Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust 2016-A

Transcription

1 Presale: Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust 2016-A Primary Credit Analyst: Jennie P Lam, New York (1) ; jennie.lam@standardandpoors.com Surveillance Credit Analyst: Peter W Chang, CFA, New York (1) ; peter.chang@standardandpoors.com Table Of Contents $952.7 Million Asset-Backed Notes Series 2016-A Rationale Changes From FCALT 2015-B Transaction Overview Legal Structure Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) Risk Payment Structure Managed Portfolio Performance Securitization Performance Pool Analysis Residual Value Lease Residual Timing Standard & Poor's Expected Loss MARCH 10,

2 Table Of Contents (cont.) Cash Flow Modeling Sensitivity Analysis Money Market Tranche Sizing Legal Final Maturity Ford Credit Related Criteria And Research MARCH 10,

3 Presale: Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust 2016-A $952.7 Million Asset-Backed Notes Series 2016-A This presale report is based on information as of March 10, The ratings shown are preliminary. This report does not constitute a recommendation to buy, hold, or sell securities. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings. Preliminary Ratings As Of March 10, 2016 Class Preliminary rating(i) Type Interest rate(ii) Preliminary amount (mil. $)(iii) Expected legal final maturity date A-1 A-1+ (sf) Senior Fixed March 15, 2017 A-2a/A-2b(iv) AAA (sf) Senior Fixed/floating Nov. 15, 2018 A-3 AAA (sf) Senior Fixed April 15, 2019 A-4 AAA (sf) Senior Fixed July 15, 2019 B AA+ (sf) Subordinate Fixed Aug. 15, 2019 C NR Subordinate Fixed Oct. 15, 2020 (i)the rating on each class of securities is preliminary and subject to change at any time. (ii)the interest rates will be determined on the pricing date. (iii)the actual size of these tranches will be determined on the pricing date. (iv)the class A-2 notes will be issued as a combination of fixed-rate notes (class A-2a) and floating-rate notes (class A-2b). The principal amount allocation between the two tranches will be determined on or before the pricing date. The trust expects that the principal balance of the class A-2b notes will not exceed $309.7 million. NR--Not rated. Profile Expected closing date March 22, Collateral Titling companies Servicer and sponsor Depositor Issuer Collateral agent Administrative agent Indenture trustee and bank account provider Owner trustee Lead underwriters Prime auto lease receivables. CAB East LLC and CAB West LLC. Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC (BBB-/Positive/A-3). Ford Credit Auto Lease Two LLC. Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust 2016-A. HTD Leasing LLC. U.S. Bank N.A. U.S. Bank N.A. The Bank of New York Mellon. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Agricole Securities (USA) Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America Inc. Credit Enhancement Summary FCALT 2016-A FCALT 2015-B Class A credit enhancement Initial(i) Target(i) Floor(i) Initial(i) Target(i) Floor(i) Subordination (%) MARCH 10,

4 Credit Enhancement Summary (cont.) Overcollateralization (%) Reserve account (%) Total (%) Class B credit enhancement Subordination (%) Overcollateralization (%) Reserve account (%) Total (%) Class C credit enhancement Subordination (%) Overcollateralization (%) Reserve account (%) Total (%) Estimated excess spread per year (%)(ii) Discount rate (%) Initial aggregate securitization value ($) 1,126,158,995 1,126,137,291 Total securities issued ($) 1,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 (i)all percentages are based on the initial aggregate securitization value. (ii)estimated excess spread per year before pricing. FCALT--Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust. Rationale The preliminary ratings assigned to Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust 2016-A's (FCALT 2016-A's) asset-backed notes series 2016-A reflect our view of: The availability of approximately 26.5% and 22.2% credit enhancement for the class A and B notes, respectively, in the form of 8.70% and 4.20% subordination; 11.20% overcollateralization, which will build to a target of 13.70% of the initial securitization value; a 0.50% nonamortizing reserve account; and excess spread (all percentages are measured in terms of the pool's initial aggregate securitization value). The credit quality of the underlying collateral, which consists of prime auto lease receivables that have a weighted average FICO score of 742. The diversified mix of vehicle models and types in the pool. The expected timing of the residuals' maturities. The historical residual retention values of vehicles in the pool. The Automotive Lease Guide's (ALG's) forecast of each vehicle's residual value at lease inception and of current residuals. The timely interest and full principal payments by the notes' legal final maturity dates made under cash flow scenarios that were stressed for credit, residual, and incentive program losses that are consistent with the assigned preliminary ratings. The transaction's payment and legal structures. Our expected base-case credit loss for the FCALT 2016-A pool is 0.75%-0.85% of the securitization value, which reflects the credit performance of Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC's (Ford Credit's) auto lease securitizations, our static pool MARCH 10,

5 loss projections for its lease originations, FCALT 2016-A's collateral composition, peer comparisons, and a forward-looking view of the economy. Our 'AAA' stressed scenario for credit losses is approximately 4.0% of the securitization value. Our 'AAA' residual stress for the FCALT 2016-A pool is approximately 28.2% of the pool's aggregate undiscounted base residual value. After applying this stress to the residual value portion of the pool (73.38%) and the portion of nondefaulting leases (92.0%) under this scenario, our 'AAA' residual stress constituted approximately 19.1% of the securitization value. Our 'AA+' residual stress for the FCALT 2016-A pool is approximately 25.1% of its aggregate undiscounted base residual value. After applying this stress to the residual value portion of the pool and the nondefaulting leases (92.8%), our 'AA+' stress was approximately 16.6% of the securitization value. Changes From FCALT 2015-B Structural changes from the series 2015-B transaction are: Series 2016-A is issued under a Regulation AB II-compliant shelf. The capped amount for fees, expenses, and indemnities payable senior in the payment waterfall increased to $250,000 per year from $150,000 to include fees and expenses that may be payable to the asset representations reviewer in compliance with Regulation AB II. The collateral composition changes from FCALT 2015-B are: The weighted average FICO score increased slightly to 742 from 741. The weighted average seasoning increased to 11.5 months from 10.3 months. The percentage of leases with an original term between months decreased to 11.6% from 15.9%. The percentage of leases with an original term between months increased to 17.5% from 13.5%. Transaction Overview FCALT 2016-A is Ford Credit's 11th public auto lease transaction since FCALT 2016-A's transaction structure incorporates an initial reserve amount of 0.50% of the initial securitization value; an overcollateralization amount of 11.20% that builds to a target of 13.70% of the initial securitization value; subordination of 8.70% and 4.20% for the class A and B notes, respectively; and estimated excess spread of approximately 4.22% per year. The transaction uses a sequential payment method in which no hard credit support is released from the transaction until all of the rated notes are paid in full. Excess spread, however, can be released if the overcollateralization is at its target level and if the funds are not necessary to cover payments according to the payment priority. Legal Structure Ford Credit's titling companies (CAB East LLC and CAB West LLC) purchase newly originated leases and the related leased vehicles from Ford and Lincoln dealers. The leased vehicles are titled in the respective titling company's name, and the collateral agent is named as the secured party on the title certificate. MARCH 10,

6 The titling companies will issue to Ford Credit an exchange note that will be backed by a reference pool of leases and leased vehicles they purchased from dealers. The reference pool will have an initial total securitization value of $1,126,158,995, and the exchange note will have an initial balance of $1,030,927,835. The exchange note is secured by a security interest in and is payable from the collections on the leases and the related leased vehicles in the designated reference pool. Ford Credit will sell the exchange note related to the FCALT 2016-A collateral to Ford Credit Auto Lease Two LLC, the depositor, in a true sale. The depositor will then sell the exchange note to FCALT 2016-A, a newly formed Delaware statutory trust, in a second true sale (see chart 1). The trust finances this purchase by issuing asset-backed notes, which are secured under an indenture between the owner trustee and the indenture trustee. The owner trustee pledges all rights under the exchange note, including the rights to payments due on the exchange note, and the collateral to the indenture trustee to secure payments on the asset-backed notes. MARCH 10,

7 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) Risk Each titling company grants a security interest in all newly originated leases and leased vehicles to HTD Leasing LLC, a third-party collateral agent. The security interest in the leases is perfected by filings under the Uniform Commercial Code, and the security interest in the leased vehicles is perfected by lien notation on the vehicle's title certificate under state motor vehicle registration laws. Standard & Poor's Ratings Services expects to receive an opinion of counsel to the issuer, subject to customary assumptions and qualifications, to the effect that the collateral agent's security interest in the leases and leased vehicles would be before a lien in favor of the PBGC and notice of which will be filed after the series 2016-A notes are issued. A PBGC lien could be imposed against the assets of any member of the Ford Motor Co.-controlled group in the event of unpaid minimum contributions to a defined benefit pension plan required by law or if an underfunded defined benefit pension plan terminates. Payment Structure Payment priority for the exchange note On each payment date, the indenture trustee will apply collections from the reference pool and the amounts on deposit in the reserve account, if necessary, to make payments on the exchange note according to a specific payment priority (see table 1). The yield in item 2 in the exchange note payment waterfall will be equal to the yield due to the asset-backed notes plus the senior fees and expenses related to those notes. Table 1 Exchange Note Payment Waterfall Priority Payment 1 The servicing fee (1% of the securitization value per year) and reimbursement of any outstanding advances to the servicer. 2 Interest due on the exchange note to the trust as the exchange noteholder. 3 The amount needed to cover shortfalls in payments on the asset-backed notes to the trust as the exchange noteholder. 4 The amount needed to reach the targeted reserve amount to the reserve account. 5 Principal on the exchange note (equal to the excess of the FCALT 2016-A notes principal balance over the securitization value minus the target overcollateralization amount) to the trust as the exchange noteholder. 6 An amount to be applied as a shared amount regarding any other exchange note, other than the exchange note owned by the trust, if there has been a failure to pay principal or interest owed on another exchange note. 7 Any remaining amounts to be applied under the revolving credit facility. FCALT--Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust. Payment priority for the asset-backed notes On each payment date, the indenture trustee will apply all amounts received on the FCALT 2016-A exchange note to make payments on the asset-backed notes according to a specific payment priority (see table 2). Once the targeted reserve amount is achieved, the excess spread will be released to the residual interestholder to the extent it is not needed to cover losses. MARCH 10,

8 Table 2 Asset-Backed Notes Payment Waterfall Priority Payment 1 All payments due and any trust expenses, up to $250,000 maximum per year, to the indenture trustee, owner trustee, and asset representation reviewer. 2 The administration fee (0.01% of the note balance per year) to the servicer. 3 The interest due on the class A notes to the class A noteholders. 4 First-priority principal payment, equal to the excess, if any, of the class A notes' aggregate principal amount over the securitization value, payable sequentially by class. 5 The interest due on the class B notes to the class B noteholders. 6 Second-priority principal payment, equal to the excess, if any, of the class A and B notes' aggregate principal amount over the securitization value, payable sequentially by class. 7 The interest due on the class C notes to the class C noteholders. 8 An amount to the reserve account until the target reserved amount is reached. 9 Regular principal payment, which is equal to the excess of the class A, B, and C notes' aggregate principal amount over the securitization value minus the target overcollateralization amount, minus any priority principal payments, payable sequentially by class. 10 Any amount due and unpaid to the indenture and owner trustees that are not paid in item 1 in this payment waterfall. 11 Any remaining amounts to the trust's residual interest holder. Managed Portfolio Performance For the year ended Dec. 31, 2015, Ford Credit's total serviced lease portfolio consisted (on average) of 841,005 contracts totaling $22.07 billion (see table 3). Net losses as a percentage of the average number of contracts outstanding were 1.41%, up from 1.26% the prior year. However, total delinquencies as a percentage of the average number of contracts outstanding decreased to 0.82% from 0.91% as of Dec. 31, Ford Credit's total serviced lease portfolio reported residual gains on returned vehicles that equaled 4.31% of the vehicles' ALG-forecasted residual value. Table 3 Managed Portfolio Year ended Dec Avg. no. of contracts outstanding 841, , , , , , ,511 Avg. portfolio outstanding during the period (mil. $) 22,066 18,554 14,843 10,828 7,921 9,218 14,946 Avg. delinquencies as a % of the average number of contracts outstanding Repossessions as a % of the avg. no. of contracts outstanding Net losses/(gains) as a % of the avg. portfolio outstanding (0.06) (0.07) Return rate (%) Total gain/(loss) on ALG residuals on vehicles returned to Ford Credit as a % of the ALG's residual value of returned vehicles sold by Ford Credit ALG--Automotive Lease Guide. Ford Credit-- Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC (0.13) MARCH 10,

9 Securitization Performance Ford Credit's auto lease securitizations have consistently demonstrated stable credit loss performance. Cumulative net credit losses on Ford Credit's paid-off transactions from series 2009 to 2013-A ranged from 0.18%-0.42% (see chart 2). Current cumulative net loss performance on the outstanding transactions from series 2013-B to 2015-B range from 0.05%-0.36%. In addition, Ford Credit has realized either residual value gains or low residual losses on its securitizations (see chart 3). Chart 2 MARCH 10,

10 Chart 3 We currently maintain ratings on four FCALT transactions: series 2014-A, 2014-B, 2015-A, and 2015-B, which are performing in-line with our expectations (see table 4). In our opinion, all of the outstanding transactions remain adequately enhanced at their current rating levels. We will continue to monitor each outstanding transaction's performance to determine if any rating action is deemed appropriate. Table 4 Performance Data For Outstanding FCALT Transactions As Of The February 2016 Distribution Date Series Month Pool factor (%) Current cumulative net credit losses (%)(i) Current cumulative net residual loss (gain) (%)(ii) 2014-A (0.46) 2014-B (0.38) 2015-A (0.20) 2015-B (0.03) (i)as a percentage of the aggregate initial securitization value. (ii)as a percentage of the initial base residual value. FCALT--Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust. MARCH 10,

11 Pool Analysis The series 2016-A securitized pool consists of 48,082 prime auto lease receivables with a weighted average FICO score of 742 (see table 5). Approximately 88% of the pool consists of leases with 36- to 39-month original terms. The top five vehicle models represent approximately 72% of the initial base residual value. Table 5 Original Pool Characteristics FCALT 2016-A FCALT 2015-B FCALT 2015-A FCALT 2014-B FCALT 2014-A FCALT 2013-B(i) FCALT 2013-A(i) No. of leases 48,082 47,223 47,445 68,977 63,870 46,572 46,395 Initial total securitization value ($) Avg. securitization value ($) 1,126,158,995 1,126,137,291 1,126,139,672 1,689,193,621 1,560,634,970 1,135,071,232 1,116,998,297 23,422 23,847 23,736 24,489 24,435 24,372 24,076 New vehicles (%) Top five vehicles by model (%)(ii) Escape Explorer Fusion F Edge Base residual value ($) 826,375, ,099, ,684,381 1,211,588,268 1,146,236, ,150, ,343,614 Avg. base residual value ($) Weighted avg. original term (mos.) Weighted avg. remaining term (mos.) Weighted avg. seasoning (mos.) Original term (mos.) 17,187 17,705 17,614 17,565 17,946 17,890 17, Weighted avg. FICO score Base residual as a % of the initial aggregate securitization value Base residual as a % of the adjusted MSRP Top five state concentrations (%) MI=16.4 MI=19.1 MI=20.9 MI=17.2 MI=27.3 MI=24.6 MI= MARCH 10,

12 Table 5 Original Pool Characteristics (cont.) NY=12.2 NY=12.1 NY=12.2 NY=13.7 NY=11.9 NY=14.0 NY=15.7 CA=11.0 CA=10.9 CA=10.5 CA=10.9 CA=9.5 CA=10.0 CA=9.7 NJ=7.7 NJ=7.2 NJ=7.2 NJ=8.1 NJ=7.1 NJ=8.5 NJ=9.4 OH=7.5 OH=7.0 OH=6.9 OH=7.7 OH=6.7 OH=6.8 OH=6.6 (i)not rated by Standard & Poor's. (ii)as a percentage of the initial aggregate base residual value. FCALT--Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust. MSRP--Manufacturer's suggested retail price. Residual Value The notes that are being issued to finance the FCALT 2016-A pool will be secured by an exchange note that is backed by a pool of leases (and the related leased vehicles) with a securitization value of $1,126,158,995. The leases' securitization value equals the present value of each lease's remaining monthly lease payment plus the related leased vehicle's base residual value (both discounted at the higher of 6.75% or the contract annual percentage rate). Each leased vehicle's base residual value will equal the lower of: The stated residual value set by Ford Credit at the lease's inception and The residual value estimate established by ALG for the leased vehicle at lease origination. The stated residual value is the vehicle's assigned residual value at the lease's inception (per the lease contract), which then determines the monthly lease payments. The stated residual value is typically set higher than ALG's residual value to reduce the dollar amount of lease payments that the lessee owes under the lease contract. The base residual value provides a more conservative estimate of the vehicle's future value and mitigates noteholders' exposure to losses associated with stated residual values that are set higher than the expected residual values (a process called lease subvention). The base residual is $826,375,128, or 73.38% of the FCALT 2016-A pool's securitization value. A recent ALG mark-to-market valuation indicates an $819,213,532 residual value forecast for the pool, which is approximately 0.87% lower than the base residual. Our residual value risk analysis accounts for ALG's recent mark-to-market valuation (see Standard & Poor's Expected Loss for more information). Lease Residual Timing The leases in the FCALT 2016-A pool are scheduled to mature as shown in table 6. Table 6 FCALT 2016-A Lease Maturity Profile By Year(i) Year (%) (i)percentage of the aggregate undiscounted base residual value. FCALT--Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust MARCH 10,

13 The FCALT 2016-A pool's initial lease maturities begin in August 2016 (see chart 4). Thereafter, leases will be maturing each month until December There are five months in which the expected base residual maturity level exceeds our 5.0% benchmark concentration limit. The highest monthly maturity is 5.70% and is expected to occur in June Chart 4 Standard & Poor's Expected Loss In our view, the FCALT 2016-A transaction has three principal risk components: credit, residual, and waived payment risk. Credit risk The obligor's credit profile determines the credit risk. To derive the base-case credit loss for the series 2016-A transaction, we used static pool credit loss data that Ford Credit provided to project losses on its portfolio of lease originations segmented by credit tier, vehicle type, and lease term. We weighted the projections by the actual concentration of those various segments in the series 2016-A pool. We also considered the consistent and stable loss performance of Ford Credit's auto lease securitizations, peer performance, the series 2016-A pool's collateral credit quality compared with other FCALT pools and peer collateral pools, and our forward-looking view of the economy. MARCH 10,

14 Based on this information, we expect the cumulative net credit loss for the series 2016-A pool to range from 0.75%-0.85% of the pool's securitization value. Residual risk The transaction's residual risk is partially mitigated because the securitized residual value is equal to the lower of the lease contract residual value and the ALG residual value at origination. Securitizing the lower of these two values mitigates the risk associated with contract residual values that are set higher than the expected residual values to keep the monthly lease payments affordable to the lessee. In analyzing the series 2016-A pool's residual risk, we considered the following factors: The diversity of the pool's vehicle makes and models; The stability of historical used vehicle values on the top vehicle makes and models; The top nine vehicle models, which account for approximately 89% of the series 2016-A pool's total base residual; The ALG's historical and current forecasts compared with the historical actual vehicle retention values per data that Ford Credit provided; The basis for the differences between the actual used vehicle values and the ALG's forecasts; The basis for the ALG's current forecast; The lease maturity profile of the series 2016-A pool; Brand perception; The consistency of the manufacturer's suggested retail price valuation; and Our macroeconomic outlook. Base haircut According to our auto lease criteria, we first applied initial rating-specific haircuts of 26.0% and 23.0% to the series 2016-A pool's base residual value, commensurate with 'AAA' and 'AA+' rating scenarios, respectively. We also included an additional haircut to the base residual of 0.87% to account for ALG's current mark-to-market forecast, which is approximately 0.87% lower than the original ALG residual forecast ("ALG drift") because this was not reflected in the pool's base residual. Excess concentration haircut In addition to the above base residual haircuts, we applied a haircut to the amount of nondefaulted lease residuals exceeding the concentration limits applicable to the benchmark pool (excess concentrations), as outlined in our auto lease criteria. The series 2016-A pool has a total excess concentration of 10.38%, which comprised 2.11% monthly residual maturity in excess of our benchmark and 8.27% vehicle segment excess concentration. The excess concentration resulted in an additional 1.35% and 1.19% base residual haircut under our 'AAA' and 'AA+' rating scenarios, respectively. The pool is diversified by model concentration; therefore, an excess concentration haircut for this was not necessary. Speculative-grade manufacturer haircut We also look at the auto manufacturer's creditworthiness when determining the stress applied to the adjusted base residual value. Our auto lease criteria apply haircuts to the base residual value of the vehicles produced by manufacturers that have speculative-grade corporate credit ratings ('BB+' or lower). Ford Motor Co. is the manufacturer of the leased vehicles backing the FCALT 2016-A pool. Based on our current MARCH 10,

15 corporate credit rating on Ford Motor Co. (BBB-/Positive/A-3), we did not apply a speculative-grade manufacturer haircut to the series 2016-A transaction. Low diversification haircut For pools with low diversification, as described in our auto lease criteria, we apply a low diversification haircut in addition to the other haircuts. Our auto lease criteria describe the six conditions for which, if met by the securitized lease pool, we would apply this type of haircut. The FCALT 2016-A pool does not meet any of these six conditions, so we did not apply the low diversification haircut. Stressed residual loss After analyzing the FCALT 2016-A lease pool, applying the relevant residual value haircuts, and assessing stressed return rates of 100% and 97.5% at the 'AAA' and 'AA+' rating levels, respectively (representing the loss frequency on nondefaulted leased vehicles of 92.0% and 92.8%, respectively), we determined that our stressed residual loss is approximately 19.1% and 16.6% under our 'AAA' and 'AA+' scenarios, respectively, as a percentage of the initial securitization value. Waived payment risk The third risk in this transaction, waived payment risk, occurs when, as part of Ford Credit's Early Bird incentive program, a dealer offers the lessee an option to terminate the lease early and waive all remaining lease payments if the lessee agrees to finance a new lease or loan contract with Ford Credit. The dealer then reimburses the trust for the waived payments, and Ford Credit then reimburses the dealer. If Ford Credit enters bankruptcy, we believe a certain percentage of the dealer base may also enter bankruptcy and could continue to waive lease payments to generate additional vehicle sales. These waived payments are a loss to the trust if they are not reimbursed by the dealer who waived the payments. To that end, we incorporated a waived payment risk into our cash flow analysis. We reviewed historical offer and acceptance rates and the number of waived payments offered under Ford Credit's Early Bird program. Our waived payment stress was approximately 0.55% and 0.49% under our 'AAA' and 'AA+' rating scenarios, respectively. We also tested FCALT 2016-A's proposed structure using cash flow scenarios to determine if the credit enhancement level was sufficient to pay timely interest and principal in full by the notes' legal final maturity dates under 'AAA' and 'AA+' stressed scenarios (see below). Cash Flow Modeling We modeled the transaction on a lease-by-lease basis to simulate a stress scenario commensurate with the assigned preliminary ratings. The results show that the preliminary rated notes are enhanced to the degree necessary to withstand a level of stressed credit, residual, and waived payment losses that are consistent with the assigned preliminary ratings. The class A notes can withstand a cumulative credit loss of approximately 4.0% (or approximately 5.0x the midpoint of our expected loss range of 0.75%-0.85%), residual losses of 19.1%, and a waived payment loss of 0.55%, all as a percentage of the initial securitization value (see table 7). The class B notes can withstand a cumulative net credit loss of approximately 3.6% (or approximately 4.5x the midpoint of our expected loss range), residual losses of 16.6%, and a waived payment loss of 0.49%, all as a percentage of the initial securitization value. MARCH 10,

16 Table 7 Cash Flow Assumptions And Results Class A Class B Scenario (preliminary rating) AAA (sf) AA+ (sf) Cumulative net loss range (%) Cumulative net loss timing (mos.) 12/24/36 12/24/36 Cumulative net loss (%) 40/80/100 40/80/100 Voluntary prepayments (%) Recoveries (%) Recovery lag (mos.) 4 4 Residual haircut Total residual haircut as a % of the adjusted MSRP(i) Total residual haircut as a % of the securitization value Total residual haircut as a % of the undiscounted base residual value Vehicle return rate (%) Nondefaulting leases (%) Residual realization lag (mos.) 2 2 Waived payment stress as a % of the securitization value (%) Result Standard & Poor's stressed credit, residual, and waived payment loss as a % of the securitization value Approximate credit enhancement as a % of the securitization value (i)after adjustment for the vehicle return rate and nondefaulting lease rate. MSRP--Manufacturer's suggested retail price. In our cash flow scenarios, we applied appropriate stresses for a possible floating-rate note issuance. We assumed the maximum class A-2b floating-rate issuance and applied our one-month LIBOR high-path vector as the unhedged interest rate for each rating category. Sensitivity Analysis In addition to running stressed cash flows to analyze the amount of credit, residual, and waived payment losses that FCALT 2016-A can withstand, we ran a sensitivity analysis to determine how credit, residual, and waived payment losses in line with a moderate stress scenario, or a 'BBB' rating stress, could affect the preliminary ratings on the notes. According to our ratings stability criteria, we will not assign preliminary 'AAA' or 'AA+' ratings if we anticipate that the ratings would decline by more than one rating category in the first year during a moderate stress scenario. We will also not assign preliminary 'AAA' or 'AA+' ratings if we anticipate that the ratings would decline by more than three rating categories in a three-year horizon under moderate stress conditions. In our view, under the 'BBB' moderate stress scenario, all else being equal, we would expect our ratings on the class A and B notes to remain within one rating category of the assigned preliminary ratings in the first year and remain within three rating categories of the assigned preliminary ratings over a three-year horizon (see chart 5). MARCH 10,

17 Chart 5 Money Market Tranche Sizing The proposed money market tranche (the class A-1 notes) has a 12-month legal final maturity date (March 15, 2017). To test whether the money market tranche can be repaid by month 12, we ran cash flows using assumptions to delay the principal collections during the 12-month period. In our cash flow run, we assumed zero defaults and a zero absolute prepayment speed on all leases. We applied a haircut to the base residual in line with our 'AAA' scenario. We also lagged the recognition of the monthly lease payments by one month and base residual amounts by two months. Based on our cash flow runs, approximately 10 months of collections would be sufficient to pay off the money market tranche. Legal Final Maturity To test the legal final maturity dates set for the longer-dated tranches (i.e., classes A-2a/A-2b, A-3, A-4, and B), we determined the date on which the respective notes were fully amortized in a zero-loss, zero-prepayment scenario and then added six months to the result. We also looked to see when these notes would pay off in our stressed cash flow MARCH 10,

18 scenarios. In addition, we ran a break-even stress cash flow scenario assuming that the available credit enhancement is used to cover losses and looked to see when the class A-2a/A-2b, A-3, A-4, and B notes would pay off under this scenario. In all of our cash flow scenarios, we confirmed there is sufficient credit enhancement to both cover losses and repay the related notes in full by their legal final maturity dates. Ford Credit Ford Credit, one of the largest auto finance companies in the U.S., was established in 1959 to provide financing for Ford vehicles and support Ford dealers. Ford Credit, headquartered in Dearborn, Mich., is a Delaware limited liability company and is a wholly owned captive finance subsidiary of Ford Motor Co. Ford Credit offers a wide variety of automotive financing products including retail installment sale contracts and leases, business loans, and lines of credit to dealerships that sell Ford Motor Co. products. Related Criteria And Research Related Criteria Methodology And Assumptions For Ratings Above The Sovereign--Single-Jurisdiction Structured Finance, May 29, 2015 Methodology: Criteria For Global Structured Finance Transactions Subject To A Change In Payment Priorities Or Sale Of Collateral Upon A Nonmonetary EOD, March 2, 2015 Criteria Methodology Applied to Fees, Expenses, And Indemnifications, July 12, 2012 Global Investment Criteria For Temporary Investments In Transaction Accounts, May 31, 2012 U.S. Interest Rate Assumptions Revised for May 2012 And Thereafter, April 30, 2012 Revised General Methodology And Assumptions For Rating U.S. ABS Auto Lease Securitizations, Nov. 29, 2011 General Methodology And Assumptions For Rating U.S. Auto Loan Securitizations, Jan. 11, 2011 Understanding Standard & Poor's Rating Definitions, June 3, 2009 Standard & Poor's Revises Criteria Methodology For Servicer Risk Assessment, May 28, 2009 Legal Criteria For U.S. Structured Finance Transactions: Special-Purpose Entities, Oct. 1, 2006 Legal Criteria For U.S. Structured Finance Transactions: Criteria Related To Asset-Backed Securities, Oct. 1, 2006 Legal Criteria For U.S. Structured Finance Transactions: Appendix III: Revised UCC Article 9 Criteria, Oct. 1, 2006 Legal Criteria For U.S. Structured Finance Transactions: Securitizations By Code Transferors, Oct. 1, 2006 Assessing the Risk of Pension Plan Terminations on U.S. Auto Lease Securitizations, Aug. 17, 2004 Related Research Ford Motor Co. And Subsidiary Outlooks Revised to Positive On Improving Profitability, 'BBB-' Ratings Affirmed, Nov. 23, 2015 Global Structured Finance Scenario And Sensitivity Analysis: Understanding The Effects Of Macroeconomic Factors On Credit Quality, July 2, 2014 Research Update: Ford Motor Co. And Core Subsidiary Assigned 'A-3' Short-Term Issuer Credit Rating; Commercial Paper Assigned 'A-3' Debt, June 27, 2014 Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC, March 14, 2014 In addition to the criteria specific to this type of security (listed above), the following criteria articles, which are MARCH 10,

19 generally applicable to all ratings, may have affected this rating action: "Post-Default Ratings Methodology: When Does Standard & Poor's Raise A Rating From 'D' Or 'SD'?," March 23, 2015; "Global Framework For Assessing Operational Risk In Structured Finance Transactions," Oct. 9, 2014; "Methodology: Timeliness of Payments: Grace Periods, Guarantees, And Use of 'D' And 'SD' Ratings," Oct. 24, 2013; "Counterparty Risk Framework Methodology And Assumptions," June 25, 2013; "Criteria For Assigning 'CCC+', 'CCC', 'CCC-', And 'CC' Ratings," Oct. 1, 2012; "Methodology: Credit Stability Criteria," May 3, 2010; and "Use of CreditWatch And Outlooks," Sept. 14, MARCH 10,

20 Copyright 2016 Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC, a part of McGraw Hill Financial. All rights reserved. No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an "as is" basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P's opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof. S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process. S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, (free of charge), and and (subscription) and (subscription) and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at MARCH 10,