CSMC Trust 2014-IVR3

Transcription

1 Presale: CSMC Trust 2014-IVR3 Primary Credit Analyst: Derrick Hur, CFA, New York (1) ; Surveillance Credit Analyst: Michael J Graffeo, New York (1) ; michael.graffeo@standardandpoors.com Analytical Manager, U.S. RMBS New Issue: Jack E Kahan, New York (1) ; jack.kahan@standardandpoors.com Table Of Contents $ Million Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-IVR3 Rationale Collateral Summary Strengths And Weaknesses Ability-To-Repay And Qualified Mortgage Standards Structural Features Geographic Concentration Large Loans And Tail Risk Considerations Mortgage Originator/Aggregator Review Third-Party Due-Diligence Review Representations And Warranties Cash Flow And Scenario Analysis JULY 24,

2 Table Of Contents (cont.) Standard & Poor's 17g-7 Disclosure Report Related Criteria And Research JULY 24,

3 Presale: CSMC Trust 2014-IVR3 $ Million Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-IVR3 This presale report is based on information as of July 24, 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 July 24, 2014 Class Ratings(i) Amount (mil. $) Expected interest rate (%) (ii) Class type A-1 AAA (sf) Super senior/initial MACR A-2 AAA (sf) Senior support/initial MACR A-7 AAA (sf) Senior A-X-1 AAA (sf) Notional (iii) IO/initial MACR A-X-2 AAA (sf) Notional (iii) IO/initial MACR A-X-4 AAA (sf) Notional (iv) IO/initial MACR A-X-5 AAA (sf) Notional (iv) IO/initial MACR B-1 AA (sf) Net WAC Subordinate B-2 A (sf) Net WAC Subordinate B-3 BB+ (sf) Net WAC Subordinate B-4 NR Net WAC Subordinate B-5 NR Net WAC Subordinate A-3 AAA (sf) Senior/MACR A-4 AAA (sf) Super senior/macr A-5 AAA (sf) Senior support/macr A-6 AAA (sf) Senior/MACR A-8 AAA (sf) Net WAC Senior/MACR A-X-3 AAA (sf) Notional (iii) IO/MACR A-X-6 AAA (sf) Notional (iv) IO/MACR A-IO-S NR Notional (v) Excess servicing fee (i)the rating on each class of securities is preliminary and subject to change at any time. (ii)the certificates are subject to a net WAC cap. The class A-X-1, A-X-2, A-X-3, A-X-4, A-X-5, A-X-6, and A-IO-S certificates are interest-only certificates; they will not be entitled to principal distributions. (iii)the class A-X-1, A-X-2, and A-X-3 certificates' interest rate will be the excess, if any, of the lesser of net WAC and 4.00% over the lesser of net WAC and 3.50%. (iv)the class A-X-4, A-X-5, and A-X-6 certificates' interest rate will be the excess, if any, of net WAC over 4.00%. (v)the class A-IO-S certificates have a notional amount equal to the aggregate stated principal balance of the mortgage loans serviced by Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. as of the distribution date. NR--Not rated. WAC--Weighted average coupon. IO--Interest-only. MACR--Modifiable and exchangeable certificate. Profile Closing date July 30, Cut-off date July 1, First payment date Aug. 25, Stated maturity date July JULY 24,

4 Profile (cont.) Certificate amount, including unrated classes Collateral type Collateral Credit enhancement Participants Issuer Sponsor and seller Master servicer and securities administrator Servicers Depositor Trustee Custodian Originators $ million, in aggregate. First-lien, fixed-rate residential mortgage loans secured by single- and two-to-four-family residences, condominiums, co-ops, and planned urban developments to prime borrowers. Residential mortgage loans. For each class of rated certificates, subordination of the certificates that are lower in the payment priority. CSMC Trust 2014-IVR3, a New York common law trust. DLJ Mortgage Capital Inc. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. (69.0%), Fifth Third Bank (13.0%), First Republic Bank (10.7%), PHH Mortgage Corp. (4.8%), and Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing (2.4%). Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. Christiana Trust, a division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. Quicken Loans Inc. (33.2%), Fifth Third Bank (13.1%), and First Republic Bank (10.7%); other originators originated the remaining loans, each of which originated less than 10% of the mortgage loans. Rationale The preliminary ratings assigned to CSMC Trust 2014-IVR3's mortgage pass-through certificates reflect our view of: The pool's high-quality collateral, as described in the Collateral Summary section below. The credit enhancement and the associated structural deal mechanics. Collateral Summary Compared with our archetypical prime pool, the borrowers in the series 2014-IVR3 pool have substantially higher credit scores, more equity in their homes, and lower debt-to-income ratios, resulting in a 7.00% loss coverage at the 'AAA' rating category (see table 1). Table 1 Collateral Characteristics Closing pool balance (mil. $) CSMC Trust 2014-IVR3 CSMC Trust 2014-IVR2 CSMC Trust 2014-IVR1 CSMC Trust 2013-IVR5 SAFT Standard & Poor's archetypical prime pool(i) N/A Closing loan count N/A Avg. loan balance ($) 691, , , , ,300 N/A WA original LTV (%) WA original CLTV (%) WA current CLTV (%) JULY 24,

5 Table 1 Collateral Characteristics (cont.) WA FICO WA current rate (%) N/A WA seasoning (mos.) WA debt to income (%) Median months reserves N/A Owner occupied (%) Single family (including planned unit development) (%) 30-year amortization term (%) Fixed rate (%) Fixed-rate IO (%) N/A ARM (%) N/A ARM IO (%) N/A Purchase loan (%) Cash-out refinancing (%) N/A Full doc with IRS form 4506-T (%) Full doc without IRS form 4506-T (%) Deposit money verification (%) N/A Current (%) days delinquent (%) 'AAA' loss coverage (%) 'AAA' foreclosure frequency (%) 'AAA' loss severity (%) 'BBB' loss coverage (%) 'BBB' foreclosure frequency (%) 'BBB' loss severity (%) Geographic concentration factor (x) (i)as defined in the Sept. 10, 2009, criteria piece. SAFT--Shellpoint Asset Funding Trust. WA--Weighted average. LTV--Loan-to-value. CLTV--Combined loan-to-value. IO--Interest-only. ARM--Adjustable-rate mortgage. N/A--Not applicable. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued final regulations for mortgage loans with applications submitted on or after Jan. 10, 2014, specifying the standards for a "qualified mortgage." The rule applies to 295 of the mortgage loans included in this securitization (see the Ability-To-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Standards section for more details), all of which are designated as qualified mortgages (QMs)/non-higher priced mortgage loans (safe harbor). JULY 24,

6 Strengths And Weaknesses We believe the following collateral characteristics strengthen the series 2014-IVR3 transaction: The mortgage pool contains borrowers with very high average FICO scores and a 43x median multiple of liquid cash reserves for current mortgage payments. The collateral pool has characteristics that are, from a credit perspective, substantially better than our archetypical pool, as reflected in the above collateral summary. A third-party due-diligence provider (from our list of reviewed providers) performed due diligence on 100% of the loans in the pool. These reviews focused on regulatory compliance, credit (underwriting) compliance, property valuations, and pay history. The results are consistent with high-quality underwriting. We believe the following structural features strengthen the series 2014-IVR3 transaction: Although the transaction has a shifting interest structure, the potential principal payment to the subordinate classes does not result in losses allocated to any of the tranches we rated under our cash flow stresses with the credit enhancement provided by each class' subordination. The senior classes benefit from a credit support floor, whereby the principal allocation to the subordinate classes falls to zero on any distribution date where the subordinate certificates' aggregate balance is less than 1.70% of the original collateral balance. All of the primary servicers are on our select servicer list and Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (which we rank "STRONG" as a master servicer) is the master servicer for the transaction. We have identified the following factor that we believe weakens the series 2014-IVR3 transaction: This series represents a continued trend of collateral with relatively riskier loan characteristics in 2014 issuance. While the loans in this trust overall have better credit quality than those in the archetypical pool, current combined loan-to-value (LTV) ratios have increased, leading to concentration in relatively higher LTV buckets. Given this increased risk, we raised our loss expectations to require additional credit enhancement at each rating category. Ability-To-Repay And Qualified Mortgage Standards There are 295 loans with applications dated on or after Jan. 10, 2014, which are therefore in scope for the ability-to-pay rule (ATR rule) and QM standards. Under this rule, as more fully described in our QM criteria, "Methodology And Assumptions For Adjusting RMBS Loss Severity Calculations For Loans Covered Under Ability-To-Repay And Qualified Mortgage Standards," published Jan. 23, 2014, the originator and any assignee are jointly and severally liable for certain damages that may be incurred from noncompliance with the rule. For each of the 295 loans in the pool subject to the rule, we applied our QM criteria and determined that no additional credit enhancement was necessary for these loans. The data provided to Standard & Poor's, including additional fields that validate the loan's QM designation, were reviewed under the third-party due-diligence firm's scope to determine that these loans fall under the QM standard's safe harbor provisions. In addition, we reviewed an ATR/QM-specific questionnaire of the originator provided for these loans. The trust also has access to remedies for the breach of the originator's QM and ATR representations and warranties (R&Ws), which may include the loans' misidentification as QM/safe harbor, a lack of sufficient documentation proving the loan's QM status, or a lack of documentation JULY 24,

7 demonstrating compliance with the ATR rules if the loans do not meet QM standards. Structural Features This residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transaction has a typical shifting-interest structure with a five-year lockout period. The paying agent will make monthly distributions from the monthly available distribution amount, which includes all funds that the servicer collects from the borrowers (excluding servicing, trustee, independent reviewer, and master servicing fees, but including the excess servicing fees, insurance and liquidation proceeds, subsequent recoveries, and repurchase amounts ) minus the servicer advance reimbursements allowed under the pooling and servicing agreement and extraordinary expenses, which are subject to a $300,000 annual cap. In addition to other liquidity stresses, we stressed the senior certificates assuming that the full annual extraordinary trust expenses were realized for our entire default curve. The senior certificates--classes A-1, A-2, A-X-1, A-X-2, A-X-4, and A-X-5--serve as initial exchangeable certificates. Holders of these classes are able to exchange them for a related certificate combination and vice-versa, as specified in the offering documents. The capital structure has super-senior certificates (class A-1) that receive additional subordination from the class A-2 senior support certificates, resulting in 10.00% available credit support at issuance for the class A-1 certificates, compared to 8.00% for classes A-2 and A-7. The securities administrator will apply realized losses reverse sequentially to the class B-5, then B-4, then B-3, then B-2, and then B-1 certificates in each case until the principal balance has been reduced to zero. If no subordinate certificates are outstanding, realized losses will be applied to classes A-1, A-2, and A-7 concurrently and pro rata based on their respective class balance, however, any realized losses allocable to class A-1 will first be allocated to class A-2. Geographic Concentration Approximately 48% of the assets are located in California (see table 2). The geographic concentration level in series 2014-IVR3 is lower at the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) level than previous CSMC transactions. We assessed this concentration risk as outlined in "Updated Criteria For Evaluating Geographic Concentration In U.S. RMBS Mortgage Pools," published Nov. 16, 2012, and applied a 1.00x geographic factor based on a MSA excess analysis (a measure of concentration based on the excess of MSA concentrations over the limits outlined in our criteria). Table 2 Geographic Conncentration MSA code(i) MSA name State % by balance Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale Calif San Diego-Carlsbad Calif San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco Calif Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine Calif Oakland-Hayward-Berkeley Calif San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Calif New York-Jersey City-White Plains N.Y JULY 24,

8 Table 2 Geographic Conncentration (cont.) Chicago-Naperville-Arlington Heights Ill San Rafael Calif Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land Texas 2.52 (i)msa refers to the MSA division, if available. MSA--Metropolitan statistical area. Large Loans And Tail Risk Considerations Since midyear 2013, Standard & Poor's has observed moderately increased interest rates on residential mortgage loans, which have driven a substantially lower origination volume--specifically at the expense of refinance volume, because rates have bounced off historical lows. Loans originated with these "higher" rates, including some loans in this transaction, will naturally experience lower prepayment rates. When the number of loans in the transaction decreases, the effect of a single loan's losses will increase. If conditional prepayment rates (CPRs) continue to slow and collateral pool losses are not realized until later in a transaction's life ("backloaded losses"), then pro rata pay mechanisms can expose the senior certificates to event risk later in the transaction's life (for more information on tail risk in RMBS transactions, see "Older RMBS Transactions Face Increased Tail Risk As Their Pools Shrink," published Aug. 9, 2012). The transaction documents specify that no principal payments will be made to the subordinate certificates if the credit support available to the senior certificates is 1.70% of the pool's original principal balance to account for this risk. To gauge the appropriateness of this credit enhancement floor, we take an approach similar to the one outlined in "Methodology And Assumptions: U.S. RMBS Surveillance Credit And Cash Flow Analysis For Pre-2009 Originations," published Dec. 23, Instead of focusing on the largest loans by balance at issuance, we risk-weight the loans in the transaction by focusing on those loans with the largest expected loss exposure, assuming default. Because the risk of substantial hard credit support erosion to the senior certificates can take years given the lockout period, we estimate the loans' risk once the lockout has expired and the transaction begins paying all principal pro rata. After considering loan amortization and various home price scenarios, we believe that a 1.70% credit support floor will be sufficient to protect the senior certificates from tail risk as the transaction seasons. We generally expect that transactions with fewer loans at issuance, but with the same loan loss-exposure concentration, would have greater credit enhancement floors as a percentage of the original balance than pools with higher loan counts. Mortgage Originator/Aggregator Review Summary Credit Suisse Jumbo Mortgage Conduit started in 2010 as a secondary market aggregator focusing on non-agency mortgages from selected third-party originators. The conduit continues to add to its list of more than 50 approved sellers. Credit Suisse reviews each of their approved sellers, encompassing a broad range of topics and checks. The conduit purchases loans through DLJ Mortgage Capital Inc. (DLJ, a Credit Suisse affiliate) from lenders in their correspondent flow channel and also in bulk portfolio trades. The conduit generally comprises loans that are prime (fixed- and adjustable-rate) mortgages with nonconforming or conforming balances sold either with released or JULY 24,

9 retained servicing and delegated underwriting with 100% second-level re-underwriting of the loan before purchase. Acquisition management DLJ started its whole loan conduit business in 2009 by partnering with PHH Mortgage Corp. (PHH) and establishing relationships with other originators shortly after. It launched the conduit officially and started to lock loans on a flow basis in July Credit Suisse reviews both bulk and correspondent counterparties against operational and counterparty credit standards. Each originator signs a mortgage loan purchase agreement with DLJ that specifies the mortgage loans' different contract terms as well as the R&Ws the originator will provide. DLJ periodically renews its review of each client after its initial approval by updating their financial and business plans annually. Underwriting DLJ purchases jumbo mortgage loans on a delegated underwriting basis. The originator underwrites the loans to the related guidelines, as reviewed and approved by DLJ, and is subject to the DLJ jumbo credit overlay. Since our previous review of DLJ guidelines, the conduit has consolidated its credit overlays into one single overlay, increasing transparency into its minimum credit requirements. The conduit is able to leverage this single overlay into more consistent mortgage loan purchase agreements between sellers, more transparent diligence results, and more consistent exception reporting. Exceptions to these guidelines are identified and reviewed before purchase by the conduit. Approximately 75%, 20%, and 5% of the conduit's flow acquisition is originated through retail, wholesale, and correspondent channels, respectively. Quality control DLJ requires 100% due-diligence on loans acquired through its flow acquisitions and uses firms on Standard & Poor's published list of reviewed due-diligence firms to review a representative sample for bulk purchases. The scope of review is consistent with market standards as it includes a full review of credit, compliance, and valuation post-closing. The diligence firms also check data integrity to validate calculated data fields. Regulatory compliance During the compliance review, the third-party review firm verifies all proper disclosures and documentation, which includes the good faith estimate (GFE), subsequent GFE, change of circumstance (if applicable), and a final HUD-1, and then completes tolerance testing between the GFE and final HUD-1 documentation. It also checks to ensure the timing of disclosures is within the requirements. Each file will be subject to a post-closing regulatory compliance review to verify that each mortgage loan closed in compliance with the applicable federal, state, and local anti-predatory lending statutes from when the mortgage loan is originated and that the loans meet the applicable disclosure requirements. Based on the qualitative and quantitative reviews we performed related to DLJ's acquisition strategy, as well as the 100% due-diligence review, we applied a neutral 1.00x credit enhancement factor. JULY 24,

10 Third-Party Due-Diligence Review A third-party firm performed due diligence on 100% of the loans in the transaction, including compliance, credit, and valuation reviews. According to our published third-party due-diligence criteria, we adjusted our loss expectations based on our judgment of the various firms' findings (see "Incorporating Third-Party Due Diligence Results Into The U.S. RMBS Rating Process," published March 14, 2012). After reviewing the third-party due-diligence results, we believe an adjustment of less than 1.01x to the loss coverage is appropriate. We based our additional loss coverage assessment on the due-diligence results related to credit- and property valuation-related guideline exceptions that the seller waived. There were relatively few areas of disagreement, as the adjustment reflects. The credit exceptions were related to LTV and debt-to-income ratios exceeding the underwriting guideline, as well as insufficient documentation for verification of mortgage or rent. The seller waived these exceptions (allowing the loans in the pool despite the exceptions) for various reasons and compensating factors. For some of these loans, we believe the compensating factors are insufficient in addressing the exceptions, leading to our due-diligence factor. In all, we included nine loans as part of our due-diligence additional risk assessment. The third-party reviews reported no material regulatory compliance exceptions. Representations And Warranties Each of the originators that contributed loans to this transaction via the loans' acquisition through DLJ's flow purchase program or from bulk purchases are making R&Ws related to the individual mortgage loans, which are consistent with those outlined in our R&W criteria and are in effect for the loans' lives. They are all required to remedy any breach of the R&Ws if it materially and adversely affects the mortgage loans' value. The enforcement mechanism for breaches of R&Ws includes an automatic breach review by an independent reviewer for any loan that becomes seriously delinquent. Dispute resolutions are ultimately subject to arbitration proceedings, if necessary, to determine if a breach occurred. These originator R&Ws, except for those provided by First Republic Bank, also benefit from DLJ's financial backstop of the originators' R&Ws that will have sunset provisions for the fraud and underwriting R&Ws, provided the loan did not become 60-plus days delinquent within the last 36 months. Based on the R&W structure and DLJ's backstop, we applied a neutral 1.00x adjustment factor. Cash Flow And Scenario Analysis In determining the ratings' stability, we analyzed a variety of scenarios, including combinations of: Timing curves simulating fast and slow prepayment assumptions, as well as frontloaded and backloaded default scenarios with varying recovery assumptions; Weighted average coupon (WAC) deterioration; A trust expense, which assumes the full annual expense cap amount is incurred for the length of the default curve; and JULY 24,

11 Servicer stop advance stresses, which assume that a percentage of loans become delinquent and the servicer stops advancing on a portion of those loans. Interest stresses In cases where fees, expenses, or indemnifications are senior in a transaction's payment priority and capped, which is the case for trust expenses in this transaction, we analyze scenarios where the available distribution amount decreases by assuming that the full annual trust expenses were realized for our entire default curve. Standard & Poor's outlines its approach to such scenarios in "Criteria Methodology Applied To Fees, Expenses, And Indemnifications," published July 12, All post-2009 transactions that we have rated have available distribution amount definitions similar to the one in this transaction and, as such, we similarly have applied these scenarios in our reviews of those transactions. All of the certificates in this transaction have coupons subject to the net WAC rate cap, as is the case in the majority of post-2009 transactions that we have rated. If the net WAC rate decreases below the cap, the interest due to the certificates will decrease by a like amount. We have generally seen two forms of net WAC rate definitions in transactions that we have rated since In the majority of recent transactions, extraordinary trust expense payments reduce the net WAC rate, which effectively allocates the extraordinary trust expenses pro rata across all senior and subordinate certificateholders by reducing their interest payments by the amount of the extraordinary trust expenses paid (subject to the annual cap). However, in this transaction, the net WAC rate is defined simply as the current net mortgage rate of the outstanding loans in the previous period (less servicing fees, trustee fees, etc.). In these cases, trust expense payments will reduce the available distribution amount and cash flow to the certificateholders, thereby potentially limiting the cash available to pay interest or principal to the subordinate tranches. To account for this, we ran scenarios for this transaction that reduce the available distribution amount for trust expenses to the $300,000 capped annual amount without reducing the amount of interest due to the certificateholders, thereby increasing the credit enhancement required at each rating category. Historically, we have observed that extraordinary trust expenses have been minimal when they occur and have been extremely limited in pre-2009 RMBS transactions. While we run scenario analyses to test rating sensitivity to these expenses as part of our criteria, we continue to expect their actual occurrence in post-2009 transactions to be rare and have a minimal effect. When trust expenses for a transaction are zero, trust losses with a definition of net WAC rate that includes extraordinary expenses will be identical to a transaction where the definition excludes extraordinary expenses. In all cases, we test transaction cash flows to ensure that the credit enhancement is sufficient at all rating levels to maintain credit stability, as discussed in "Methodology: Credit Stability Criteria," published May 3, Our ongoing surveillance of existing RMBS transactions has shown that potential variability in terms of credit stability is more evident for thin subordinate tranches compared to more senior classes. Scenario analysis for trust expenses in the case where the net WAC rate is not reduced by trust expenses indicates that additional credit enhancement is needed to support the subordinate tranches. The higher credit support needed to absorb the extraordinary expense risk results in higher credit stability for the subordinate tranches. JULY 24,

12 Standard & Poor's 17g-7 Disclosure Report SEC Rule 17g-7 requires an NRSRO, for any report accompanying a credit rating relating to an asset-backed security as defined in the Rule, to include a description of the representations, warranties, and enforcement mechanisms available to investors and a description of how they differ from the representations, warranties, and enforcement mechanisms in issuances of similar securities. The Standard & Poor's 17g-7 Disclosure Report included in this credit rating report is available at Related Criteria And Research Related Criteria Revised U.S. Residential Mortgage Input File Format, Glossary, And Appendices To The Glossary For LEVELS Version 7.4.2, July 2, 2014 Revised Assumptions For Rating U.S. RMBS Prime, Alternative-A, And Subprime Loans Incorporated Into LEVELS Version 7.4.2, July 2, 2014 Methodology And Assumptions For Adjusting RMBS Loss Severity Calculations For Loans Covered Under Ability-To-Repay And Qualified Mortgage Standards, Jan. 23, 2014 Methodology And Assumptions: U.S. RMBS Surveillance Credit And Cash Flow Analysis for Pre-2009 Originations, Dec. 23, 2013 Counterparty Risk Framework Methodology And Assumptions, June 25, 2013 Updated Criteria For Evaluating Geographic Concentration In U.S. RMBS Mortgage Pools, Nov. 16, 2012 Criteria Methodology Applied To Fees, Expenses, And Indemnifications, July 12, 2012 Mortgage Originator Review Criteria For U.S. RMBS, April 17, 2012 Standard & Poor s Revised Representations And Warranties Criteria For U.S. RMBS Transactions, March 14, 2012 Incorporating Third-Party Due Diligence Results Into The U.S. RMBS Rating Process, March 14, 2012 Standard & Poor s Criteria For Analyzing Loans Governed By Anti-Predatory Lending Laws, July 22, 2011 Methodology: Credit Stability Criteria, May 3, 2010 Methodology And Assumptions For Rating U.S. RMBS Prime, Alternative-A, And Subprime Loans, Sept. 10, 2009 Standard & Poor's Revises Criteria Methodology For Servicer Risk Assessment, May 28, 2009 Revised Criteria For Including RMBS, CMBS, And ABS Servicers On Standard & Poor's Select Servicer List, April 16, 2009 Application Of Revised Cash Flow Assumptions For U.S. Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, April 30, 2008 Legal Criteria For U.S. Structured Finance Transactions: Special-Purpose Entities, Oct. 1, 2006 Related Research Global Structured Finance Scenario And Sensitivity Analysis: Understanding The Effects Of Macroeconomic Factors On Credit Quality, July 2, 2014 Servicer Evaluation: PHH Mortgage Corp., July 30, 2013 Credit FAQ: How Standard & Poor s Reviews Extraordinary Expenses In Post-2009 RMBS Transactions, July 15, 2013 Servicer Evaluation: Wells Fargo Bank N.A., May 28, 2013 Servicer Evaluation: Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., May 20, JULY 24,

13 First Republic Bank Assigned ABOVE AVERAGE Ranking As Prime Residential Mortgage Originator, March 22, JULY 24,

14 Copyright 2014 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 JULY 24,