Duration Loans: Loans with five-year terms constitute 100% of the pool, whereas Fitch-rated multiborrower transactions have historically included mostly loans with 10-year terms. Fitch's historical loan performance analysis shows that five-year loans have a modestly lower probability of default (PD) than 10-year loans, all else equal. This is mainly attributed to the shorter window of exposure to potential adverse economic conditions. Fitch considered its loan performance regression in its analysis of the pool. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Declining cash flow decreases property value and capacity to meet its debt service obligations. The table below indicates the model-implied rating sensitivity to changes in one variable, Fitch NCF: - Original Rating: 'AAAsf'/'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'/'B-sf'; - 10% NCF Decline: 'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBBsf'/'BBsf'/'B-sf'/less than 'CCCsf'. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Improvement in cash flow increases property value and capacity to meet its debt service obligations. The table below indicates the model-implied rating sensitivity to changes to in one variable, Fitch NCF: - Original Rating: 'AAAsf'/'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'/'B-sf'; - 10% NCF Increase: 'AAAsf'/'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BBsf'/ 'B+sf'. USE OF THIRD PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G -10 Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E (Form 15E) as prepared by Deloitte & Touche LLP. The third-party due diligence described in Form 15E focused on a comparison and re-computation of certain characteristics with respect to each of the mortgage loans. Fitch considered this information in its analysis, and it did not have an effect on Fitch's analysis or conclusions. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. MORGAN STANLEY 2025-NQM8:S&P Assigns Prelim 'B' Rating on B-2 Certs ------------------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Morgan Stanley Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 2025-NQM8's mortgage-backed certificates. The certificate issuance is an RMBS transaction backed by first-lien, fixed- and adjustable-rate, fully amortizing residential mortgage loans (some with interest-only periods) to both prime and nonprime borrowers. The loans are secured by single-family residential properties including townhouses, planned-unit developments, condominiums, two- to four-family residential properties, five- to 10-unit multifamily properties, and a mixed-use property. The pool consists of 763 loans backed by 783 properties, which are QM safe harbor (APOR), QM/HPML, non-QM/ATR-compliant, and ATR-exempt loans. Of the 763 loans, nine loans are cross-collateralized loans backed by 29 properties. The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 15, 2025. 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 and geographic concentration; -- The transaction's credit enhancement, associated structural mechanics, and representation and warranty (R&W) framework; -- The mortgage aggregators, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC (MSMCH) and Morgan Stanley Bank N.A. (MSBNA); -- The mortgage originators, including S&P Global Ratings reviewed originators; -- The 100% due diligence results consistent with represented loan characteristics; and -- S&P's economic outlook, which considers its current projections for U.S. economic growth, unemployment rates, and interest rates, as well as its view of housing fundamentals, and which is updated, if necessary, when these projections change materially. Preliminary Ratings Assigned(i) Morgan Stanley Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 2025-NQM8 Class A-1-A, $267,321,000: AAA (sf) Class A-1-B, $39,632,000: AAA (sf) Class A-1, $306,953,000: AAA (sf) Class A-2, $17,835,000: AA- (sf) Class A-3, $42,605,000: A- (sf) Class M-1, $12,286,000: BBB- (sf) Class B-1, $6,539,000: BB (sf) Class B-2, $6,143,000: B (sf) Class B-3, $3,963,810: NR Class A-IO-S, notional(ii): NR Class XS, notional(ii): NR Class R-PT, $19,819,460: NR Class R, not applicable: NR (i)The preliminary ratings address the ultimate payment of interest and principal. They do not address the payment of the cap carryover amounts. (ii)The notional amount will equal the aggregate stated principal balance of the mortgage loans as of the first day of the related due period and is initially $396,324,810. NR--Not rated. NASSAU LTD 2019-I: Moody's Cuts Rating on $28.25MM D Notes to Caa3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Moody's Ratings has downgraded the rating on the following note issued by Nassau 2019-I Ltd.: US$28,250,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2031, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on December 18, 2024 Downgraded to Caa2 (sf) Nassau 2019-I Ltd., originally issued in May 2019 and partially refinanced in September 2021, is a managed cashflow CLO. The debts are collateralized primarily by a portfolio of broadly syndicated senior secured corporate loans. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in April 2023. RATINGS RATIONALE The rating action reflects the transaction's recent deal performance, analysis of the transaction structure, Moody's updated loss expectations on the underlying pool and Moody's revised loss-given-default expectation. The Class D notes are currently undercollateralized. Moody's expectations of loss-given-default assesses losses experienced by, and expected future losses on the notes, as a percent of the original notes balance. Methodology Used for the Rating Action: The principal methodology used in this rating was "Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in October 2025. Factors that Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating: 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. NAVESINK CLO 4: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- (sf) Rating on Cl. E Notes ----------------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to Navesink CLO 4 Ltd./Navesink CLO 4 LLC's floating-rate debt. The debt issuance is a CLO securitization governed by investment criteria and backed primarily by broadly syndicated speculative-grade (rated 'BB+' or lower) senior secured term loans. The transaction is managed by ZAIS Leveraged Loan Master Manager LLC. The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 17, 2025. 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 diversification of the collateral pool; -- The credit enhancement provided through subordination, excess spread, and overcollateralization; -- The experience of the collateral manager's team, which can affect the performance of the rated debt through portfolio identification and ongoing management; and -- The transaction's legal structure, which is expected to be bankruptcy remote. Preliminary Ratings Assigned Navesink CLO 4 Ltd./Navesink CLO 4 LLC Class A-1, $240.0 million: AAA (sf) Class A-2, $24.0 million: AAA (sf) Class B, $40.0 million: AA (sf) Class C (deferrable), $24.0 million: A (sf) Class D-1 (deferrable), $24.0 million: BBB- (sf) Class D-2 (deferrable), $4.0 million: BBB- (sf) Class E (deferrable), $12.0 million: BB- (sf) Senior subordinated notes, $7.5 million: NR Junior subordinated notes, $22.5 million: NR NR--Not rated. NEW AMI I: Fitch Affirms 'B' LongTerm IDR, Outlook Stable --------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has affirmed New AMI I, LLC's (AM) Long-Term Issuer Default Rating (IDR) at 'B'. Fitch has also affirmed the company's ABL facility at 'BB' with a Recovery Rating of 'RR1' and its senior secured term loan B at 'B+'/'RR3'. The Rating Outlook is Stable. AM's 'B' IDR reflects its modest market position, moderate credit metrics, broad product offering, meaningful exposure to the less cyclical repair and remodel sector, extensive manufacturing and distribution footprint, and ample liquidity. This is partially offset by low EBITDA margins, weak cashflow generation, competitive pressures in the highly fragmented exterior residential building products distribution market, and the cyclicality of the residential construction market. The Stable Outlook reflects Fitch's view that AM's leverage and coverage metrics will remain within its sensitivities for the 'B' IDR despite continued softness in the residential construction markets. Key Rating Drivers Moderate Credit Metrics: AM's Fitch-calculated EBITDA leverage was 6.4x for LTM ended June 28, 2025. Fitch expects leverage to improve to about 5.1x by YE 2025, driven primarily by ABL paydown funded by working capital release, and further decline to around 4.5x by YE 2026 on EBITDA margin improvement. Accordingly, leverage is projected to remain below the 5.5x leverage negative sensitivity for the 'B' IDR. Fitch also forecasts EBITDA interest coverage of around 2.0x in 2025, improving to above 2.0x in 2026, supported by lower interest burden and modest EBITDA growth. Modest Profitability: AM's EBITDA margin is weaker than Fitch-rated competitors in the exterior building products segment, making profitability a constraint on the rating. Margins are pressured by the company's dual-distribution model and by lower contribution margins in its third-party products segment relative to its manufactured products. Fitch forecasts EBITDA margins of 7.0%-7.5% in 2025, reflecting lower volumes and reduced operating leverage, followed by an improvement to 7.5%-8.0% in 2026 driven by cost-reduction initiatives. AM's Fitch-calculated 2024 EBITDA margin of 7.8% is below those of similarly and higher-rated manufacturer peers, which are typically in the low double-digit to mid-teen range. Fitch-rated building products distributors also report margins in the high single-digit to low-teen range, generally supported by their larger scale. End-Market Diversification Tempers Cyclicality: Fitch views AM's well-diversified end-market exposure positively, with about 70% of revenues directed to the R&R segment, which is less cyclical than new construction activity. The remaining 30% of revenues are directed to the new construction market. While Fitch views exposure to the R&R segment positively, Fitch notes that AM's window and siding products are generally higher-priced products and more discretionary compared with less volatile non-discretionary and lower-priced building products. Improving FCF: Fitch expects AM to generate neutral FCF margin (cashflow from operations less capex and dividends) in 2025, improving to low single digits of revenue in 2026, following negative FCF in prior years. The improvement is driven by margin recovery, working-capital optimization, lower capex and reduced cash outflows for professional fees associated with the company's value creation plan. Fitch projects capex of 1.5%-2.0% of revenues in 2025 and 2026. Potential risks to this trajectory include weaker-than-expected demand, slower working-capital normalization, or execution delays on cost initiatives. Subdued Demand Environment: Fitch expects demand weakness as new residential construction and residential remodeling activity remain challenging amid uncertain tariff policies and higher interest rates. Potential inflationary pressures from tariffs and immigration policies could further impact construction activity but depend on scope and timing. Fitch's rating case assumes a slight decrease in sales volume in 2025, resulting in low single-digit organic revenues decline this year. The forecast projects organic revenues to rise 2%-4% in 2026 as construction activity improves. Broad Offerings with Distribution Reach: AM offers a broad range of exterior home products through a wide distribution footprint and a dual-distribution model. Company-operated supply centers account for about 75% of sales, with independent distributors and dealers making up roughly 25%. Fitch views this positively, as the supply centers provide greater operational control, while third-party channels broaden the customer base and geographic reach. However, the dual-distribution model carries higher fixed costs than manufacturers relying primarily on third-party channels, which could disproportionately pressure margins in a weak operating environment. SVPGlobal Ownership: Fitch views AM's concentrated ownership and limited board independence as a potential constraint on prudent capital allocation. While the sponsor's use of moderate leverage in acquiring AM indicates a relatively conservative posture, Fitch views negatively the 2023 distribution of proceeds from the sale-leaseback transaction given the weak operating environment and elevated leverage at that time. Fitch's rating case does not assume additional shareholder distributions through at least 2026. Further distributions while credit metrics remain weak could pressure liquidity and leverage and may result in negative rating actions. Peer Analysis AM's end-market exposure is a credit strength relative to other 'B' category building products distributor and manufacturer peers such as LBM Acquisition, LLC (LBM; B/Negative) and Doman Building Materials Group Ltd. (Doman; B+/Stable), and also compared to MIWD Holding Company LLC (MIWD; BB-/Stable). AM has significantly greater exposure to the less cyclical R&R segment than MIWD, LBM and Doman, and it has a broader product offering compared to higher-rated peer MIWD. AM operates at a smaller scale, with lower EBITDA margins and lower cashflow generation compared to MIWD and LBM. AM has weaker credit metrics than MIWD, its metrics are similar to Doman, and it has stronger credit metrics than LBM. Key Assumptions - Revenue decreases by low single digits in 2025 and grows by 2%-4% in 2026; - EBITDA margins between 7.0% and 8.0% in 2025 and 2026; - Capex of around 1.5%-2.0% of revenues; -(CFO-Capex)/debt of low single digits in 2025 and in 2026, driven by working-capital optimization; - FCF margin neutral in 2025 and in the low single digits in 2026; - EBITDA leverage between 5.0x and 5.5x in 2025 and 4.3x and 4.8x in 2026; - Average SOFR at 4.25% in 2025 and 3.75% in 2026. Recovery Analysis The recovery analysis assumes that AM would be reorganized as a going concern (GC) in bankruptcy rather than liquidated. Fitch has assumed a 10% administrative claim. Fitch's GC EBITDA of $86 million estimates a post-restructuring sustainable level of EBITDA. The GC EBITDA is based on Fitch's assumption that distress would arise from further weakening in the residential construction market combined with a loss of a major customer or several smaller customers. Fitch estimates annual revenues to be about $1.43 billion (12% below LTM ended June 28, 2025 revenues) and Fitch-adjusted EBITDA margin of about 6% would capture the lower revenue base of the company following the distress, plus a sustainable margin profile after right-sizing. During the last cycle, AM's revenues fell 16% peak-to-trough while its EBITDA declined about 27%. The GC EBITDA of $86 million is about 17% below the Fitch-calculated LTM EBITDA. Fitch assumes a 5.5x GC EBITDA multiple to calculate the enterprise value (EV) in a recovery scenario. The 5.5x multiple is below company's acquisition multiple by the funds managed by SVPGlobal at a 6.6x pro forma adjusted EBITDA multiple or a 7.4x adjusted EBITDA multiple. The 5.5x multiple is similar to the multiple applied in the analysis of Doman Building Products Group (B+/Stable). AM's GC EBITDA multiple is lower than that of LBM Acquisition, LLC (6.0x) and Park River Holdings, Inc. (6.0x), which have larger scale and higher margins, and lower than that of Chariot Holdings, LLC (dba Chamberlain Group; 6.5x) due to Chamberlain's leading market position and meaningfully stronger profitability metrics through the cycle. Fitch assumes that in a recovery scenario the borrowing base under the company's $250 million ABL revolver would shrink as inventory and receivable balances decline with lower revenue and EBITDA. Fitch assumes the ABL revolver would have $155 million outstanding at recovery (around 70% of the average borrowing base for the past 12 months), considering potential reductions in the borrowing base due to contracting sales and volumes. Fitch had previously assumed $140 million drawn on the ABL facility (70% of the previous $200 million ABL). The change in assumption reflects the company's borrowing availability under its borrowing base over the past four quarters. The analysis results in a recovery corresponding to an 'RR1' for the ABL revolver and a recovery corresponding to an 'RR3' for the term loan B. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade - Fitch's expectation that EBITDA leverage will be sustained above 5.5x; - EBITDA interest coverage consistently below 2.0x; - (CFO-capex)/debt consistently below 1.5%. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade - Fitch's expectation that EBITDA leverage will be sustained below 4.5x; - The company increases its scale while consistently maintaining EBITDA margins above 9%; - (CFO-capex)/debt sustained above 3.5%. Liquidity and Debt Structure As of June 28, 2025, AM has ample liquidity supported by $4.0 million of cash and $108.9 million of borrowing availability under its $250 million ABL facility that matures in March 2027. The company's near-term debt maturities are limited to 0.25% quarterly amortization of the term loan B until due in March 2029. Issuer Profile AM is a vertically integrated U.S.- and Canada-based manufacturer and distributor of exterior building products. It produces vinyl windows, vinyl and composite cladding, and metal coil and cladding. It sells third-party manufactured roofing, cladding, insulation, exterior doors, equipment and tools. Summary of Financial Adjustments Fitch adds back nonrecurring expenses (including professional fees related to AM's value creation plan) and deducts finance lease amortization and least interest expense from EBITDA. MACROECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND SECTOR FORECASTS Click here to access Sector Forecasts Monitor data file which aggregates key data points used in its credit analysis. Fitch's macroeconomic forecasts, commodity price assumptions, default rate forecasts, sector key performance indicators and sector-level forecasts are among the data items included. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. Entity/Debt Rating Recovery Prior ----------- ------ -------- ----- New AMI I, LLC LT IDR B Affirmed B senior secured LT BB Affirmed RR1 BB senior secured LT B+ Affirmed RR3 B+ NEW RESIDENTIAL 2025-NQM5: S&P Assigns B- (sf) Rating on B-2 Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to New Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 2025-NQM5's mortgage-backed notes. The note issuance is an RMBS transaction backed by first-lien, fixed-rate, fully amortizing residential mortgage loans (some with interest-only periods) to both prime and nonprime borrowers. The loans are secured by single-family residential properties, planned-unit developments, condominiums, townhouses, a cooperative, and two- to four-family residential properties. The pool consists of 938 loans, which are qualified mortgage (QM) safe harbor (average prime offer rate), non-QM/ability-to-repay-compliant (ATR-compliant), and ATR-exempt loans. The ratings reflect: -- The pool's collateral composition; -- The transaction's credit enhancement, associated structural mechanics, representation and warranty framework, and geographic concentration; -- The mortgage aggregator and originators; -- The 100% due diligence results consistent with represented loan characteristics; and -- S&P's U.S. economic outlook, which considers its current projections for U.S. economic growth, unemployment rates, and interest rates, as well as its view of housing fundamentals, and is updated, if necessary, when these projections change materially. Ratings Assigned(i) New Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 2025-NQM5 Class A-1, $350,629,000: AAA (sf) Class A-1A, $300,539,000: AAA (sf) Class A-1B, $50,090,000: AAA (sf) Class A-2, $46,333,000: AA- (sf) Class A-3, $42,827,000: A- (sf) Class M-1, $27,299,000: BBB- (sf) Class B-1, $16,530,000: BB- (sf) Class B-2, $11,020,000: B- (sf) Class B-3, $6,261,497: NR Class A-IO-S, notional(ii): NR Class XS, notional(ii): NR Class R, N/A: NR (i)The ratings address the ultimate payment of interest and principal. They do not address payment of the cap carryover amounts. (ii)The notional amount will equal the aggregate principal balance of the mortgage loans as of the first day of the related due period. N/A--Not applicable. NR--Not rated. NYC COMMERCIAL 2025-11X: Fitch Rates Class HRR Certs 'BB-' ---------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned final ratings and Rating Outlooks to NYC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2025-11X, commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2025-11X: - $281,100,000 class A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $52,000,000 class B at 'AA- sf'; Outlook Stable; - $40,800,000 class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $57,600,000 class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $50,150,000 class E at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable; - $25,350,000 class HRRab at 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable. (a) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144A/IAI/Reg S. (b) HRR - Horizontal risk retention interest representing approximately 5.0% of the estimated fair value of all classes of regular certificates. The ratings are based on information provided by the issuer as of Oct. 22, 2025. Transaction Summary The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in a trust, which holds a $507 million, two-year, floating-rate, interest-only commercial mortgage whole loan with three, one-year extension options. The mortgage loan is secured by a first lien on the borrowers' fee simple interest in a 40-story, 1.1 million-sf, LEED Gold office tower, 11 Times Square (Eleven X), located at 11 Times Square on 8th Avenue between 41st St. and 42nd St. in New York City. Loan proceeds, combined with $42.8 million of sponsor equity, were used to refinance $507.0 million of existing debt, fund $43.0 million of upfront reserves (including $22.8 million to cover outstanding landlord obligations and $20.0 million for future leasing costs), and pay closing costs. The loan sponsors are a joint venture of PGIM Real Estate, Norges Bank Investment Management, and SJP Properties Company. The property is managed by SJP Corporate Real Estate Services, Inc., an affiliate of the borrower. The loan was co-originated by JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, German American Capital Corporation and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, acting as mortgage loan sellers. Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, serves as the servicer, and Situs Holdings, LLC serves as the special servicer. Computershare Trust Company, National Association acts as trustee and certificate administrator. Pentalpha Surveillance LLC is the operating advisor. The certificates will follow a sequential-pay structure. KEY RATING DRIVERS Fitch Net Cash Flow: Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) for the property is estimated at $47.3 million, 17.4% lower than the issuer's NCF and 2.1% above the TTM ended July 2025 NCF. Fitch applied an 8.5% cap rate to derive a Fitch stressed value of $556.7 million for the property. Fitch's value reflects a 32.4% decline compared with the appraiser's concluded "as is" market value for the property. High Fitch Leverage: The $507 million mortgage loan equates to debt of approximately $454 psf, with a Fitch stressed loan-to-value ratio (LTV), debt service coverage ratio (DSCR), and debt yield of 91.1%, 0.98x, and 9.3%, respectively. The mortgage loan represents approximately 61.6% of the property's "as-is" appraised value of $829 million ($839 million inclusive of an existing reserve account to cover outstanding contractual landlord obligations). Fitch increased the LTV hurdles by 2.5% to reflect the higher in-place leverage. Strong Property Quality and Accessible Manhattan Location: Eleven X was constructed in 2011 and has several sustainable features, including a LEED Gold certification (Core & Shell v2.0, 2010),a LEED Platinum-level air quality, Fitwel 1 Star designation (December 2023), a WiredScore Platinum certification (January 2022; recertified April 2024) and a high Energy Star score of 94. Its location in Midtown West adjacent to the Port Authority Bus Terminal offers excellent multimodal connectivity to most NYC subway and regional transit lines. The property features versatile floor plates ranging from 26,000 sf to 40,000 sf, 14' slab-to-ceiling heights and floor-to-ceiling windows with panoramic views of Manhattan. Fitch has assigned Eleven X an overall property quality grade of "A-". Significant Commitment by Top Law Firm: Eleven X is currently 87.2% leased to 26 tenants, including 55.9% of net rentable area (NRA) and 64.1% of Fitch's base rent attributed to creditworthy and Am Law 100 tenants. Proskauer Rose (37.3% of NRA and 47.1% of Fitch base rent) consistently ranks among the top law firms in the U.S. and globally and is currently No. 41 on the Am Law 100 list as of 2025. Proskauer Rose has occupied 406,399 sf at the property since 2011 and expanded its space by 10,065 sf in 2019. The tenant invested $52.1 million in its premises, equal to $125 psf, based on current square footage. Microsoft Rollover and Tail Risk: Microsoft Corporation accounts for 18.4% of NRA and 17.8% of Fitch base rent. Microsoft's lease expires in June 2029. Additionally, five leases totaling 40.5% of NRA and 48.1% of Fitch base rent expire in 2031, which creates some tail risk. Microsoft has invested $35.5 million, or $173 psf, of its own capital into its space, and it has two, five-year renewal options remaining. The lender has structured the loan with a cash flow sweep tied to the 18-month notice period on Microsoft's lease plus a $20.0 million upfront general leasing costs reserve to cover future re-tenanting costs. Institutional Sponsorship: The mortgage loan is sponsored by PRISA and/or Norges Bank, with indirect control by a JV affiliate of PGIM Real Estate, Norges Bank Investment Management and SJP Properties. PGIM Real Estate, the real estate investment and financing arm of PGIM with over $210 billion in AUM and 50+ years of experience, actively integrates ESG practices and manages the fund that owns Eleven X. Norges Bank Investment Management oversees direct real estate for Norway's $1.5 trillion Government Pension Fund Global, with $34.6 billion in real estate AUM across major U.S. cities and 15 countries. SJP Properties is a vertically integrated owner, developer and operator with 40+ years of experience, 30 million sf developed and $5.0 billion in equity, and is headquartered at Eleven X. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Declining cash flow decreases property value and capacity to meet debt service obligations. The table below indicates the model-implied rating sensitivity to changes in one variable, Fitch NCF: - Original Rating: 'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BBsf'/'BB-sf'; - 10% NCF Decline: 'AAsf'/'A-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BBsf'/'B+sf'/'Bsf'; Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Improvement in cash flow increases property value and capacity to meet debt service obligations. The table below indicates the model-implied rating sensitivity to changes to in one variable, Fitch NCF: - Original Rating: 'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BBsf'/'BB-sf'; - 10% NCF Increase: 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'A+sf'/'BBBsf'/'BB+sf'/'BBsf'; USE OF THIRD PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G -10 Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E (Form 15E) as prepared by Ernst & Young LLP. The third-party due diligence described in Form 15E focused on a comparison and re-computation of certain characteristics with respect to the mortgage loan. Fitch considered this information in its analysis, and it did not have an effect on Fitch's analysis or conclusions. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. OCP CLO 202-8R: S&P Assigns BB- (sf) Rating on Class E-R2 Notes --------------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the replacement class A-R2, B-1R2, B-2R2, C-R2, D-1R2, D-2R2, and E-R2 debt from OCP CLO 2020-8R Ltd./OCP CLO 2020-8R LLC, a CLO managed by Onex Credit Partners LLC that was originally issued in January 2021 and underwent a refinancing in November 2024. At the same time, S&P withdrew its ratings on the previous class A-R, B-R, C-R, D-1R, D-2R, and E-R debt following payment in full on the Oct. 17, 2025, refinancing date. The replacement debt was issued via a supplemental indenture, which outlines the terms of the replacement debt. According to the supplemental indenture: -- The replacement class A-R2, C-R2, D-1R2, and E-R2 debt was issued at a lower spread over three-month SOFR than the previous debt. -- The replacement class B-1R2 and B-2R2 debt was issued at a floating spread and fixed coupon, respectively, replacing the current floating spread. -- The replacement class D-2R2 debt was issued at a floating spread, replacing the current fixed coupon. -- The non-call period and stated maturity was extended by two years to October 2038. -- The reinvestment period was extended by three years to October 2030. S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction data 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 the recoveries upon default under various interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios. Our analysis also considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or ultimate principal to each rated tranche. "We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings assigned to the debt remain consistent with the credit enhancement available to support them and take rating actions as we deem necessary." Ratings Assigned OCP CLO 2020-8R Ltd./OCP CLO 2020-8R LLC Class A-R2, $252.00 million: AAA (sf) Class B-1R2, $47.00 million: AA (sf) Class B-2R2, $5.00 million: AA (sf) Class C-R2 (deferrable), $24.00 million: A (sf) Class D-1R2 (deferrable), $24.00 million: BBB- (sf) Class D-2R2 (deferrable), $3.00 million: BBB- (sf) Class E-R2 (deferrable), $13.00 million: BB- (sf) Ratings Withdrawn OCP CLO 2020-8R Ltd./OCP CLO 2020-8R LLC Class A-R to NR from AAA (sf) Class B-R to NR from AA (sf) Class C-R to NR from A (sf) Class D-1R to NR from BBB- (sf) Class D-2R to NR from BBB- (sf) Class E-R to NR from BB- (sf) Other Debt OCP CLO 2020-8R Ltd./OCP CLO 2020-8R LLC Subordinated notes, $86.83 million: NR NR--Not rated. OCTAGON 70: Fitch Hikes Rating on Class E Notes to 'BB+sf' ---------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to the Octagon 70 Alto, Ltd. refinancing notes. Fitch has upgraded the existing class E notes. Following the upgrade, the class E notes were assigned a Stable Outlook. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- Octagon 70 Alto, Ltd. A-1 67578CAA2 LT PIFsf Paid In Full AAAsf A-1-R LT AAAsf New Rating A-2 67578CAC8 LT PIFsf Paid In Full AAAsf A-2-R LT AAAsf New Rating B 67578CAE4 LT PIFsf Paid In Full AAsf B-R LT AA+sf New Rating C 67578CAG9 LT PIFsf Paid In Full Asf C-R LT A+sf New Rating D 67578CAJ3 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BBB-sf D-R LT BBB+sf New Rating E 67578PAA3 LT BB+sf Upgrade BB-sf Transaction Summary Octagon 70 Alto, Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that is managed by Octagon Credit Investors, LLC which closed originally in September 2023. This is the first refinancing of the transaction. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured notes and existing subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $447 million of primarily first lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B'/'B-', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 25.08 and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 95.05% first lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 73.46% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 39% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a three-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar toother CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. Key Provision Changes The refinancing is being implemented via the first supplemental indenture, which amended certain provisions of the transaction. The changes include but are not limited to extending the refinancing notes non-call period to January 2027 (1.3 years from the first refinancing date) from October 2025 (2.1 years from the closing date). The stated maturity on the refinanced notes and the reinvestment period end date remain unchanged. The spread for the class A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, and D-R notes are 1.14%, 1.50%, 1.60%, 1.90%, and 3.50%, respectively, compared to the spread of 1.71%, 2.05%, 2.27%, 2.48%, and 4.09% for the class A-1, A-2, B, C, and D notes, respectively, at the initial closing in September 2023. The Class E note is not refinanced and remains with a spread of 6.66%. Fitch Analysis The portfolio includes 460 assets from 388 primarily high-yield obligors. The portfolio balance (excluding defaults and including principal cash) is approximately $448 million. As of the latest trustee report prior to the refinance date, the transaction did not pass Moody's Caa concentration limit. All other collateral quality tests, coverage tests and concentration limitations passed. The weighted average rating of the current portfolio is 'B'/'B-'. Fitch has an explicit rating, credit opinion or private rating for 46.0% of the current portfolio par balance. Ratings for 53.8% of the portfolio were derived using Fitch's Issuer Default Rating equivalency map, and 0.2% were unrated. The analysis focused on an updated Fitch Stressed Portfolio (FSP), and cash flow model analysis. The FSP included the following concentrations, reflecting the maximum limitations per the indenture or maintained at the current level: - Largest five obligors: 2.5% each, for an aggregate of 12.5%; - Largest three industries: 15.0%, 13.0%, and 11.0%, respectively; - Long-dated asset: 2%; - Assumed risk horizon: 6.02 years; - Minimum weighted average spread of 3.10%; - Minimum weighted average recovery rate of 73.50%; - Maximum weighted average rating factor of 25.10; - Fixed-rate assets: 5.00%; - Minimum weighted average coupon of 7.00%. The transaction will exit its reinvestment period on Oct. 20, 2028. Fitch Asset and Cash Flow Analysis The Fitch model outputs are shown below. For each class, the notes passed all nine cash flow scenarios under the assigned rating scenarios with the minimum default cushions indicated. Current Portfolio Model Outputs: - Class A-1-R: 'AAAsf'/Default 43.60%/Recovery 38.76%/Cushion 15.50%; - Class A-2-R: 'AAAsf'/Default 43.60%/Recovery 38.76%/Cushion 12.40%; - Class B-R: 'AA+sf'/Default 42.80%/Recovery 47.66%/Cushion 10.20%; - Class C-R: 'A+sf'/Default 37.70%/Recovery 57.29%/Cushion 10.30%; - Class D-R: 'BBB+sf'/Default 31.70%/Recovery 66.56%/Cushion 6.40%; - Class E: 'BB+sf'/Default 26.30%/Recovery 71.86%/Cushion 7.10%. FSP Model Outputs: - Class A-1-R: 'AAAsf'/Default 50.10%/Recovery 39.36%/Cushion 10.10%; - Class A-2-R: 'AAAsf'/Default 50.10%/Recovery 39.36%/Cushion 6.60%; - Class B-R: 'AA+sf'/Default 48.80%/Recovery 47.29%/Cushion 3.90%; - Class C-R: 'A+sf'/Default 43.00%/Recovery 56.73%/Cushion 5.60%; - Class D-R: 'BBB+sf'/Default 36.70%/Recovery 65.95%/Cushion 2.30%; - Class E: 'BB+sf'/Default 30.50%/Recovery 71.92%/Cushion 6.00%. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'A+sf' and 'AAAsf' for class A-1-R, between 'Asf' and 'AAAsf' for class A-2-R, between 'BBB-sf' and 'AAsf' for class B-R, between 'BBsf' and 'A+sf' for class C-R, between less than 'B-sf' and'BBB-sf' for class D-R, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class E. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-1-R and class A-2-R notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R, 'AA+sf' for class C-R, 'A+sf' for class D-R, and 'BBB+sf' for class E. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Octagon 70 Alto, Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, programme, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. OHA CREDIT 16-R: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E Notes -------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Outlooks to OHA Credit Funding 16-R, Ltd. Entity/Debt Rating ----------- ------ OHA Credit Funding 16-R, Ltd. X LT AAAsf New Rating A-1 LT AAAsf New Rating A-2 LT AAAsf New Rating B LT AAsf New Rating C LT Asf New Rating D-1 LT BBB-sf New Rating D-2 LT BBB-sf New Rating E LT BB-sf New Rating Subordinated LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary OHA Credit Funding 16-R, Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that will be managed by Oak Hill Advisors, L.P. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $500 million of primarily first-lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 24.2 and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 98.82% first-lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 75.32% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 48.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as 'AAAsf' for class X, between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-1, between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-2, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B, between 'B-sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-1, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2 and between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB-sf' for class E. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class X, class A-1 and class A-2 notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B, 'AA+sf' for class C, 'Asf' for class D-1, 'A-sf' for class D-2 and 'BBB+sf' for class E. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for OHA Credit Funding 16-R, Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, programme, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. OPORTUN ISSUANCE 2025-D: Fitch Assigns BB-sf Rating on E Notes -------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned final ratings and Rating Outlooks to the ABS issued by Oportun Issuance Trust 2025-D (OPTN 2025-D). Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- Oportun Issuance Trust 2025-D A LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf B LT AA-sf New Rating AA-(EXP)sf C LT A-sf New Rating A-(EXP)sf D LT BBB-sf New Rating BBB-(EXP)sf E LT BB-sf New Rating BB-(EXP)sf Transaction Summary OPTN 2025-D is backed by a revolving pool of fixed-rate, fully amortizing, secured and unsecured consumer loans originated by Oportun Financial Corporation (Oportun) or its affiliates, as well as through certain third-party originators, with the loans then sold to Oportun. Oportun is the sponsor of the transaction. OPTN 2025-D is Oportun's 27th term securitization and the third to be rated by Fitch. The transaction is expected to feature a two-year revolving period. At closing, the issuer will be required to acquire and pledge eligible receivables with an aggregate outstanding balance of $220 million, as well as a pre-funding amount of $230 million. The pre-funding amount represents the excess of $450 million, which is the sum of the aggregate initial principal balance of the OPTN 2025-D notes and the required overcollateralization amount, over the aggregate outstanding balance. The pre-funding amount will be deposited from the proceeds of the sale of the OPTN 2025-D notes. KEY RATING DRIVERS Consistent Collateral Quality: The weighted average (WA) VantageScore for OPTN 2025-D is 645, with approximately 2.4% of the pool consisting of borrowers without a VantageScore, reflecting Oportun's focus on serving customers with limited or no credit history. The pool consists of 66.3% renewal loans, which is similar to 2025-C and amongst the lowest composition for such loans since OPTN 2022-A. The proportion of secured loans in the securitized trusts has increased steadily, with the OPTN 2025-B pool exhibiting the highest percentage to date at 8.9%. The current OPTN 2025-D pool consists of 7.2% secured loans, lower than in OPTN 2025-C. The WA contract rate of the loans is 27.3%, lower than in the prior 2025-C transaction. Rewritten loans account for 0.3% of the pool. However, this share can increase to as high as 4.5% of the pool during a revolving period. A rewritten loan is a one-time rewrite offered by Oportun to severely delinquent borrowers who have experienced a long-term financial hardship. A rewritten loan is essentially a new loan document with a principal balance equal to the balance of the original loan while the original loan is paid off. Elevated But Improving Performance: Oportun's managed portfolio experienced a notable increase in default rates for loans originated in 2021 and 2022, compared to previous years, attributed to new borrowers originated through online aggregators, alongside a deterioration in the broader unsecured consumer loan market. In response, the company implemented significant underwriting changes in 3Q22, which led to a material improvement in default rates. However, despite this improvement, default rates remain higher than historical levels. Fitch's default assumption for the OPTN 2025-D pool, based on the current composition of loans as of the statistical calculation date, is 13.76%; however, a base case default assumption of 15.03% was assigned to the worst case portfolio to account for the revolving nature of the pool, and is used in analysis until the end of the revolving period. The 15.03% base case assumption is an expected case reflecting near-term economic conditions and expectations for additional cooling of the labor market in the U.S. The base case default assumption was established utilizing Oportun's historical performance data since 2019; however, Fitch focused on vintages since 2023 as relevant comparative years due to the significant underwriting changes undertaken by the company. Credit Enhancement Mitigates Stressed Losses: Initial hard credit enhancement (CE) totals 62.39%, 37.69%, 22.69%, 9.24% and 2.44% of the initial pool balance for the class A, B, C, D and E notes, respectively. Fitch tested the initial CE under stressed cash flow assumptions for all classes and found that the classes pass all stresses at the rating level assigned to the respective class of notes. In particular, Fitch applied a 'AAAsf' rating stress of 4.65x the base case default rate for the 2025-D series. The stress multiples decrease proportionally between the "median" and "low" multiple range for lower rating levels, as described in Fitch's Consumer ABS Rating Criteria. The default multiple reflects the absolute value of the default assumption, the length of default performance history, exposure to changing economic conditions from higher loan terms and the length of the revolving period, which exposes the trust to the potential for performance degradation due to negative pool migration. Assurance for True Lender Status for Partner Bank-Loan Origination: Oportun's securitization transactions involve consumer loans originated by Oportun, Inc. and its partner bank, Pathward, N.A. (Pathward), a national bank. The bank's true lender status in the context of Oportun's loan acquisition is subject to legal and regulatory uncertainty, especially if the loans' interest rates exceed those allowed by the borrowers' state usury laws. If a court ruling or regulatory action deems that Oportun, rather than Pathward, is the true lender, loans could be declared unenforceable, void or subject to interest rate reductions and other penalties. This would increase negative rating pressure. Fitch's analysis and ratings reflect a review of the transaction's eligibility criteria for selecting the receivables for OPTN 2025-D, which reduces exposure to such loans by adherence to certain usury limits. Fitch also performed an operational risk review and deemed Oportun's compliance, legal and operational capabilities acceptable to meet consumer protection regulations, along with the unique aspects of its loan products, such as an overall small balance and short tenor, which Fitch views as helpful. Adequate Servicing Capabilities: PF Servicing, LLC (PF Servicing), a wholly owned subsidiary of Oportun, is the servicer of the receivables. The servicer has displayed an acceptable track record of servicing consumer loans. In addition, Systems & Services Technologies, Inc. is the named backup servicer, which has also shown an acceptable record of servicing consumer loans, reducing servicing disruption. Fitch considers all servicers to be adequate for this pool of consumer loans. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Unanticipated increases in the frequency of defaults or charge-offs could produce loss levels higher than the base case and would likely result in declines of CE and remaining net loss coverage levels available to the notes. Decreased CE may make certain ratings on the notes susceptible to potential negative rating actions, depending on the extent of the decline in coverage. Fitch conducts sensitivity analysis by stressing a transaction's initial base case default assumption by an additional 10%, 25% and 50%, and examining rating implications. These increases of the base case default rate are intended to provide an indication of the rating sensitivity of the notes to unexpected deterioration of a trust's performance. During the sensitivity analysis, Fitch examines the magnitude of multiplier compression by projecting expected cash flow and loss coverage over the life of the investments. For this projection, Fitch applies default assumptions that are higher than the initial base-case default assumptions. Fitch models cash flow with the revised default estimates while holding constant all other modeling assumptions. Rating sensitivity to increased defaults (class A/B/C/D/E): Ratings: 'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf' Increased default base case by 10%: 'AA+sf'/'A+sf'/'BBB+sf'/'BBsf'/'B+sf'; Increased default base case by 25%: 'AAsf'/'A-sf'/'BBBsf'/'BB-sf'/'B-sf'; Increased default base case by 50%: 'A+sf'/'BBBsf'/'BB+sf'/'Bsf'/'NRsf'; Reduced recovery base case by 10%: 'AAAsf'/'A+sf'/'A-sf'/'BB+sf'/'BB-sf'; Reduced recovery base case by 25%: 'AA+sf'/'A+sf'/'A-sf'/'BB+sf'/'BB-sf'; Reduced recovery base case by 50%: 'AA+sf'/'A+sf'/'BBB+sf'/'BB+sf'/'BB-sf'; Increased default base case by 10% and reduced recovery base case by 10%: 'AA+sf'/'A+sf'/'BBB+sf'/'BBsf'/'B+sf'; Increased default base case by 25% and reduced recovery base case by 25%: 'AAsf'/'A-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'/'B-sf'; Increased default base case by 50% and reduced recovery base case by 50%: 'A+sf'/'BBBsf'/'BB+sf'/'Bsf'/'NRsf'. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Stable to improved asset performance, driven by steady delinquencies, would increase CE levels and lead to a potential upgrade. If defaults are 20% less than the projected base case default rate, the expected ratings for the class B and C notes could be upgraded by up to one or two notches, respectively. Rating sensitivity from decreased defaults (class A/B/C/D/E): Ratings: 'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'. Decreased default base case by 20%: 'AAAsf'/'AA+sf'/'A+sf'/'BBBsf'/'BB+sf'. USE OF THIRD PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G -10 Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E (Form 15E) as prepared by Deloitte & Touche LLP. The third-party due diligence described in Form 15E focused on a comparison and recalculation of certain characteristics with respect to 150 randomly selected statistical receivables. Fitch considered this information in its analysis, and it did not have an effect on Fitch's analysis or conclusions. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. PIKES PEAK 15: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Final Rating on Cl. E-R Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fitch Ratings has assigned final ratings and Rating Outlooks to Pikes Peak CLO 15 (2023) Ltd reset transaction. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- Pikes Peak CLO 15 (2023) Ltd A-LR Loans LT NRsf New Rating A-R LT NRsf New Rating B 720922AE3 LT PIFsf Paid In Full AAsf B-R LT AAsf New Rating C 720922AG8 LT PIFsf Paid In Full Asf C-R LT Asf New Rating D 720922AJ2 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BBB-sf D-1R LT BBB-sf New Rating D-2R LT BBB-sf New Rating E 720923AA9 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BB-sf E-R LT BB-sf New Rating Transaction Summary Pikes Peak CLO 15 (2023) Ltd (the issuer), a reset transaction, is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) managed by Partners Group US Management CLO LLC. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $474 million of primarily first lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 23.65 and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 97.98% first lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 73.38% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 45% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with that of other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R, between 'Bsf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-1R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2R, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E-R. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R, 'AAsf' for class C-R, 'Asf' for class D-1R, 'A-sf' for class D-2R, and 'BBB+sf' for class E-R. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Pikes Peak CLO 15 (2023) Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, program, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose in the key rating drivers any ESG factor which has a significant impact on the rating on an individual basis. PMT LOAN 2025-INV10: Moody's Assigns B3 Rating to Cl. B-5 Certs --------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's Ratings has assigned definitive ratings to 71 classes of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) issued by PMT Loan Trust 2025-INV10, and sponsored by PennyMac Corp. The securities are backed by a pool of GSE-eligible residential mortgages originated and serviced by PennyMac Corp. The complete rating actions are as follows: Issuer: PMT Loan Trust 2025-INV10 Cl. A-1, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-2, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-3, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-4, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-5, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-6, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-7, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-8, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-9, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-10, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-11, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-12, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-13, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-14, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-15, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-16, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-17, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-18, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-19, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-20, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-21, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-22, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-23, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-24, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-25, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-26, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-27, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-28, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) Cl. A-29, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) Cl. A-30, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) Cl. A-31, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) Cl. A-32, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) Cl. A-33, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) Cl. A-36, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-37, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X1*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) Cl. A-X2*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X3*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X4*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X5*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X6*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X7*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X8*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X9*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X11*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X12*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X14*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X15*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X18*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X19*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X21*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X22*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X24*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X25*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X26*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X27*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-X28*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) Cl. A-X29*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) Cl. A-X30*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) Cl. A-X31*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) Cl. A-X32*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) Cl. A-X33*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) Cl. A-X34*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) Cl. A-X35*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf) Cl. A-36X*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. A-37X*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf) Cl. B-1, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa3 (sf) Cl. B-2, Definitive Rating Assigned A3 (sf) Cl. B-3, Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf) Cl. B-4, Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf) Cl. B-5, Definitive Rating Assigned B3 (sf) *Reflects Interest-Only Classes Moody's are withdrawing the provisional ratings for the Class A-1A Loans, assigned on October 9, 2025, because the Class A-1A Loans were not funded on the closing date. RATINGS RATIONALE The ratings are based on the credit quality of the mortgage loans, the structural features of the transaction, the origination quality and the servicing arrangement, the third-party review, and the representations and warranties framework. Moody's expected loss for this pool in a baseline scenario-mean is 0.65%, in a baseline scenario-median is 0.36% and reaches 7.67% at a stress level consistent with Moody's Aaa ratings. PRINCIPAL METHODOLOGIES The principal methodology used in rating all classes except interest-only classes was "US Residential Mortgage-backed Securitizations" published in August 2025. 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 mortgaged property securing an obligor's promise of payment. Transaction performance also depends greatly on the US macro economy and housing market. 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. 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. In addition, improvements in reporting formats and data availability across deals and trustees may provide better insight into certain performance metrics such as the level of collateral modifications. PRPM 2025-RCF5: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Final Rating on Cl. M-2 Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned final ratings to the series 2025-RCF5 residential mortgage-backed notes to be issued by PRPM 2025-RCF5, LLC. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- PRPM 2025-RCF5 A-1 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A-2 LT AA-sf New Rating AA-(EXP)sf A-3 LT A-sf New Rating A-(EXP)sf M-1 LT BBB-sf New Rating BBB-(EXP)sf M-2 LT BB-sf New Rating BB-(EXP)sf B LT NRsf New Rating NR(EXP)sf CERT LT NRsf New Rating NR(EXP)sf Transaction Summary The series 2025-RCF5 notes are supported by 773 loans with a balance of $200.30 million as of the cutoff date. This will be the 10th PRPM RCF transaction to be rated by Fitch and the fifth RCF transaction of 2025. The notes are secured by a pool of recently originated and seasoned, fixed-rate and adjustable-rate, fully amortizing, interest-only and balloon, performing and re-performing mortgage loans secured by first and second liens on generally single family residential properties, planned unit developments, condominiums, two-to-four family residential properties, manufactured housing, townhouses, multiple properties, five-to-10 unit multifamily properties and co-operative shares. Based on the transaction documents, 72.42% of the pool loans represent collateral with a defect or exception to guidelines that preclude the loans from a government-sponsored entity (GSE) pool (scratch and dent [S&D]). The remaining loans are reperforming loans or non-qualified mortgage (non-QM) loans or loans to ITIN borrowers. The loans were originated by various originators, with no originator contributing more than 10% to the pool. Following the servicing transfer, which will take place on or before 45 days after the closing date, SN Servicing Corp. (SNSC), rated 'RSS3' by Fitch, will service 77.67% of the loans in the pool. Fay Servicing, rated 'RSS2' by Fitch, will service 13.91% of the loans, and the remaining 8.42% will be serviced by Nationstar Mortgage LLC, d/b/a Rushmore Servicing (Rushmore), rated 'RSS2' by Fitch. The loans consist of qualified mortgage (QM), non-QM, and QM-exempt loans. Specifically, 49.09% of the loans are QM/non-HPML, 35.01% are not covered/exempt from the QM rule, 8.25% non-QM, 7.43% are QM/HPML, and 0.22% did not have a designation available. Fitch did not adjust the QM status in its analysis under the revised "U.S. RMBS Rating Criteria." The offered A and M notes are fixed rate and capped at available funds. The B note is a principal-only (PO) bond and is not entitled to interest. Similar to non-QM transactions, classes A and M have a step-up coupon feature that is triggered if the deal is not called in October 2029. Fitch was only asked to rate class A-1, A-2, A-3, and M-1 and M-2 notes. KEY RATING DRIVERS Credit Risk of Nonprime Credit Quality Prime Mortgage Assets (Negative): RMBS transactions are directly affected by the performance of the underlying residential mortgages or mortgage-related assets. Fitch analyzes loan-level attributes and macroeconomic factors to assess the credit risk and expected losses. The borrowers in this pool have relatively strong credit profiles with a Fitch-determined weighted average (WA) FICO score of 730, and a 39.2% Fitch-determined debt-to-income ratio (DTI). The borrowers also have moderate leverage, with an original combined loan-to-value ratio (CLTV), as determined by Fitch, of 79.8%, translating to a Fitch-calculated sustainable loan-to-value ratio (sLTV) of 77.7%. Of the loans in the pool, 72.4% are loans that are considered S&D, 19.3% are RPL, 4.9% are ITIN and 3.4 % are non-QM. In addition, 25.1% have less than full documentation (through a bank statement, DSCR, or other). PRPM 2025-RCF5 has a Final PD of 55.73% in the 'AAA' rating stress. Fitch's Final Loss Severity in the 'AAAsf' rating stress is 45.98%. The expected loss in the 'AAAsf' rating stress is 26.35%. Structural Analysis (Mixed): The mortgage cash flow and loss allocation in PRPM 2025-RCF5 is as follows: The transaction utilizes a sequential-payment structure with no advances of delinquent (DQ) principal or interest. The transaction also includes a structural feature where it reallocates interest from the more junior classes to pay principal on the more senior classes on or after the occurrence of a credit event. The amount of interest paid out as principal to the more senior classes is added to the balance of the affected junior classes. This feature allows for a faster paydown of the senior classes. An offset to the positive feature of the sequential structure is that the transaction will not write down the bonds due to potential losses or undercollateralization. In periods of adverse performance, the subordinate bonds will continue to be paid interest at the expense of principal payments that otherwise would support the more senior bonds; in a more traditional structure, the subordinate bonds would be written down and accrue a smaller amount of interest. The potential for increasing amounts of undercollateralization is partially mitigated by reallocation of available funds after a credit event. The servicers will not be advancing DQ monthly payments of principal and interest (P&I). Because P&I advances made on behalf of loans that become DQ and eventually liquidate reduce liquidation proceeds to the trust, the loan-level LS is less in this transaction than for those where the servicer is obligated to advance P&I. To provide liquidity and ensure timely interest will be paid to the 'AAAsf' rated classes and ultimate interest will be paid on the remaining rated classes, principal will need to be used to pay for interest accrued on DQ loans. This will result in stress on the structure and the need for additional credit enhancement (CE) compared to a pool with limited advancing. In this structure, interest payments and fees are paid from the interest waterfall prior to the occurrence of a credit event. The principal waterfall will pay any current and unpaid accrued interest amounts to the classes prior to principal being paid sequentially, starting with the A-1 class prior to the occurrence of a credit event. On and after the occurrence of a credit event, fees will be paid out of available funds; after the fees are paid, interest and principal will be paid out of available funds with interest still being prioritized in the structure over the payment of principal. Coupons on the notes are based on the lower of the available funds cap (AFC) and the stated coupon. If the AFC is paid, it is considered a coupon cap shortfall (interest shortfall) and the coupon cap shortfall amount is the difference between interest that was paid (per the AFC) and what should have been paid based on the stated coupon. If the transaction is not called on the expected redemption date (October 2029), the coupons step up 100 bps. Class B and the certificate class will be issued as PO bonds and will not accrue interest. The transaction has overcollateralization (OC), which will provide subordination and protect the classes from losses. Classes will not be written down by realized losses. Operational Risk Analysis (Negative): Fitch considers originator and servicer capability, third-party due diligence results, and the transaction-specific representation, warranty and enforcement (RW&E) framework to derive a potential operational risk adjustment. The only consideration that has a direct impact on Fitch's loss expectations is due diligence. Third-party due diligence was performed on 100% of the loans in the transaction by loan count. For S&D transactions, credit is not given to loans with a due diligence grade of A or B since these loans have a material defect. The loans are penalized for having C and D grades. Counterparty and Legal Analysis (Neutral): Fitch expects all relevant transaction parties to conform with the requirements described in its "Global Structured Finance Rating Criteria." Relevant parties are those whose failure to perform could have a material outcome on the performance of the transaction. In addition, all legal requirements should be satisfied to fully de-link the transaction from any other entities. Fitch expects PRPM 2025-RCF5 to be fully de-linked and bankruptcy remote SPV. All transaction parties and triggers align with Fitch's expectations. Rating Cap Analysis (Positive): Common rating caps in U.S. RMBS may include, but are not limited to, new product types with limited or volatile historical data and transactions with weak operational or structural/counterparty features. These considerations do not apply to PRPM 2025-RCF5 and therefore Fitch is comfortable rating to the highest possible rating at 'AAAsf' without any rating caps. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade This defined negative rating sensitivity analysis demonstrates how ratings would react to steeper MVDs at the national level. The analysis assumes MVDs of 10.0%, 20.0% and 30.0%, in addition to the model-projected 37.7%, at 'AAA'. The analysis indicates there is some potential rating migration, with higher MVDs for all rated classes compared with the model projection. Specifically, a 10% additional decline in home prices would lower all rated classes by one full category. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade This defined positive rating sensitivity analysis demonstrates how the ratings would react to positive home price growth of 10% with no assumed overvaluation. Excluding the senior class, which is already rated 'AAAsf', the analysis indicates there is potential positive rating migration for all the rated classes. Specifically, a 10% gain in home prices would result in a full category upgrade for the rated class, excluding those being assigned ratings of 'AAAsf'. This section provides insight into the model-implied sensitivities the transaction faces when one assumption is modified, while holding others equal. The modeling process uses the modification of these variables to reflect asset performance in up and down environments. The results should only be considered as one potential outcome, as the transaction is exposed to multiple dynamic risk factors. It should not be used as an indicator of possible future performance. USE OF THIRD PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G -10 Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E (Form 15E) as prepared by Infinity, SitusAMC, Canopy, ProTitle and Selene. The third-party due diligence described in these Form 15Es focused on regulatory compliance, credit, valuation, data integrity, payment history, modification, and title/lien review, as applicable to each TPR's scope of review. ProTitle conducted title/lien reviews on 200 loans, and Infinity on 707 loans. Fitch also received servicer confirmations that the lien status and payment history in the loan tape were accurate per their records. U.S. Bank National Association and Computershare conducted the custodial reviews. Fitch incorporated the due diligence results into its analysis. Based on 100% due diligence coverage of the pool, Fitch raised loss expectations to reflect findings such as missing HUD-1s, other state compliance testing failures, ATR risk, high-cost issues, property damage, TILA/RESPA violations, and timeline extensions for missing documents only. Fitch also increased losses for exceptions identified in the S&D loans. In total, losses at the 'AAAsf' rating category were increased by approximately 402 bps to account for both the due diligence findings and the S&D exceptions. DATA ADEQUACY Fitch relied on an independent third-party due diligence review covering 100% of the pool. The scope was generally consistent with Fitch's "U.S. RMBS Rating Criteria." Infinity, SitusAMC, Canopy, ProTitle, and Selene were engaged to perform the review. Loans reviewed under this engagement received compliance, credit, and valuation grades, with initial and final grades assigned for each subcategory. Exceptions and waivers were documented in the due diligence reports and incorporated into Fitch's analysis (please see the Third-Party Due Diligence section for more detail). Fitch also used data files provided by the issuer on its SEC Rule 17g-5 designated website. Fitch received loan-level information in ASF data layout format, which was considered comprehensive. The due diligence firms reviewed the ASF data tape and no material discrepancies were noted. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. PRPM LLC 2024-RPL3: Moody's Raises Rating on Cl. M-2 Certs to Ba1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's Ratings has upgraded the ratings of eight bonds from two deals issued by PRP Advisors, LLC from 2024. The transactions are backed by seasoned performing and modified re-performing residential mortgage loans (RPL). The collateral is serviced by multiple servicers. A comprehensive review of all credit ratings for the respective transaction(s) have been conducted during a rating committee. The complete rating actions are as follows: Issuer: PRPM 2024-RPL3, LLC Cl. A-2, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Nov 22, 2024 Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf) Cl. A-3, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Nov 22, 2024 Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf) Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Nov 22, 2024 Definitive Rating Assigned Baa2 (sf) Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Nov 22, 2024 Definitive Rating Assigned Ba2 (sf) Issuer: PRPM 2024-RPL4, LLC Cl A-2, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Dec 13, 2024 Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf) Cl. A-3, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Dec 13, 2024 Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf) Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Dec 13, 2024 Definitive Rating Assigned Baa2 (sf) Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Dec 13, 2024 Definitive Rating Assigned Ba2 (sf) RATINGS RATIONALE The rating upgrades reflect the increased levels of credit enhancement available to the bonds, the recent performance, and Moody's updated loss expectations on the underlying pools. The rating upgrades are a result of the stable performance of the related pools and an increase in credit enhancement of 13.4% on average for the bonds Moody's upgraded since the closing of these transactions. No actions were taken on the remaining rated classes in these deals as those classes are already at the highest achievable levels within Moody's rating scale. Principal Methodologies The methodologies used in these ratings were "Non-performing and Re-performing Loan Securitizations" published in April 2024. 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 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. 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 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. 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. In addition, improvements in reporting formats and data availability across deals and trustees may provide better insight into certain performance metrics such as the level of collateral modifications. REGATTA XIX: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Class E-R Notes ------------------------------------------------------------ Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to Regatta XIX Funding Ltd. reset transaction. Entity/Debt Rating ----------- ------ Regatta XIX Funding Ltd. X-R LT AAAsf New Rating A-1R LT AAAsf New Rating A-2R LT AAAsf New Rating B-R LT AAsf New Rating C-1R LT A+sf New Rating C-2R LT Asf New Rating D-1R LT BBB+sf New Rating D-2R LT BBB-sf New Rating D-3R LT BBB-sf New Rating E-R LT BB-sf New Rating Subordinated LT NRsf New Rating Transaction Summary Regatta XIX Funding Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that is managed by Napier Park Global Capital (US) LP and originally closed in March 2022. The existing secured notes will be refinanced in whole on Oct. 20, 2025 via the First Supplemental Indenture. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $498 million (not including defaulted obligations) of primarily first lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 23.44 and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 97.98% first lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 73.73% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 40% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as 'AAAsf' for class X, between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-1R, between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-2R, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R, between 'B+sf' and 'Asf' for class C-1R, between 'B+sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-2R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BBB-sf' for class D-1R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-3R, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E-R. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class X, class A-1R and class A-2R notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R, 'AA+sf' for class C-1R, 'AAsf' for class C-2R, 'A+sf' for class D-1R, 'Asf' for class D-2R, 'A-sf' for class D-3R, and 'BBB+sf' for class E-R. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Regatta XIX Funding Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, programme, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. RIN IV LTD: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to $8MM Class E-R Notes -------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's Ratings has assigned ratings to six classes of CLO refinancing notes (the Refinancing Notes) issued by RIN IV Ltd. (the Issuer): US$256,000,000 Class A-1-R Floating Rate Senior Notes Due 2038, Assigned Aaa (sf) US$8,000,000 Class A-2-R Floating Rate Senior Notes Due 2038, Assigned Aaa (sf) US$40,000,000 Class B-R Floating Rate Senior Notes Due 2038, Assigned Aa1 (sf) US$24,000,000 Class C-R Deferrable Floating Rate Mezzanine Notes Due 2038, Assigned A2 (sf) US$24,000,000 Class D-R Deferrable Floating Rate Mezzanine Notes Due 2038, Assigned Baa3 (sf) US$8,000,000 Class E-R Deferrable Floating Rate Mezzanine Notes Due 2038, Assigned Ba3 (sf) The notes listed are referred to herein, collectively, as the Rated Notes. RATINGS RATIONALE The rationale for the ratings is based on Moody's methodologies and considers all relevant risks particularly those associated with the project finance collateralized loan obligations' (PF CLO) portfolio and structure. The Issuer is a managed cash flow PF CLO. The issued notes are collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated senior secured project finance and corporate infrastructure loans. At least 50.0% of the portfolio must consist of project finance infrastructure loans and eligible investments. The PF CLO permits up to 35% of the portfolio to be in project finance loans in the electricity (gas) contracted and merchant subsectors. At least 96.0% of the portfolio must consist of first lien senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up to 4.0% of the portfolio may consist of permitted debt securities (senior secured bond, senior secured note, second priority senior secured note and high-yield bond) and second lien loans. The portfolio is approximately 87% ramped as of the closing date. RREEF America L.L.C., a subsidiary of DWS Group GmbH & Co. KGaA (the Portfolio Advisor) will continue to 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 extended five year reinvestment period. Thereafter, reinvestment in assets is not permitted after the reinvestment period. 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; and changes to the base matrix and modifiers. Moody's modeled the transaction applying the Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's CDOROM(TM), as described in the "Project Finance and Infrastructure Asset CLOs" rating methodology published in July 2024 and using a cash flow model which estimates expected loss on a CLO's tranche, as described in the " Collateralized Loan Obligations (October 3, 2025) - Global -" rating methodology published in October 2025. The key model inputs Moody's used in Moody's analysis, such as par, weighted average rating factor, diversity score and weighted average recovery rate, are based on Moody's published methodology and could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. For modeling purposes, Moody's used the following base-case assumptions: Portfolio par: $400,000,000 Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF) of Project Finance Loans: 1806 Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF) of Corporate Infrastructure Loans: 2599 Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 2.85% Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR) of Project Finance Loans: 65.70% Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR) of Corporate Infrastructure Loans: 58.80% Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8.0 Permitted Debt Securities and Second Lien Loans: 4.0% Total Obligors: 50 Largest Obligor: 3.50% Largest 5 Obligors: 17.50% B2 Default Probability Rating Obligations: 17.0% B3 Default Probability Rating Obligations: 10.0% Project Finance Infrastructure Obligors: 50.0% Corporate Power Infrastructure Obligors: 14.75% Power Infrastructure Obligors: 44.75% Long Dated Assets: 2.5% Methodology Underlying the Rating Action The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in October 2025. 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. ROCKFFORD TOWER 2022-2: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on E-R2 Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Outlooks to the Rockford Tower CLO 2022-2, Ltd. reset transaction. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- Rockford Tower CLO 2022-2, Ltd. A-1-R2 LT NRsf New Rating A-2-R2 LT AAAsf New Rating B-R 77340LAQ3 LT PIFsf Paid In Full AA+sf B-R2 LT AAsf New Rating C-R 77340LAR1 LT PIFsf Paid In Full Asf C-R2 LT Asf New Rating D-1-R2 LT BBBsf New Rating D-2-R2 LT BBB-sf New Rating D-R 77340LAS9 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BBB-sf E-R 77340NAG1 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BB+sf E-R2 LT BB-sf New Rating Transaction Summary Rockford Tower CLO 2022-2, Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that will be managed by Rockford Tower Capital Management, L.L.C. and that originally closed in July 2022. This is the second refinancing where the CLO's existing secured notes will be refinanced in whole on Oct. 20, 2025, from proceeds of the new secured notes. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $400 million of primarily first-lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B+/B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 22.65, and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 95.45% first-lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 72.85% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 39% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-2-R2, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R2, between 'B+sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-R2, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BBB-sf' for class D-1-R2, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2-R2 and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E-R2. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-2-R2 notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R2, 'AA+sf' for class C-R2, 'A+sf' for class D-1-R2, and 'A-sf' for class D-2-R2 and 'BBB+sf' for class E-R2. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Rockford Tower CLO 2022-2, Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, program, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. ROCKFORD TOWER 2023-1: Fitch Assigns BB-sf Rating on Cl. E-R Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to Rockford Tower CLO 2023-1, Ltd. reset transaction. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- Rockford Tower CLO 2023-1, Ltd. A-1-R LT NRsf New Rating A-2-R LT AAAsf New Rating B 77341RAC0 LT PIFsf Paid In Full AAsf B-R LT AAsf New Rating C 77341RAE6 LT PIFsf Paid In Full Asf C-R LT Asf New Rating D 77341RAG1 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BBB-sf D-1-R LT BBBsf New Rating D-2-R LT BBB-sf New Rating E 77341UAA7 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BB-sf E-R LT BB-sf New Rating Transaction Summary Rockford Tower CLO 2023-1, Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that is managed by Rockford Tower Capital Management, L.L.C that originally closed in December 2023. On Oct. 20, 2025, the existing notes will be redeemed in full with refinancing proceeds. Net proceeds from the issuance of the secured and subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $400 million of primarily first lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B+/B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 22.95, and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 95.37% first lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 72.41% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 39% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with that of other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a five-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The WAL used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such a metric. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'BBB+sf' and 'AA+sf' for class A-2-R, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class B-R, between 'B+sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class C-R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-1-R, between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class D-2-R, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'B+sf' for class E-R. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-2-R notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R, 'AAsf' for class C-R, 'A+sf' for class D-1-R, 'A-sf' for class D-2-R, and 'BBB+sf' for class E-R. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Rockford Tower CLO 2023-1, Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, program, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose in the key rating drivers any ESG factor which has a significant impact on the rating on an individual basis. RR 16: S&P Affirms BB- (sf) Rating on Class D Notes --------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the replacement class A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, and C-R debt from RR 16 Ltd./RR 16 LLC, a CLO managed by Redding Ridge Asset Management LLC that was originally issued in June 2021. At the same time, S&P withdrew its ratings on the previous class A-1, A-2, B, and C debt following payment in full on the Oct. 15, 2025, refinancing date. S&P also affirmed its rating on the class D debt, which were not refinanced. The replacement debt was issued via a supplemental indenture, which outlines the terms of the replacement debt. According to the supplemental indenture: -- The replacement class A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, and C-R debt was issued at a lower spread over three-month CME term SOFR than the previous debt. -- The replacement class A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, and C-R debt was issued at a floating spread, replacing the current floating spread. -- The non-call period was extended to April 15, 2026. -- No additional subordinated notes were issued on the refinancing date. S&P said, "Since our prior review, collateral performance has weakened: par losses have reduced overcollateralization (O/C), the exposure to obligors rated 'CCC/D' has increased, and the portfolio's weighted-average recovery and weighted-average spread have declined. Consequently, our cash flow analysis indicates that the class C and D debt (not included in the proposed refinancing) are not passing at the current rating levels. However, the refinancing lowers the liability costs and narrows the margin of failure for these two classes. In addition, the transaction has a relatively low exposure to obligors rated 'CCC/CCC-, and the CLO is in compliance with the portfolio quality and coverage tests. As a result, we view the refinancing as credit-neutral to modestly positive for the transaction, as lower funding costs partially offset weaker collateral metrics, and affirmed the ratings on both these classes." However, any deterioration, such as a sustained rise in 'CCC' concentrations, further par erosion, continued pressure on weighted-average recovery/spread, without offsetting gains in excess spread or O/C, could result in negative rating actions. Replacement And Previous Debt Issuances Replacement debt -- Class A-1-R, $366.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.05% -- Class A-2-R, $78.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.50% -- Class B-R (deferrable), $48.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.80% -- Class C-R (deferrable), $36.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 3.00% Previous debt -- Class A-1 loans, $130.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.11% + CSA(i) -- Class A-1, $236.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.11% + CSA(i) -- Class A-2, $78.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.65% + CSA(i) -- Class B (deferrable), $48.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.95% + CSA(i) -- Class C (deferrable), $36.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 3.00% + CSA(i) -- Class D (deferrable), $22.50 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 6.25% + CSA(i) (i)The CSA is 0.26161%. CSA--Credit spread adjustment. S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction data 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 the recoveries upon default under various interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios. Our analysis also considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or ultimate principal to each rated tranche. "We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings assigned to the debt remain consistent with the credit enhancement available to support them and take rating actions as we deem necessary." Ratings Assigned RR 16 Ltd./RR 16 LLC Class A-1-R, $366.00 million: 'AAA (sf)' Class A-2-R, $78.00 million: 'AA (sf)' Class B-R (deferrable), $48.00 million: 'A (sf)' Class C-R (deferrable), $36.00 million: 'BBB- (sf)' Ratings Withdrawn RR 16 Ltd./RR 16 LLC Class A-1 loans to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class A-1 to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class A-2 to NR from 'AA (sf)' Class B to NR from 'A (sf)' Class C to NR from 'BBB- (sf)' Rating Affirmed RR 16 Ltd./RR 16 LLC Class D (deferrable): BB- (sf) Other Debt RR 16 Ltd./RR 16 LLC Subordinated notes, $48.75 million: NR NR--Not rated. SEQUOIA MORTGAGE 2025-10: Fitch Assigns Bsf Rating on Cl. B5 Certs ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fitch Ratings has assigned final ratings to the residential mortgage-backed certificates issued by Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2025-10 (SEMT 2025-10). Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- SEMT 2025-10 A1 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A2 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A3 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A4 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A5 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A6 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A7 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A8 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A9 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A10 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A11 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A12 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A13 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A14 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A15 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A16 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A17 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A18 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A19 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A20 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A21 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A22 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A23 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A24 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A25 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A26F LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A27 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A28 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A29 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A30 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf A31 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO1 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO2 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO3 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO4 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO5 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO6 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO7 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO8 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO9 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO10 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO11 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO12 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO13 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO14 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO15 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO16 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO17 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO18 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO19 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO20 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO21 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO22 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO23 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO24 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO25 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO26 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO27 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO27F LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO28 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf AIO29 LT AAAsf New Rating AAA(EXP)sf B1 LT AAsf New Rating AA(EXP)sf B1A LT AAsf New Rating AA(EXP)sf B1X LT AAsf New Rating AA(EXP)sf B2 LT Asf New Rating A(EXP)sf B2A LT Asf New Rating A(EXP)sf B2X LT Asf New Rating A(EXP)sf B3 LT BBBsf New Rating BBB(EXP)sf B4 LT BBsf New Rating BB(EXP)sf B5 LT Bsf New Rating B(EXP)sf B6 LT NRsf New Rating NR(EXP)sf AIOS LT NRsf New Rating NR(EXP)sf Transaction Summary The certificates are supported by 600 loans with a total balance of approximately $678.7 million as of the cutoff date. The pool consists of prime jumbo fixed-rate mortgages acquired by Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp. (RRAC) and originated by Fairway Independent Mortgage Corp., CMG Mortgage, Guild Mortgage and various originators. Servicing is performed by SPS and Cornerstone Servicing. Distributions of principal and interest (P&I) and loss allocations are based on a senior-subordinate, shifting-interest structure with full advancing. The borrowers in the pool exhibit a strong credit profile, with a weighted-average (WA) Fitch FICO of 776 and 37.8% debt-to-income ratio (DTI). The borrowers also have moderate leverage with a 72.1% mark-to-market combined LTV (cLTV). Overall, 94.5% of the pool loans are for a primary residence while the remainder are second homes or investment properties. In addition, 100% of the loans were underwritten to full documentation. Following Fitch's publication of its presale and expected ratings, an updated collateral pool was provided which included updated balances and six loan drops from the prior pool. Fitch also received an updated structure reflecting the updated balances. Fitch re-ran its asset and cash flow analysis and confirmed there were no changes to its expected ratings. SEMT 2025-10 is the first Redwood transaction to be analyzed and rated under Fitch's updated "U.S. RMBS Rating Criteria" published on Oct. 1, 2025. KEY RATING DRIVERS Credit Risk of Mortgage Assets: RMBS transactions are directly affected by the performance of the underlying residential mortgages or mortgage-related assets. Fitch analyzes loan-level attributes and macroeconomic factors to assess the credit risk and expected losses. SEMT 2025-10 has a final probability of default (PD) of 9.18% in the 'AAAsf' rating stress. Fitch's final loss severity in the 'AAAsf' rating stress is 35.99%. The expected loss in the 'AAAsf' rating stress is 3.30%. Structural Analysis: The mortgage cash flow and loss allocation in SEMT 2025-10 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. Fitch analyzes the capital structure to determine the adequacy of the transaction's credit enhancement (CE) to support payments on the securities under multiple scenarios incorporating Fitch's loss projections derived from the asset analysis. Fitch applies its assumptions for defaults, prepayments, delinquencies and interest rate scenarios. The credit enhancement for all ratings was sufficient for the given rating levels. The credit enhancement for a given rating exceeded the expected losses of that rating stress to address the structures recoupment of advances and leakage of principal to more subordinate classes. Operational Risk Analysis: Fitch considers originator and servicer capability, third-party due diligence results, and the transaction-specific representation, warranty and enforcement (RW&E) framework to derive a potential operational risk adjustment. The only consideration that has a direct impact on Fitch's loss expectations is due diligence. Third-party due diligence was performed on 96.8% of the loans in the transaction by loan count. Fitch applies a 5bp z-score reduction for loans fully reviewed by a third-party review (TPR) firm, which have a final grade of either 'A' or 'B'. Counterparty and Legal Analysis: Fitch expects all relevant transaction parties to conform with the requirements described in its "Global Structured Finance Rating Criteria." Relevant parties are those whose failure to perform could have a material impact on the performance of the transaction. In addition, all legal requirements should be satisfied to fully de-link the transaction from any other entities. Fitch expects SEMT 2025-10 to be fully de-linked and a bankruptcy remote special purpose vehicle (SPV). All transaction parties and triggers align with Fitch's expectations. Rating Cap Analysis: Common rating caps in U.S. RMBS may include, but are not limited to, new product types with limited or volatile historical data and transactions with weak operational or structural/counterparty features. These considerations do not apply to SEMT 2025-10 and, therefore, Fitch is comfortable assigning the highest possible rating of 'AAAsf' without any rating caps. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Fitch incorporates a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate how the ratings would react to steeper market value declines (MVDs) than assumed at the metropolitan statistical area level. Sensitivity analysis was conducted at the state and national levels to assess the effect of higher MVDs for the subject pool as well as lower MVDs, illustrated by a gain in home prices. The defined negative rating 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 38.2% at 'AAAsf'. The analysis indicates there is some potential rating migration with higher MVDs compared to the model projection. Specifically, a 10% additional decline in home prices would lower all rated classes by one full category. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Fitch incorporates a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate how the ratings would react to steeper MVDs than assumed at the MSA level. Sensitivity analysis was conducted at the state and national levels to assess the effect of higher MVDs for the subject pool as well as lower MVDs, illustrated by a gain in home prices. This defined positive rating sensitivity analysis demonstrates how the ratings would react to positive home price growth of 10% with no assumed overvaluation. Excluding the senior class, which is already rated 'AAAsf', the analysis indicates there is potential positive rating migration for all the rated classes. Specifically, a 10% gain in home prices would result in a full category upgrade for the rated class, excluding those assigned ratings of 'AAAsf'. USE OF THIRD PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G -10 Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E (Form 15E) as prepared by SitusAMC, Clayton, and Consolidated Analytics. The third-party due diligence described in Form 15E focused on credit, compliance, and property valuation. Fitch considered this information in its analysis and, as a result, Fitch applied an approximate 5-bp z-score reduction for loans fully reviewed by the TPR firm and have a final grade of either 'A' or 'B'. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. SIERRA TIMESHARE 2025-3: S&P Assigns BB-(sf) Rating on Cl. D Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to Sierra Timeshare 2025-3 Receivables Funding LLC's timeshare loan-backed notes. The note issuance is an ABS securitization backed by vacation ownership interest (timeshare) loans. The ratings reflect S&P's view of: -- The credit enhancement available in the form of subordination, overcollateralization, a reserve account, and available excess spread. -- The transaction's ability, on average, to withstand breakeven default levels of 69.9%, 54.8%, 40.7%, and 33.8% for the class A, B, C, and D notes, respectively, based on S&P's various stressed cash flow scenarios. These levels are higher than the 3.19x, 2.29x, 1.78x, and 1.34x multiples of its expected cumulative gross defaults (ECGD) of 21.4% for the class A, B, C, and D notes, respectively. -- The transaction's ability to make interest and principal payments according to the terms of the transaction documents on or before the legal final maturity date under S&P's rating stresses, and performance under the credit stability and sensitivity scenarios at their respective rating levels. -- The collateral characteristics of the series' timeshare loans, S&P's view of the credit risk of the collateral, and its updated macroeconomic forecast and forward-looking view of the timeshare sector. -- The series' bank accounts at U.S. Bank Trust Co. N.A. and the reserve account amount to be represented by a letter of credit to be provided by The Bank of Nova Scotia, which do not constrain the ratings. -- S&P's operational risk assessment of Travel+Leisure Consumer Finance Inc. (TLCF, formerly known as Wyndham Consumer Finance Inc.) as servicer, and its views of the company's servicing ability and experience in the timeshare market. -- S&P's assessment of the transaction's potential exposure to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) credit factors. -- The transaction's payment and legal structures. Ratings Assigned Sierra Timeshare 2025-3 Receivables Funding LLC Class A, $151.531 million: AAA (sf) Class B, $60.918 million: A (sf) Class C, $59.694 million: BBB (sf) Class D, $27.857 million: BB- (sf) STRUCTURED ASSET 2004-11: Moody's Ups Rating on Cl. M5 Certs to Ca ------------------------------------------------------------------ Moody's Ratings has upgraded the ratings of four classes issued by Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust 2004-11. The collateral backing this deal consists of Subprime mortgages. A comprehensive review of all credit ratings for the respective transaction(s) has been conducted during a rating committee. The complete rating actions are as follows: Issuer: Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust 2004-11 Cl. M2, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on May 23, 2023 Upgraded to Ba1 (sf) Cl. M3, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jun 5, 2018 Upgraded to Caa3 (sf) Cl. M4, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 4, 2011 Downgraded to C (sf) Cl. M5, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Mar 4, 2011 Downgraded to C (sf) RATINGS RATIONALE The rating actions reflect the current levels of credit enhancement available to the bonds, the recent performance, analysis of the transaction structures, Moody's updated loss expectations on the underlying pools and Moody's revised loss-given-default expectation for each bond. Some of the bonds experiencing a rating change have either incurred a missed or delayed disbursement of an interest payment or is currently, or expected to become, undercollateralized, which may sometimes be reflected by a reduction in principal (a write-down). Moody's expectations of loss-given-default assesses losses experienced and expected future losses as a percent of the original bond balance. The rating upgrade of Class M2 is the result of the improving performance of the related pools, and an increase in credit enhancement available to the bond. Credit enhancement grew by 8% on average over the past 12 months. No action was taken on the other rated class in this deal because the expected loss remains commensurate with the current rating, after taking into account the updated performance information, structural features, credit enhancement and other qualitative considerations. Principal Methodology The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US Residential Mortgage-backed Securitizations: Surveillance" published in December 2024. 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 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. 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 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. 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. In addition, improvements in reporting formats and data availability across deals and trustees may provide better insight into certain performance metrics such as the level of collateral modifications. TOWD POINT 2025-CES4: S&P Assigns 'B-' Rating on Class B2BX Notes ----------------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to Towd Point Mortgage Trust 2025-CES4's mortgage-backed notes. TPMT 2025-CES4's assets consist of primarily newly originated closed-end, second-lien residential mortgage loans, which are fixed-rate and fully amortizing loans. The mortgage loans comprise of QM/non-HPML (safe harbor), QM rebuttable presumption, non-QM/compliant, and ATR-exempt loans. The loans have 10-year, 15-year, 20-year, 25-year, and 30-year original terms-to-maturity, with a pool weighted average original term-to-maturity of 280 months as of the statistical calculation date. As of the cutoff date of Oct. 1, 2025, the current balance of the mortgage pool is $470,536,998. S&P's analysis is based on the transaction cutoff date pool balance. There were no material differences in pool characteristics between the statistical pool and the transaction cutoff date pool for its analysis. The ratings reflect S&P's view of: -- The pool's collateral composition; -- The transaction's credit enhancement, associated structural mechanics, representations and warranties (R&W) framework, and geographic concentration; -- The mortgage originators, Spring EQ LLC and Rocket Mortgage LLC; -- Sample due diligence results consistent with represented loan characteristics; and -- S&P's economic outlook, which considers its current projections for U.S. economic growth, unemployment rates, and interest rates, as well as its view of housing fundamentals, and is updated, if necessary, when these projections change materially. Ratings Assigned Towd Point Mortgage Trust 2025-CES4 (i) Class A1A, $376,430,000: AAA (sf) Class A1B, $11,763,000: AAA (sf) Class A2, $21,644,000: AA- (sf) Class M1, $18,822,000: A- (sf) Class M2, $16,233,000: BBB- (sf) Class B1, $11,058000: BB-(sf) Class B2, $8,705,000: B- (sf) Class B3, $5,881,997: NR Class A1, $388,193,000: AAA (sf) Class A2A, $21,644,000: AA- (sf) Class A2AX, $21,644,000(ii): AA- (sf) Class A2B, $21,644,000: AA- (sf) Class A2BX, $21,644,000(ii): AA- (sf) Class A2C, $21,644,000: AA- (sf) Class A2CX, $21,644,000(ii): AA- (sf) Class A2D, $21,644,000: AA- (sf) Class A2DX, $21,644,000(ii): AA- (sf) Class M1A, $18,822,000: A- (sf) Class M1AX, $18,822,000(ii): A- (sf) Class M1B, $18,822,000: A- (sf) Class M1BX, $18,822,000(ii): A- (sf) Class M1C, $18,822,000: A- (sf) Class M1CX, $18,822,000(ii): A- (sf) Class M1D, $18,822,000: A- (sf) Class M1DX, $18,822,000(ii): A- (sf) Class M2A, $16,233,000: BBB- (sf) Class M2AX, $16,233,000(ii): BBB- (sf) Class M2B, $16,233,000: BBB- (sf) Class M2BX, $16,233,000(ii): BBB- (sf) Class M2C, $16,233,000: BBB- (sf) Class M2CX, $16,233,000(ii): BBB- (sf) Class M2D, $16,233,000: BBB- (sf) Class M2DX, $16,233,000(ii): BBB- (sf) Class B1A, $11,058,000: BB- (sf) Class B1AX, $11,058,000(ii): BB- (sf) Class B1B, $11,058,000: BB- (sf) Class B1BX, $11,058,000(ii): BB- (sf) Class B2A, $8,705,000: B- (sf) Class B2AX, $8,705,000(ii): B- (sf) Class B2B, $8,705,000: B- (sf) Class B2BX, $8,705,000(ii): B- (sf) Class XS1, notional(ii): NR Class XS2, notional(ii): NR Class X, notional(ii): NR Class R, N/A: NR CVR loan, N/A: NR (i)The ratings address the ultimate payment of interest and principal. They do not address the payment of the cap carryover amounts (net WAC shortfalls). (ii)Notional amount. NR--Not rated. N/A—Not applicable. TOWD POINT 2025-R2: Fitch Gives 'B-sf' Rating on Class B2 Notes --------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings rates Towd Point Mortgage Trust 2025-R2 (TPMT 2025-R2). Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- TPMT 2025-R2 A1 LT A-sf New Rating A-(EXP)sf A12 LT BBB-sf New Rating BBB-(EXP)sf A2 LT BBB-sf New Rating BBB-(EXP)sf M1 LT BB+sf New Rating BB+(EXP)sf M2 LT BBsf New Rating BB(EXP)sf B1 LT BB-sf New Rating BB-(EXP)sf B2 LT B-sf New Rating B-(EXP)sf B3 LT NRsf New Rating NR(EXP)sf B4 LT NRsf New Rating NR(EXP)sf B5 LT NRsf New Rating NR(EXP)sf Transaction Summary The transaction is a re-securitization of 26 tranches (comprised of six mezzanine or senior interest-only bonds, and 20 underlying subordinate bonds) from 20 bespoke re-performing Loan (RPL) transactions. These include six underlying Freddie Mac Seasoned Credit Risk Transfer (SCRT) transactions, two Citi Mortgage Loan Trust (CMLTI) transactions, four Mill City Mortgage Loan Trust (MCMLT) transactions, three New Residential Mortgage Loan Trust (NRMLT) transactions and five underlying Towd Point Mortgage Trust (TPMT) transactions. KEY RATING DRIVERS Re-REMIC Structure (Positive) TPMT 2025-R2 is a re-securitization of 26 RPL REMIC tranches with a contributing balance totaling approximately $408 million (excluding the contribution from notional interest-only or excess cash flow classes). The notes benefit from credit enhancement (CE) at the Re-REMIC level, excess cash flow at the Re-REMIC level in the form of the 15% B5 bonds issued as a Principal Only, minimal CE at the underlying level and the potential for excess interest at the underlying level. The transaction utilizes a fully sequential structure whereby interest collections are paid sequentially, and principal collections can be used to pay interest shortfalls on the most senior bond then outstanding prior to paying down the principal balance sequentially. To the extent there is excess interest remaining after all distributions are made, it can be used to turbo down the bonds sequentially, resulting in the creation of over collateralization. Strong Performance to Date (Positive) All the underlying transactions and associated underlying bonds were issued more than four years ago and comprise loans with average seasoning in excess of 19 years. Since the underlying deals were issued, they have paid down by more than 50% on average and have typically experienced losses less than 1% of the issuance balance. Prepayment rates have consistently run around 5% since interest rates rose in 2022 (prior to the current rate environment they were closer to 10%). Current delinquencies have run at mid-single digits almost exclusively since issuance (except for a temporary spike in late payments during the COVID-19 pandemic), and the percentage of the collateral two or more years clean pay is approximately 90% for both cohorts. This spike has since resolved, and performance has reverted to long-term trends. There have been substantial home price gains with average mark-to-market loan-to-value ratios running at sub-50%. At the bond level, write-downs have been very modest with only one bond incurring a loss of more than 10% of its original balance (while the deals have paid down approximately 50%). A number of bonds have incurred zero losses to date and also built up over-collateralization to protect against future losses. No Advancing on Underlying Transactions (Mixed): None of the underlying transactions are structured with any amount of servicer advancing for delinquent P&I. For deals structured to not include servicer advances, servicers will not be advancing on delinquent monthly payments of principal and interest. P&I advances made on behalf of loans that become delinquent and eventually liquidate reduce liquidation proceeds to the trust, so the loan-level loss severities (LS) are less for those transactions than those where the servicer is obligated to advance on P&I. However, given the subordinate nature of the underlying bonds collateralizing the securitization, the lack of advancing can introduce heightened cash flow volatility. There is minimal, if any, credit support on the underlying to protect against delinquencies. Interest Rate Reduction Stress (Negative) The analysis incorporates an interest rate reduction assumption on the underlying mortgage loans due to the sensitivity of certain of the underlying structures to interest rate reductions. The SCRT bonds are highly sensitive to interest rate reductions as the underlying senior bonds are guaranteed a fixed coupon. Running a rate reduction on this collateral led to cash flow being removed at the Re-REMIC level, resulting in much higher CE needed to pass the target rating stresses. Although this stress scenario is highly unlikely given current loan coupons and the interest rate environment, Fitch incorporated it into the rating assessment due to the bonds' sensitivity to this risk. Adjusted Net WAC Stress (Negative) The stated coupon on the P&I bonds at the Re-REMIC level is set to the lower of the fixed rate (4.5% for the class A1/A2, and 4.0% for the class M1/M2 and B1-B4) or the adjusted underlying net weighted average coupon (WAC) rate. It is highly likely that in most periods the bonds will be limited by the adjusted net WAC and accrue coupon cap shortfalls. The deal prioritizes repayment of coupon cap shortfalls to the most senior bond then outstanding from interest collections. This results in a larger amount of principal being required to repay outstanding interest shortfalls to the A2 bond and below resulting in a higher amount of CE to ensure full payment of principal and repayment of all interest shortfalls. Fitch's rating analysis only assumes payment of interest at the adjusted underlying net WAC rate and not at the stated 4.5%. Updated Sustainable Home Prices (Negative) Fitch views the home price values of these pools as roughly 9.5% above a long-term sustainable level (versus 10.5% on a national level as of 1Q25, down 0.5% since last quarter) based on Fitch's updated view on sustainable home prices. Housing affordability is the worst it has been in decades driven by both high interest rates and elevated home prices. Home prices have increased 2.3% yoy nationally as of May 2025 despite modest regional declines but are still being supported by limited inventory). RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade This defined negative rating sensitivity analysis demonstrates how the ratings would react to steeper market value declines (MVDs) at the national level. The analysis assumes MVDs of 10.0%, 20.0% and 30.0% in addition to the model-projected declines. The analysis indicates that there is some potential rating migration with higher MVDs for all rated classes, compared with the model projection. At the 'A-sf' rating, a 10% MVD could result in a downgrade to 'BB+sf', while a 20% or 30% MVD could result in a downgrade to a distressed rating. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade This defined positive rating sensitivity analysis demonstrates how the ratings would react to positive home price growth of 10% with no assumed overvaluation. The analysis indicates there is potential positive rating migration for all the rated classes. Specifically, a 10% gain in home prices could result in an upgrade from 'A-sf' to 'A+sf'. This section provides insight into the model-implied sensitivities the transaction faces when one assumption is modified while holding others equal. The modeling process uses the modification of these variables to reflect asset performance in up and down environments. The results should only be considered as one potential outcome, as the transaction is exposed to multiple dynamic risk factors. It should not be used as an indicator of possible future performance. USE OF THIRD PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G -10 Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E (Form 15E) as prepared by PwC. The third-party due diligence described in Form 15E focused on a confirmation of underlying bond characteristics. Fitch considered this information in its analysis, and it did not have an effect on Fitch's analysis or conclusions. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. TRIMARAN CAVU 2023-1: S&P Assigns Prelim 'BB-' Rating on E-R Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary ratings to the replacement class A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, D-1-R, D-2-R, and E-R debt and proposed new class X-R debt from Trimaran CAVU 2023-1 Ltd./Trimaran CAVU 2023-1 LLC , a CLO managed Trimaran Advisors, LLC that was originally issued in August 2023. The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 17, 2025. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings. On the Oct. 24, 2025, refinancing date, the proceeds from the replacement and proposed new debt will be used to redeem the existing debt. S&P said, "At that time, we expect to withdraw our ratings on the existing class A, B, C, D, and E debt and assign ratings to the replacement class A-1-R, A-2-R, B-R, C-R, D-1-R, D-2-R, and E-R debt and proposed new class X-R debt. However, if the refinancing doesn't occur, we may affirm our ratings on the existing debt and withdraw our preliminary ratings on the replacement and proposed new debt." The replacement and proposed new debt will be issued via a proposed supplemental indenture, which outlines the terms of the replacement debt. According to the proposed supplemental indenture: -- The replacement class B-R, C-R, and E-R debt is expected to be issued at a lower spread over three-month term SOFR than the existing debt. -- The replacement class A-1-R and A-2-R debt is expected to be issued at a floating spread, replacing the current class A floating spread debt. -- The replacement class D-1-R and D-2-R debt is expected to be issued at a floating spread, replacing the current class D floating spread debt. -- New class X-R debt will be issued in connection with this refinancing. This debt is expected to be paid down using interest proceeds during the first seven payment dates, beginning with the second payment date. -- The reinvestment period and non-call period will be extended by 2.25 years. -- The legal final maturity dates for the replacement debt and the existing subordinated notes will be extended to March 2028 S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction data 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 the recoveries upon default under various interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios. Our analysis also considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or ultimate principal to each rated tranche. "We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings assigned to the debt remain consistent with the credit enhancement available to support them and take rating actions as we deem necessary." Preliminary Ratings Assigned Trimaran CAVU 2023-1 Ltd./Trimaran CAVU 2023-1 LLC Class X-R, $1.00 million: AAA (sf) Class A-1-R, $244.00 million: AAA (sf) Class A-2-R, $12.00 million: AAA (sf) Class B-R, $48.00 million: AA (sf) Class C-R (deferrable), $24.00 million: A (sf) Class D-1-R (deferrable), $24.00 million: BBB- (sf) Class D-2-R (deferrable), $4.00 million: BBB- (sf) Class E-R (deferrable), $12.00 million: BB- (sf) Other Debt Trimaran CAVU 2023-1 Ltd./Trimaran CAVU 2023-1 LLC Subordinated notes, $42.70 million: NR NR--Not rated. TRINITAS CLO VI: S&P Affirms B- (sf) Rating on Class F Notes ------------------------------------------------------------ S&P Global Ratings assigned its ratings to the replacement class A-R-4, B-1-R-4, C-1-R-4, and D-1-R-4 debt from Trinitas CLO VI Ltd./Trinitas CLO VI LLC, a CLO managed by Trinitas Capital Management LLC ("Trinitas") that was originally issued in June 2017 and underwent a third refinancing in June 2024. At the same time, S&P withdrew its ratings on the previous class A-RRR, B-R1, C-RR1, and D-R1 debt following payment in full on the Oct. 15, 2025, refinancing date. S&P also affirmed its ratings on the class B-R2, C-RR2, D-R2, D-R3, D-R4, E-R, and F debt, which were not refinanced. The replacement debt was issued via a supplemental indenture, which outlines the terms of the replacement debt. According to the supplemental indenture: -- The non-call period was extended to July 15, 2026. -- No additional assets were purchased on the Oct. 15, 2025, refinancing date, and the target initial par amount remains at $700.00 million. There was no additional effective date or ramp-up period and the first payment date following the refinancing is Oct. 25, 2025. -- No additional subordinated notes were issued on the refinancing date. -- The transaction has adopted benchmark replacement language and was updated to conform to current rating agency methodology. S&P said, "On a standalone basis, our cash flow analysis indicated a lower rating on the class F debt (which was not refinanced). However, we affirmed our 'B- (sf)' rating on the class F debt after considering the overall credit quality of the portfolio, the relatively stable overcollateralization ratio since our last rating action on the transaction, and that the transaction will soon enter its amortization phase. Based on the latter, we expect the credit support available to all rated classes to increase as principal is collected and the senior debt is paid down. In addition, we believe the payment of principal or interest on the class F debt, when due, does not depend on favorable business, financial, or economic conditions. Therefore, this class does not fit our definition of 'CCC' risk in accordance with our "Criteria For Assigning 'CCC+', 'CCC', 'CCC-', And 'CC' Ratings" criteria published Oct. 1, 2012." Replacement And Previous Debt Issuances Replacement debt -- Class A-R-4, $437.50 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.11% -- Class B-1-R-4, $62.50 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.65% -- Class C-1-R-4 (deferrable), $18.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 2.00% -- Class D-1-R-4 (deferrable), $9.20 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 3.30% Previous debt -- Class A-RRR, $437.50 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.33% -- Class B-R1, $62.50 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.65% + CSA(i) -- Class C-RR1 (deferrable), $18.00 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 2.25% + CSA(i) -- Class D-R1 (deferrable), $9.20 million: Three-month CME term SOFR + 3.50% + CSA(i) -- Subordinated notes, $81.00 million: Not applicable (i)The CSA is 0.26161%. CSA--Credit spread adjustment. S&P said, "Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis, based on the portfolio and transaction data 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 the recoveries upon default under various interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios. Our analysis also considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or ultimate principal to each of the rated tranches. "We will continue to review whether, in our view, the ratings assigned to the debt remain consistent with the credit enhancement available to support them and take rating actions as we deem necessary." Ratings Assigned Trinitas CLO VI Ltd./Trinitas CLO VI LLC Class A-R-4, $437.50 million: AAA (sf) Class B-1-R-4, $62.5 million: AA (sf) Class C-1-R-4 (deferrable), $18.00 million: A (sf) Class D-1-R-4 (deferrable), $9.20 million: BBB (sf) Ratings Withdrawn Trinitas CLO VI Ltd./Trinitas CLO VI LLC Class A-RRR to NR from 'AAA (sf)' Class B-R1 to NR from 'AA (sf)' Class C-RR1 to NR from 'A (sf)' Class D-R1 to NR from 'BBB (sf)' Ratings Affirmed Trinitas CLO VI Ltd./Trinitas CLO VI LLC Class B-R2: AA (sf) Class C-RR2: A (sf) Class D-R2: BBB- (sf) Class D-R3: BBB- (sf) Class D-R4: BBB- (sf) Class E-R: BB- (sf) Class F: B- (sf) Other Debt Trinitas CLO VI Ltd./Trinitas CLO VI LLC Subordinated notes, $81.00 million: NR NR--Not rated. TRTX 2025-FL7: Fitch Assigns 'B-(EXP)sf' Rating on Class G Notes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned expected ratings and Rating Outlooks to TRTX 2025-FL7 Issuer, Ltd. as follows: - $616,000,000a class A 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $129,250,000a class A-S 'AAA(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $83,875,000a class B 'AA-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $67,375,000a class C 'A-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $39,875,000a class D 'BBB(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $20,625,000a class E 'BBB-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $39,875,000b class F 'BB-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable; - $24,750,000b class G 'B-(EXP)sf'; Outlook Stable. The following class is not expected to be rated by Fitch: - $78,375,000b Preferred Shares. (a) Privately placed and pursuant to Rule 144A. (b) Horizontal risk retention interest, estimated to be 13.000% of the notional amount of the notes. The approximate collateral interest balance as of the cutoff date is $1,100,000 and does not include future funding. The total collateral interest balance includes the expected principal balance of delayed close collateral interests. The expected ratings are based on information provided by the issuer as of Oct. 23, 2025. Transaction Summary The notes are collateralized by20 loans secured by 45 commercial properties with an aggregate principal balance of $1,100,000,000, including four delayed-close loans totaling $275.0 million, which are expected to close within 30-days, as of the cutoff date. The loans and interests securing the notes will be owned by TRTX 2025-FL7 Issuer, Ltd., as issuer of the notes. The servicer is expected to be Situs Asset Management LLC, and the special servicer is expected to be Situs Holdings, LLC. The trustee is expected to be Wilmington Trust, National Association and the note administrator is expected to be Computershare Trust Company, National Association. The notes are expected to follow a sequential paydown structure. KEY RATING DRIVERS Fitch Net Cash Flow: Fitch performed cash flow analyses on 19 loans in the pool (99.1% by balance). Fitch's resulting aggregate net cash flow (NCF) of $37.7 million represents a 12.5% decline from the issuer's aggregate underwritten NCF of $43.1 million, excluding loans for which Fitch utilized an alternate value analysis. Aggregate cash flows include only the pro-rated trust portion of any pari passu loan. Higher Fitch Leverage: The pool has higher leverage than recent CRE CLO transactions rated by Fitch. The pool's Fitch loan‐to‐value (LTV) ratio of 143.2% is higher than both the 2025 YTD and 2024 CRE CLO averages of 140.7% and 140.7%, respectively. The pool's Fitch NCF debt yield (DY) of 6.1% is below both the 2025 YTD and 2024 CRE CLO averages of 6.4% and 6.5%, respectively. Higher Loan Concentration: The pool is less concentrated than 2024 transactions but more concentrated than recently rated 2025 transactions. The top 10 loans make up 69.2% of the pool, which is lower than the 2024 CRE CLO average of 70.5% but above the 2025 YTD average of 61.8%. Fitch measures loan concentration risk using an effective loan count, which accounts for both the number and size of loans in the pool. The pool's effective loan count is 19.3. Fitch views diversity as a key mitigant to idiosyncratic risk. Fitch raises the overall loss for pools with effective loan counts below 40. Geographical Diversity: The pool has higher effective geographical diversity than recently rated CRE CLO transactions. The pool's effective metropolitan statistical area (MSA) count of 14.6 is better than both the 2025 YTD and 2024 CRE CLO averages of 11.5 and 9.0, respectively. The pool contains 45 properties across 16 states, as well as 23 MSAs. The largest three MSA concentrations are San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX (11.7%), Columbus, OH (10.6%) and Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (8.4%). Pools with a greater concentration by geography are at a greater risk of losses, all else equal. Fitch therefore raises overall losses for pools with effective geographic counts below 15. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Declining cash flow decreases property value and capacity to meet its debt service obligations. The table below indicates the model-implied rating sensitivity to changes in one variable, Fitch NCF: - Original Rating: 'AAAsf'/'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBBsf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'/'B-sf' - 10% NCF Decline: 'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBBsf'/'BB+sf'/'BBsf'/ less than 'CCCsf' Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Improvement in cash flow increases property value and capacity to meet its debt service obligations. The table below indicates the model-implied rating sensitivity to changes to in one variable, Fitch NCF: - Original Rating: 'AAAsf'/'AAAsf'/'AA-sf'/'A-sf'/'BBBsf'/'BBB-sf'/'BB-sf'/'B-sf' - 10% NCF Increase: 'AAAsf'/'AAAsf'/'AAsf'/'Asf'/'BBB+sf'/'BBBsf'/'BBsf'/'B+sf' SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENTS This transaction utilizes note protection tests to provide additional credit enhancement (CE) to the investment-grade noteholders, if needed. The note protection tests comprise an interest coverage test and a par value test at the 'BBB-' level (class E) in the capital structure. Should either of these metrics fall below a minimum requirement then interest payments to the retained notes are diverted to pay down the senior most notes. This diversion of interest payments continues until the note protection tests are back above their minimums. As a result of this structural feature, Fitch's analysis of the transaction included an evaluation of the liabilities structure under different stress scenarios. To undertake this evaluation, Fitch used the cash flow modeling referenced in the Fitch criteria "U.S. and Canadian Multiborrower CMBS Rating Criteria". Different scenarios were run where asset default timing distributions and recovery timing assumptions were stressed. Key inputs, including Rating Default Rate (RDR) and Rating Recovery Rate (RRR), were based on the CMBS multiborrower model output in combination with CMBS analytical insight. The cash flow modeling results showed that the default rates in the stressed scenarios did not exceed the available CE in any stressed scenario. USE OF THIRD PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G -10 Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E (Form 15E) as prepared by KPMG LLP. The third-party due diligence described in Form 15E focused on a comparison and re-computation of certain characteristics with respect to each of the mortgage loans. Fitch considered this information in its analysis, and it did not have an effect on Fitch's analysis or conclusions. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. UPLAND CLO: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on $15.25MM D-R Notes ------------------------------------------------------------ Moody's Ratings has upgraded the rating on the following notes issued by Upland CLO, Ltd.: US$27.5M Class C-R Deferrable Mezzanine Secured Floating Rate Notes, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Jul 7, 2025 Upgraded to Baa2 (sf) Moody's have also affirmed the ratings on the following notes: US$191M (Current outstanding amount US$32,942,572) Class A-1A-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 7, 2025 Affirmed Aaa (sf) US$67M (Current outstanding amount US$11,555,771) Class A-1B-2 Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 7, 2025 Affirmed Aaa (sf) US$48.25M Class A-2-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 7, 2025 Affirmed Aaa (sf) US$19.75M Class B-R Deferrable Mezzanine Secured Floating Rate Notes, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 7, 2025 Upgraded to Aaa (sf) US$15.25M Class D-R Deferrable Junior Secured Floating Rate Notes, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul 7, 2025 Affirmed Ba3 (sf) Upland CLO, Ltd., originally issued in May 2016 and refinanced in May 2018 and partially refinanced in August 2020, is a managed cashflow CLO. The notes are collateralized primarily by a portfolio of broadly syndicated senior secured corporate loans. The portfolio is managed by Invesco Senior Secured Management, Inc. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in April 2023. RATINGS RATIONALE The rating upgrade on the Class C-R notes is primarily a result of the deleveraging of the Class A-1A-R and Class A-1B-2 notes following amortisation of the underlying portfolio since the last rating action in July 2025. The affirmations on the ratings on the Class A-1A-R, Class A-1B-2, Class A-2-R, Class B-R and Class D-R notes are primarily a result of the expected losses on the notes remaining consistent with their current rating levels, after taking into account the CLO's latest portfolio, its relevant structural features and its actual over-collateralisation ratios. The Class A-1A-R and Class A-1B-2 notes have paid down by approximately USD25.03 million (9.7%) since the last rating action in July 2025 and USD213.50 million (82.75%) since closing. As a result of the deleveraging, over-collateralisation (OC) has increased. According to the trustee report dated September 2025[1], the Class A, Class B and Class C OC ratios are reported at 175.71%, 144.87% and 116.41% compared to June 2025[2] levels of 161.22%, 138.07% and 115.06%, respectively. The key model inputs Moody's uses in Moody's analysis, such as par, weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted average recovery rate, are based on Moody's published methodology and could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In Moody's base case, Moody's used the following assumptions: Performing par and principal proceeds balance: USD161.13m Defaulted Securities: USD5.45m Diversity Score: 47 Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2995 Weighted Average Life (WAL): 3.14 years Weighted Average Spread (WAS) (before accounting for reference rate floors): 3.04% Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 8.45% Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.46% Par haircut in OC tests and interest diversion test: 0% The default probability derives from the credit quality of the collateral pool and Moody's expectations of the remaining life of the collateral pool. The estimated average recovery rate on future defaults is based primarily on the seniority of the assets in the collateral pool. In each case, historical and market performance and a collateral manager's latitude to trade collateral are also relevant factors. Moody's incorporates these default and recovery characteristics of the collateral pool into Moody's cash flow model analysis, subjecting them to stresses as a function of the target rating of each CLO liability it is analysing. Methodology Underlying the Rating Action The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in October 2025. Counterparty Exposure The rating action took into consideration the notes' exposure to relevant counterparties using the methodology "Structured Finance Counterparty Risks" published in May 2025. Moody's concluded the ratings of the notes are not constrained by these risks. Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the ratings: The rated notes' performance is subject to uncertainty. The notes' performance is sensitive to the performance of the underlying portfolio, which in turn depends on economic and credit conditions that may change. The collateral manager's investment decisions and management of the transaction will also affect the notes' performance. Additional uncertainty about performance is due to the following: -- Portfolio amortisation: the main source of uncertainty in this transaction is the pace of amortisation of the underlying portfolio, which can vary significantly depending on market conditions and have a significant impact on the notes' ratings. Amortisation could accelerate as a consequence of high loan prepayment levels or collateral sales the collateral manager or be delayed by an increase in loan amend-and-extend restructurings. Fast amortisation would usually benefit the ratings of the notes beginning with the notes having the highest prepayment priority; -- Recovery of defaulted assets: market value fluctuations in trustee-reported defaulted assets and those Moody's assumes have defaulted can result in volatility in the deal's over-collateralisation levels. Further, the timing of recoveries and the manager's decision whether to work out or sell defaulted assets can also result in additional uncertainty. Recoveries higher than Moody's expectations would have a positive impact on the notes' ratings. In addition to the quantitative factors that Moody's explicitly modelled, qualitative factors are part of the rating committee's considerations. These qualitative factors include the structural protections in the transaction, its recent performance given the market environment, the legal environment, specific documentation features, the collateral manager's track record and the potential for selection bias in the portfolio. All information available to rating committees, including macroeconomic forecasts, input from Moody's other analytical groups, market factors, and judgments regarding the nature and severity of credit stress on the transactions, can influence the final rating decision. VOYA CLO 2022-3: Fitch Assigns 'BB+sf' Rating on Class E-R2 Notes ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings and Rating Outlooks to Voya CLO 2022-3, Ltd.'s second refinancing notes. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- Voya CLO 2022-3, Ltd. X-R LT NRsf New Rating A-1R2 LT NRsf New Rating A-2R 92891LAJ1 LT PIFsf Paid In Full AAAsf A-2R2 LT AAAsf New Rating B-R 92891LAK8 LT PIFsf Paid In Full AAsf B-R2 LT AA+sf New Rating C-R 92891LAL6 LT PIFsf Paid In Full Asf C-R2 LT A+sf New Rating D-R 92891LAM4 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BBB-sf D-R2 LT BBB+sf New Rating E-R 92919WAF3 LT PIFsf Paid In Full BB-sf E-R2 LT BB+sf New Rating Transaction Summary Voya CLO 2022-3, Ltd. (the issuer) is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) managed by Voya Alternative Asset Management LLC that originally closed in October 2022 and was subsequently reset for the first time in October 2023. On the second refinancing date, all secured notes from the existing transaction will be redeemed in full with refinancing proceeds. Net proceeds from the issuance of the second refinancing notes and the existing subordinated notes will provide financing on a portfolio of approximately $398 million of primarily first lien senior secured leveraged loans. KEY RATING DRIVERS Asset Credit Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is 'B', which is in line with that of recent CLOs. The weighted average rating factor (WARF) of the indicative portfolio is 23.7, and will be managed to a WARF covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Issuers rated in the 'B' rating category denote a highly speculative credit quality; however, the notes benefit from appropriate credit enhancement and standard U.S. CLO structural features. Asset Security: The indicative portfolio consists of 97.34% first-lien senior secured loans. The weighted average recovery rate (WARR) of the indicative portfolio is 75.9% and will be managed to a WARR covenant from a Fitch test matrix. Portfolio Composition: The largest three industries may comprise up to 39% of the portfolio balance in aggregate while the top five obligors can represent up to 12.5% of the portfolio balance in aggregate. The level of diversity resulting from the industry, obligor and geographic concentrations is in line with other recent CLOs. Portfolio Management: The transaction has a three-year reinvestment period and reinvestment criteria similar to other CLOs. Fitch's analysis was based on a stressed portfolio created by adjusting the indicative portfolio to reflect permissible concentration limits and collateral quality test levels. Cash Flow Analysis: Fitch used a customized proprietary cash flow model to replicate the principal and interest waterfalls and assess the effectiveness of various structural features of the transaction. In Fitch's stress scenarios, the rated notes can withstand default and recovery assumptions consistent with their assigned ratings. The weighted average life (WAL) used for the transaction stress portfolio and matrices analysis is 12 months less than the WAL covenant to account for structural and reinvestment conditions after the reinvestment period. In Fitch's opinion, these conditions would reduce the effective risk horizon of the portfolio during stress periods. Key Provision Changes The refinancing is being implemented via the first supplemental indenture, which amended certain provisions of the transaction. - All existing secured notes are being refinanced with lower spreads across all classes. - The non-call period for the refinancing notes will end in October 2026. - The WAL test value on the second refinancing date will be 7.0 years, in continuation of the existing WAL schedule in place as of the 2023 reset. - The stated maturity and the reinvestment period end date of the refinancing notes remain the same as the existing notes. Fitch Analysis The portfolio includes 482 assets from 408 primarily high yield obligors. The portfolio balance (excluding defaults and including principal cash) is approximately $398 million. As of the latest trustee report prior to the second refinancing date, the transaction was passing all of its collateral quality tests, coverage tests, and concentration limitations. The weighted average rating of the current portfolio is 'B'. Fitch has an explicit rating, credit opinion or private rating for 44.3% of the current portfolio par balance; ratings for 55.5% of the portfolio were derived using Fitch's Issuer Default Rating equivalency map; 0.2% were unrated; and there were no unidentified assets. The analysis focused on the Fitch stressed portfolio (FSP), and cash flow model analysis was conducted for this refinancing. The FSP included the following concentrations, reflecting the maximum limitations per the indenture or maintained at the current level: - Largest five obligors: 2.5% each, for an aggregate of 12.5%; - Largest three industries: 15.0%, 12.0%, and 12.0%, respectively; - Assumed risk horizon: 6 years; - Minimum weighted average spread of 3.00%; - Minimum weighted average recovery rate of 73.30%; - Maximum weighted average rating factor of 24.00; - Fixed rate assets: 5.00%; - Long-dated assets: 2.00% - Minimum weighted average coupon of 7.00%; The transaction will exit its reinvestment period on Oct. 20, 2028. Fitch Asset and Cash Flow Analysis The Fitch model outputs are shown below. For each class, the notes passed all nine cash flow scenarios under the assigned rating scenarios with the minimum default cushions indicated. Current Portfolio Model Outputs: - Class A-2R2: 'AAAsf' / Default 41.70% / Recovery 40.29% / Cushion 13.40% - Class B-R2: 'AA+sf' / Default 40.80% / Recovery 49.75% / Cushion 12.60% - Class C-R2: 'A+sf' / Default 36.20% / Recovery 59.39% / Cushion 12.60% - Class D-R2: 'BBB+sf' / Default 30.20% / Recovery 68.87% / Cushion 12.40% - Class E-R2: 'BB+sf' / Default 25.00% / Recovery 74.40% / Cushion 15.60% Fitch Stress Portfolio (FSP) Model Outputs: - Class A-2R2: 'AAAsf' / Default 48.50% / Recovery 39.21% / Cushion 6.30% - Class B-R2: 'AA+sf' / Default 47.10% / Recovery 47.10% / Cushion 4.00% - Class C-R2: 'A+sf' / Default 41.60% / Recovery 56.57% / Cushion 5.50% - Class D-R2: 'BBB+sf' / Default 35.30% / Recovery 65.81% / Cushion 6.40% - Class E-R2: 'BB+sf' / Default 29.30% / Recovery 71.74% / Cushion 10.80% RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Variability in key model assumptions, such as decreases in recovery rates and increases in default rates, could result in a downgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics. The results under these sensitivity scenarios are as severe as between 'Asf' and 'AAAsf' for class A-2R2, between 'BBB-sf' and 'AAsf' for class B-R2, between 'BB+sf' and 'A+sf' for class C-R2, between 'B-sf' and 'BBB+sf' for class D-R2, and between less than 'B-sf' and 'BB+sf' for class E-R2. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Upgrade scenarios are not applicable to the class A-2R2 notes as these notes are in the highest rating category of 'AAAsf'. Variability in key model assumptions, such as increases in recovery rates and decreases in default rates, could result in an upgrade. Fitch evaluated the notes' sensitivity to potential changes in such metrics; the minimum rating results under these sensitivity scenarios are 'AAAsf' for class B-R2, 'AA+sf' for class C-R2, 'A+sf' for class D-R2, and 'BBB+sf' for class E-R2. 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. ESG Considerations Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores for Voya CLO 2022-3, Ltd. In cases where Fitch does not provide ESG relevance scores in connection with the credit rating of a transaction, programme, instrument or issuer, Fitch will disclose any ESG factor that is a key rating driver in the key rating drivers section of the relevant rating action commentary. WELLFLEET CLO 2021-4: Moody's Gives (P)B3 Rating to $1MM F-R Notes ------------------------------------------------------------------ Moody's Ratings has assigned provisional ratings to three classes of CLO refinancing notes (the Refinancing Notes) to be issued by Wellfleet CLO 2021-4, Ltd. (the Issuer): US$2,400,000 Class X Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2038, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf) US$256,000,000 Class A-1-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2038, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf) US$1,000,000 Class F-R Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2038, Assigned (P)B3 (sf) RATINGS RATIONALE The rationale for the ratings is based on Moody's methodologies and considers all relevant risks particularly those associated with the CLO's portfolio and structure. 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. At least 90% of the portfolio must consist of first lien senior secured loans and up to 10% of the portfolio may consist of permitted non-loan assets, second lien loans, senior unsecured loans and first-lien last out loans. Blue Owl Liquid Credit Advisors LLC (the Manager) will continue to 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 extended five year reinvestment period. Thereafter, subject to certain restrictions, the Manager may reinvest unscheduled principal payments and proceeds from sales of credit risk assets. In addition to the issuance of the Refinancing Notes and the other classes of secured 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 the base matrix and modifiers. Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in the "Collateralized Loan Obligations" rating methodology published in October 2025. The key model inputs Moody's used in Moody's analysis, such as par, weighted average rating factor, diversity score and weighted average recovery rate, are based on Moody's published methodology and could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. For modeling purposes, Moody's used the following base-case assumptions: Portfolio par: $400,000,000 Diversity Score: 75 Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2901 Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.00% Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 46.00% Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years Methodology Underlying the Rating Action: The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in October 2025. 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. WELLS FARGO 2025-C65: Fitch Assigns B-sf Final Rating on F-RR Certs ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has assigned final ratings and Rating Outlooks to Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2025-C65 commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2025-C65, as follows: - $7,474,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $9,544,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $116,019,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $349,184,000 class A-5 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $482,221,000a class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $67,166,000 class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable; - $36,167,000 class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $28,416,000 class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $131,749,000a class X-B 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $22,389,000b class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $22,389,000ab class X-D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $15,500,000b class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $15,500,000ab class X-E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable; - $10,333,000bc class F-RR 'B-sf'; Outlook Stable. The following class is not rated by Fitch: - $26,695,246bc class G-RR. (a) Notional amount and interest only. (b) Privately place and pursuant to Rule 144A. (c) Horizontal risk retention interest. Class balances are grossed up to include their proportionate share of the vertical risk retention interest. Since Fitch published its expected ratings on Sept. 30, 2025, the following changes have occurred: The balances of classes A-4 and A-5 were finalized. The initial certificate balance of class A-4 was in the range of $0-$230,000,000, and the initial certificate balance of class A-5 was in the range of $235,203,000-$465,203,000. The final class balances of classes A-4 and A-5 are $116,019,000 and $349,184,000, respectively. The deal structure and ratings reflect information provided by the issuer as of Oct. 16, 2025. Transaction Summary The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in the trust, primary assets of which are 23 loans secured by 79 commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance of $688,887,247 as of the cut-off date. The loans were contributed to the trust by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Argentic Real Estate Finance 2 LLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company, Societe Generale Financial Corporation and BSPRT CMBS Finance, LLC. The master servicer is Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association, and the special servicer is Argentic Services Company LP. Computershare Trust Company, National Association is the trustee and certificate administrator. Pentalpha Surveillance LLC is the operating advisor and asset representations reviewer. The certificates will follow a standard sequential paydown structure. KEY RATING DRIVERS Fitch Net Cash Flow: Fitch performed cash flow analyses on 21 loans totaling 96.3% of the pool by balance. Fitch's resulting aggregate net cash flow (NCF) of $73.3 million represents a 14.3% decline from the issuer's aggregate underwritten NCF of $85.6 million. Aggregate cash flows include only the pro-rated trust portion of any pari passu loan. Higher Fitch Leverage: The pool has higher leverage compared with recent multiborrower transactions rated by Fitch. The pool's Fitch loan-to-value ratio (LTV) of 90.7% is worse than both the 10-Year 2025 YTD and 2024 averages of 87.5% and 84.5%, respectively. The pool's Fitch NCF debt yield (DY) of 10.6% is worse than both the 10-Year 2025 YTD and 2024 averages of 12.3% and 12.3%, respectively. Investment Grade Credit Opinion Loans: Four loans representing 30.2% of the pool by balance received an investment grade credit opinion. 4 Union Square South (8.7% of pool) received an investment grade credit opinion of 'BBB+sf*' on a standalone basis. Market Place Center (8.7%) and Washington Square (4.5%) received investment grade credit opinions of 'BBB−sf*' on a standalone basis. BioMed MIT Portfolio (8.3%) received an investment grade credit opinion of 'A−sf*' on a standalone basis. The pool's total credit opinion percentage is better than both the 10-Year 2025 YTD and 2024 averages of 23.7% and 21.4%, respectively. Excluding the credit opinion loans, the pool's Fitch LTV and DY are 100.5% and 9.8%, respectively, compared to the equivalent conduit 10-Year 2025 YTD LTV and DY averages of 97.6% and 10.0%, respectively. Higher Pool Concentration: The pool is more concentrated than recently rated Fitch transactions. The top 10 loans make up 73.2% of the pool, which is worse than both the 10-Year 2025 YTD and 2024 averages of 63.5% and 63.0%, respectively. Fitch measures loan concentration risk with an effective loan count, which accounts for both the number and size of loans in the pool. The pool's effective loan count is 18.0, which is worse than both the 10-Year 2025 YTD and 2024 averages of 20.5 and 20.8, respectively. Fitch views diversity as a key mitigant to idiosyncratic risk. Fitch raises the overall loss for pools with effective loan counts below 40. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Declining cash flow decreases property value and capacity to meet its debt service obligations. The table below indicates the model-implied rating sensitivity to changes in one variable, Fitch NCF: - Original Rating: 'AAAsf' / AAAsf' / 'AA-sf' / 'A-sf' / 'BBB-sf' / 'BB-sf' / 'B-sf'; - 10% NCF Decline: 'AAAsf' / 'AA-sf' / 'A-sf' / 'BBB-sf' / 'BBsf' / 'Bsf' / 'less than CCCsf'. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Improvement in cash flow increases property value and capacity to meet its debt service obligations. The table below indicates the model-implied rating sensitivity to changes to in one variable, Fitch NCF: - Original Rating: 'AAAsf' / AAAsf' / 'AA-sf' / 'A-sf' / 'BBB-sf' / 'BB-sf' / 'B-sf'; - 10% NCF Increase: 'AAAsf' / 'AAAsf' / 'AA+sf' / 'Asf' / 'BBBsf' / 'BBsf' / 'B+sf'. USE OF THIRD PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G -10 Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E (Form 15E) as prepared by Ernst & Young LLP. The third-party due diligence described in Form 15E focused on a comparison and re-computation of certain characteristics with respect to each of the mortgage loans. Fitch considered this information in its analysis and it did not have an effect on Fitch's analysis or conclusions. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. [] Fitch Affirms 'BBsf' Rating on Two Exeter Automobile Deals ------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has affirmed the ratings of two classes of Exeter Automobile Receivables Trust (EART) transaction notes with Negative Rating Outlooks and upgraded the ratings of four classes. Fitch has assigned Positive Rating Outlooks to the upgraded class D notes and assigned a Stable Outlook for the upgraded class C notes. Entity/Debt Rating Prior ----------- ------ ----- Exeter Automobile Receivables Trust 2022-5 C 30167FAE2 LT AAAsf Upgrade Asf D 30167FAF9 LT Asf Upgrade BBBsf E 30167FAG7 LT BBsf Affirmed BBsf Exeter Automobile Receivables Trust 2022-6 C 30168AAE2 LT AAAsf Upgrade Asf D 30168AAF9 LT Asf Upgrade BBBsf E 30168AAG7 LT BBsf Affirmed BBsf KEY RATING DRIVERS The rating actions of the outstanding notes reflect available credit enhancement (CE) and loss performance to date. Cumulative net losses (CNLs) are tracking higher than the initial rating case proxies for the two series. The Negative Outlooks for the class E notes reflect the possibility of a downgrade in the next one to two years. Both transactions have recently received capital infusions: $16 million for 2022-5 on the August 15, 2025, distribution date and $4 million for 2022-6 on the October 15, 2025, distribution date. These contributions resulted in improved loss coverage. However, Fitch continues to maintain Negative Outlooks on the class E notes from the prior review due to ongoing weak performance and erosion of overcollateralization (OC) for both transactions that lead to the capital infusions. Fitch will continue to monitor performance and impact on loss coverage for any further rating pressure on the notes. The Stable Rating Outlooks on the 'AAAsf'-rated notes reflect Fitch's expectation for loss coverage to continue to improve as the transaction amortizes. The upgrades of certain notes reflect improving CE and loss coverage. The Positive Rating Outlooks reflect the possibility of an upgrade in the next one to two years. Hard CE levels have grown for all classes of notes in each transaction since close based on the current collateral balance. EART 2022-5 reached 12.29% in OC before declining to 9.25% until the infusion boosted it to 16.68%. EART 2022-6 reached 15.66% in OC before declining to 14.49% until the infusion boosted it to 16.24%. As of the October 2025 distribution date, 61+ day delinquencies were 12.56% and 11.65% for EART 2022-5 and 2022-6. CNLs were 22.25% and 22.03%, compared with Fitch's initial rating case proxies of 18.75% and 19.00%. The revised lifetime CNL proxies consider the transactions' remaining pool factors, pool compositions, and performance to date. Furthermore, they consider current and future macroeconomic conditions that drive loss frequency, along with the state of wholesale vehicle values, which affect recovery rates and ultimately transaction losses. To account for potential further increases in delinquencies and losses, Fitch applied conservative assumptions in deriving the updated rating case loss proxies. Fitch raised the rating case loss proxies to 28.00% and 29.00% for 2022-5 and 2022-6 from 25.50% and 26.50% at the last review. Fitch conducted updated cashflow modeling for each transaction and loss coverage multiples for the rated notes are consistent with or exceed 3.00x for 'AAAsf', 2.50x for 'AAsf', 2.00x for 'Asf', 1.50x for 'BBBsf', and 1.25x for 'BBsf'. Fitch's base case loss expectations, which do not include a margin of safety and are not used in Fitch's quantitative analysis to assign ratings are 27.25% and 28.25% for 2022-5 and 2022-6, respectively, based on Fitch's Global Economic Outlook - September 2025, transaction performance, and projections. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Negative Rating Action/Downgrade Unanticipated increases in the frequency of defaults could produce default levels higher than the current projected rating case default proxies and affect available loss coverage and multiples levels for the transactions. Weakening asset performance is strongly correlated to increasing levels of delinquencies and defaults that could negatively affect CE levels. Lower loss coverage could affect the ratings and Outlooks, depending on the extent of the decline in coverage. In Fitch's initial review, the notes were found to have sensitivity to a 1.5x and 2.0x increase of Fitch's rating case loss expectation for each transaction. For outstanding transactions, this scenario suggests a possible downgrade of up to three categories for all classes of notes. To date, while the transactions show weakening performance with projected losses exceeding Fitch's initial expectations, hard CE has generally increased enough to support adequate loss coverage and multiples at the current rating levels. Therefore, further deterioration in performance would have to occur within the asset collateral to have potential negative impact on the outstanding notes. Factors that Could, Individually or Collectively, Lead to Positive Rating Action/Upgrade Stable to improved asset performance driven by stable delinquencies and defaults would lead to increasing CE levels and consideration for potential upgrades. If CNLs were 20% less than projected CNL proxy, the ratings could be affirmed or upgraded. 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. ESG Considerations The highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3', unless otherwise disclosed in this section. A score of '3' means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores are not inputs in the rating process; they are an observation on the relevance and materiality of ESG factors in the rating decision. [] Moody's Takes Rating Action on 22 Bonds from 10 US RMBS Deals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's Ratings has upgraded the ratings of 18 bonds and downgraded the ratings of four bonds from 10 US residential mortgage-backed transactions (RMBS), backed by option ARM and subprime mortgages issued by multiple issuers. A comprehensive review of all credit ratings for the respective transactions has been conducted during a rating committee. The complete rating actions are as follows: Issuer: Aames Mortgage Investment Trust 2005-4 Cl. M3, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2024 Downgraded to B3 (sf) Cl. M4, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Feb 1, 2017 Upgraded to Caa3 (sf) Issuer: ABFC 2007-NC1 Trust Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Jun 3, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf) Issuer: CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2007-12 Cl. 1-A-1, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2024 Upgraded to A3 (sf) Cl. 1-A-2, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2024 Upgraded to Baa2 (sf) Cl. 2-A-4, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Dec 19, 2024 Upgraded to Baa1 (sf) Cl. 1-M-1, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf) Cl. 2-M-1, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf) Issuer: CWALT, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-OA6 Cl. A-2, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Dec 9, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf) Issuer: GSAA Trust 2004-3 Cl. B-1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Mar 15, 2011 Downgraded to C (sf) Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jun 18, 2012 Downgraded to Ca (sf) Issuer: Luminent Mortgage Trust 2006-6 Cl. A-1, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Dec 11, 2024 Upgraded to Baa2 (sf) Cl. A-2A, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Dec 14, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf) Cl. A-2B, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Dec 14, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf) Issuer: Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Capital I Inc. Trust 2003-NC2 Cl. B-1, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Mar 15, 2011 Confirmed at Ca (sf) Cl. B-2, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Feb 11, 2009 Downgraded to C (sf) Cl. M-1, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2024 Downgraded to B1 (sf) Cl. M-3, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Feb 1, 2019 Upgraded to B3 (sf) Issuer: New Century Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-1 Cl. A-2c, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 15, 2019 Upgraded to Caa3 (sf) Issuer: Renaissance Home Equity Loan Trust 2005-3 Cl. AF-4, Upgraded to Aa3 (sf); previously on Dec 18, 2024 Upgraded to Baa2 (sf) Cl. AV-3, Downgraded to B1 (sf); previously on May 9, 2014 Downgraded to Ba3 (sf) Issuer: Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2007-4 Cl. A-2, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on May 14, 2020 Downgraded to Caa1 (sf) RATINGS RATIONALE The rating actions reflect the current levels of credit enhancement available to the bonds, the recent performance, analysis of the transaction structures, Moody's updated loss expectations on the underlying pools, and Moody's revised loss-given-default expectation for each bond. Most of the bonds experiencing a rating change have either incurred a missed or delayed disbursement of an interest payment or are currently, or expected to become, undercollateralized, which may sometimes be reflected by a reduction in principal (a write-down). Moody's expectations of loss-given-default assesses losses experienced and expected future losses as a percent of the original bond balance. Most of the rating downgrades are the result of outstanding credit interest shortfalls that are unlikely to be recouped. These bonds have weak interest recoupment mechanisms where missed interest payments will likely result in a permanent interest loss. Unpaid interest owed to bonds with weak interest recoupment mechanisms are reimbursed sequentially based on bond priority, from excess interest, if available, and often only after the overcollateralization has built to a pre-specified target amount. In transactions where overcollateralization has already been reduced or depleted due to poor performance, any such missed interest payments to these bonds is unlikely to be repaid. The size and length of the outstanding interest shortfalls were considered in Moody's analysis. The rest of the rating upgrades, for bonds that have not or are not expected to take a loss, are a result of the improving performance of the related pools, and/or an increase in credit enhancement available to the bonds. Moody's analysis also reflects the potential for collateral volatility given the number of deal-level and macro factors that can impact collateral performance, the potential impact of any collateral volatility on the model output, and the ultimate size or any incurred and projected loss. No actions were taken on the other rated classes in these deals because their expected losses remain commensurate with their current ratings, after taking into account the updated performance information, structural features, credit enhancement and other qualitative considerations. Principal Methodology The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US Residential Mortgage-backed Securitizations: Surveillance" published in December 2024. 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 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. 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 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. 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. In addition, improvements in reporting formats and data availability across deals and trustees may provide better insight into certain performance metrics such as the level of collateral modifications. [] Moody's Upgrades Ratings on 28 Bonds from 11 US RMBS Deals ------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's Ratings has upgraded the ratings of 28 bonds from 11 US residential mortgage-backed transactions (RMBS), backed by Alt-A, option ARM and Subprime mortgages issued by multiple issuers. A comprehensive review of all credit ratings for the respective transactions has been conducted during a rating committee. The complete rating actions are as follows: Issuer: ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-ASAP3 Cl. A-1, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2024 Upgraded to Aa1 (sf) Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf) Issuer: ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-ASAP4 Cl. A-1, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2024 Upgraded to Baa2 (sf) Cl. A-2D, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Dec 5, 2024 Upgraded to A3 (sf) Issuer: ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-OP1 Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2024 Upgraded to Ca (sf) Issuer: Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2006-AR1 Cl. I-A-1, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Dec 6, 2024 Upgraded to A1 (sf) Cl. I-A-2, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Dec 7, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf) Cl. II-A-1, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Dec 6, 2024 Upgraded to A2 (sf) Cl. II-A-2, Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Dec 7, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf) Cl. I-X*, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Oct 27, 2017 Confirmed at C (sf) Issuer: Chase Funding Trust, Series 2003-3 Cl. IA-5, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Dec 6, 2024 Upgraded to A3 (sf) Cl. IM-1, Upgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Dec 6, 2024 Upgraded to Caa1 (sf) Cl. IM-2, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 10, 2012 Downgraded to C (sf) Issuer: FBR Securitization Trust 2005-2 Cl. M-4, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jan 22, 2024 Upgraded to Ca (sf) Issuer: IndyMac Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust, INABS 2006-C Cl. 1A, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jan 17, 2024 Upgraded to Aa1 (sf) Cl. 3A-4, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Dec 6, 2024 Upgraded to Ba3 (sf) Issuer: Prime Mortgage Trust 2006-CL1 Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 13, 2020 Upgraded to Ca (sf) Cl. M-2, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 30, 2009 Downgraded to C (sf) Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 30, 2009 Downgraded to C (sf) Issuer: Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust 2005-5 Cl. M5, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 12, 2010 Downgraded to C (sf) Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2005-WF1 Cl. M5, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 6, 2024 Upgraded to Aa1 (sf) Cl. M6, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 6, 2024 Upgraded to A2 (sf) Cl. M7, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Dec 6, 2024 Upgraded to Baa2 (sf) Cl. M8, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Dec 6, 2024 Upgraded to Baa3 (sf) Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2005-WF2 Cl. M5, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Dec 6, 2024 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf) Cl. M6, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Dec 6, 2024 Upgraded to Baa1 (sf) Cl. M7, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Dec 6, 2024 Upgraded to Ba1 (sf) Cl. M8, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Dec 6, 2024 Upgraded to B1 (sf) * Reflects Interest-Only Classes RATINGS RATIONALE The rating actions reflect the current levels of credit enhancement available to the bonds, the recent performance, analysis of the transaction structures, Moody's updated loss expectations on the underlying pools and Moody's revised loss-given-default expectation on the bonds. Some of the bonds experiencing a rating change have either incurred a missed or delayed disbursement of an interest payment or is currently, or expected to become, undercollateralized, which may sometimes be reflected by a reduction in principal (a write-down). Moody's expectations of loss-given-default assesses losses experienced and expected future losses as a percent of the original bond balance. The rest of the rating upgrades, for bonds that have not or are not expected to take a loss, are a result of the improving performance of the related pools, and/or an increase in credit enhancement available to the bonds. The credit enhancement over the past 12 months has grown, on average, 1.16x for these bonds. Moody's analysis also considered the existence of historical interest shortfalls for some of the bonds. In addition, Moody's analysis also reflects the potential for collateral volatility given the number of deal-level and macro factors that can impact collateral performance, the potential impact of any collateral volatility on the model output, and the ultimate size or any incurred and projected loss. No actions were taken on the other rated classes in these deals because their expected losses remain commensurate with their current ratings, after taking into account the updated performance information, structural features, credit enhancement and other qualitative considerations. Principal Methodologies The principal methodology used in rating all classes except interest-only classes was "US Residential Mortgage-backed Securitizations: Surveillance" published in December 2024. 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 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. 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 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. An IO bond may be upgraded or downgraded, within the constraints and provisions of the IO methodology, based on lower or higher realized and expected loss due to an overall improvement or decline in the credit quality of the reference bonds. 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. In addition, improvements in reporting formats and data availability across deals and trustees may provide better insight into certain performance metrics such as the level of collateral modifications. [] S&P Takes Various Actions on 217 Classes From 34 US CMBS Deals ----------------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings reviewed its ratings on 217 classes from 34 U.S. CMBS conduit transactions. Each transaction is secured by a diversified pool of commercial real estate assets to unrelated borrowers. The ratings were previously placed under criteria observation (UCO) on Aug. 21, 2025, following the publication of its revised global criteria framework for rating CMBS transactions. The review yielded four downgrades and 213 affirmations. S&P also removed the ratings from UCO. A list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at: https://tinyurl.com/s3u9bk9x S&P said, "Of the 2,088 ratings that were placed on UCO following our August 2025 CMBS criteria revision, we have resolved 1,179 of them to date. We expect to review the remaining ratings with the UCO identifier within six months from the date they were placed on UCO." Rating Actions And Analytical Considerations S&P said, "In resolving the UCO placements, we conducted a cursory review of collateral and transaction performance trends. In the review, in most cases, we concluded that our existing S&P Global Ratings' net cash flows (NCFs), capitalization rates, and values for the collateral loans remain appropriate from our last published comprehensive or annual reviews. "However, where we observed a sustained decline in property performance and/or a perceived increase in the level of risk associated with the property NCF, we revised our NCF downward and/or increased our capitalization rate assumption to account for these developments. For portfolio loans with property releases since our last review, we also adjusted our metrics accordingly. For any defaulted and credit-impaired loans that we assess will liquidate from the trust, we generally considered the latest available appraisal value, broker's opinion of value, or S&P Global Ratings' liquidation value (whichever is the lowest) in forecasting principal losses and recoveries on the assets. "We determined asset quality and income stability scores for all the collateral loans, and we applied loan-level and additional adjustments in accordance with our revised criteria to arrive at our required credit enhancement levels by rating category for each transaction. "For the CSAIL 2019-C17 Commercial Mortgage Trust transaction, we also modeled the pattern of losses and recoveries from defaults under a 'AAA' stress scenario, as described in Appendix 6 of our updated criteria, to assess the ratings of the super-senior classes. "For the loan-specific "3CC" and "WLS" raked classes in the Benchmark 2019-B10 Mortgage Trust and GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2018-GS10 transactions, respectively, we specifically considered the performance of the 3 Columbus Circle ("3CC") and 1000 Wilshire ("WLS") loans, which serve as the sole collateral for the respective raked classes. "The rating actions on the principal- and interest-paying classes primarily reflect the application of our updated methodology and the considerations highlighted above. "The downgrades on classes WLS-A and WLS-B to 'CCC (sf)' further reflect our qualitative consideration that their repayment is dependent upon favorable business, financial, and economic conditions and that these classes are vulnerable to default." The ratings on the exchangeable certificates reflect the lowest rating of the certificates for which they can be exchanged. S&P said, "The ratings on the IO certificates are based on our criteria for rating IO securities, which states that the ratings on the IO securities would not be higher than that of the lowest-rated reference class." For certain principal- and interest-paying classes, S&P affirmed its outstanding ratings versus the higher model-indicated ratings due to qualitative considerations including the following: -- Credit subordination levels and positions of the classes within the capital structure; -- Collateral property performance (both historical and expected), particularly where it may have influenced comprehensive reviews; -- Loan performance, including current and expected payment status; -- Significant exposure to concerning property types; -- Material exposure to near-term maturities; -- Adverse selection risk, including transactions that are currently, or could potentially be, secured solely by worse-performing or defaulted loan collateral; and -- Current and expected bond-level liquidity. [] S&P Takes Various Actions on 274 Classes from 85 US RMBS Deals ----------------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Ratings completed its review of 274 ratings from 85 U.S. RMBS transactions issued between 2001 and 2008. The review yielded 41 upgrades, 145 affirmations, 29 downgrades, 57 withdrawals, and two discontinuances. A list of Affected Ratings can be viewed at: https://tinyurl.com/enhefacs Analytical Considerations S&P incorporates various considerations into its decisions to raise, lower, or affirm ratings when reviewing the indicative ratings suggested by our projected cash flows. These considerations are based on transaction-specific performance and/or structural characteristics and their potential effects on certain classes. Some of these considerations may include: -- Collateral performance or delinquency trends; -- An increase or decrease in available credit support; -- Available subordination and/or overcollateralization; -- Assessment of reduced interest payments due to loan modifications and other credit-related events; -- Historical and/or outstanding missed interest payments or interest shortfalls; -- Principal write-downs; -- Payment priority; -- Interest-only criteria; -- Principal-only criteria; -- Expected duration; and -- A small loan count. Rating Actions S&P said, "The rating changes reflect our view regarding the associated transaction-specific collateral performance, structural characteristics, and/or the application of specific criteria applicable to these classes. "The upgrades primarily reflect the classes' increased credit support and expected shorter duration, as well as their ability to withstand a higher level of projected losses than we had previously anticipated. "The affirmations reflect our view that our projected credit support, collateral performance, and credit-related reductions in interest on these classes have remained relatively consistent with our prior projections." The downgrades primarily reflect an erosion of credit support, failed base-case loss stresses, and reduced interest payments due to loan modifications and other credit-related events. S&P said, "We withdrew our ratings on 57 classes from 18 transactions due to the small remaining loan count on the related structures. Once a pool has declined to a de minimis amount, we believe there is a high degree of credit instability that is incompatible with any rating level. In addition, as a result, we applied our interest-only and principal-only criteria on two of the withdrawals. "We discontinued our ratings on two classes from two transactions because the classes were paid down." ********* 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., Philadelphia, Pa., USA. Randy Antoni, Jhonas Dampog, Marites Claro, Joy Agravante, Rousel Elaine Tumanda, Joel Anthony G. Lopez, Psyche A. Castillon, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Carlo Fernandez, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. 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 single-user TCR subscription rate is $1,400 for six months or $2,350 for twelve 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 per half-year or $50 annually. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***