Exhibit 99.5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

(1) Type of assets that were reviewed.

AMC Diligence, LLC (“AMC”) performed certain due diligence services (the “Review”) described below on residential mortgage loans acquired by PRPM 2025-RCF4, LLC (the “Client”) through flow reviews and acquired by reliance letter. The Review was conducted on mortgage loans with origination dates from March 1988 through December 2024 via files imaged and provided by the Client’s designee for review.

(2) Sample size of the assets reviewed.

The initial population consisted of 235 mortgage loans.

The mortgage loan review sample was broken down into the following review scopes:

The final population of the Review covered 235 mortgage loans totaling an aggregate original principal balance of approximately $77.012 million. To AMC’s knowledge, the Review covered 100% of the securitization loan population.

(3) Determination of the sample size and computation.

The Review was conducted consistent with the criteria for the nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, NRSRO(s), identified in Item 3 of the ABS Due Diligence-15E.

(4) Quality or integrity of information or data about the assets: review and methodology.

AMC compared data fields on the tape provided by the Client to the data found in the actual mortgage loan file as captured by AMC. For the purposes of this disclosure, AMC’s review only included fields that were included in a related data integrity review being performed by another vendor and did not include all fields that may have been available for data comparison at the time of original acquisition. This comparison, when data was available, included the following data fields:

Additionally, AMC verified (i) listed borrowers signed documents requiring signature, (ii) borrowers signing documents were eighteen (18) years or older at the time of the mortgage loan origination, (iii) that all riders required by the terms of the mortgage and mortgage note were attached to the respective document, (iv) that social security numbers across documents were consistent, and (v) debt-to-income ratio (“DTI(s)”) and/or loan-to-value ratios (“LTV(s)”) were used in the assessment of conformity guidelines.

(5) Origination of the assets and conformity to stated underwriting or credit extension guidelines, standards, criteria or other requirements: review and methodology.

CREDIT REVIEW

AMC reviewed asset origination to determine conformity to the stated underwriting or credit extension guidelines, standards, criteria or other requirements, including, as applicable, the Ability to Repay and Qualified Mortgage requirements described below, that were provided to AMC. When applicable, a review of the mortgage loan file to the Automated Underwriting System output within the mortgage loan file was also performed.

Credit Application: For the Credit Application, AMC verified that the application: (i) was signed by all listed borrowers, (ii) was substantially filled out, (iii) contained all known borrower-owned properties on the Real Estate Owned section 2, and (iv) included the borrower’s employment history.

Credit Report: AMC’s review included confirming that a credit report, that met guideline requirements, was present for each borrower and that such borrower’s credit profile adhered to the guidelines. In order to make this determination, AMC: (i) captured the monthly consumer debt payments for use in relevant calculations, (ii) noted and researched the Real Estate Owned and fraud alerts, (iii) gathered liabilities listed on the credit report to be included in the debt to income ratio as appropriate, and (iv) gathered data required for the ASF tape submission including (a) the most recent FICO (scores from Equifax, Experian, and Transunion if available), (b) the most recent FICO date, (c) the longest trade line, (d) the maximum trade line, (e) the number of trade lines, and (f) the credit usage ratio.

Employment and Income: AMC determined whether applicable supporting employment and income documentation required by the guidelines, and as applicable Appendix Q or ATR, was present in the mortgage loan file and where possible, wasn’t fraudulent. This documentation was used to verify whether the income used to qualify the mortgage loan was calculated in accordance with the guidelines and may have included items such as: (i) verbal or written verification of employment, (ii) pay stubs, (iii) W-2 forms, (iv) tax returns, (v) financial statements, (vi) IRS tax transcripts, and (vii) Bank Statements.

Asset Review: AMC assessed whether the asset documentation required by the guidelines, and as applicable, Appendix Q or ATR, was present in the mortgage loan file. Utilizing this documentation, AMC completed a review of the reserve calculation and any large deposits. Documentation verifying assets for down payment, closing costs, prepaid items and reserves may have included: (i) verification-of-deposit (“VOD(s)”), (ii) depository account statements, (iii) stock or security account statements, (iv) gift funds, (v) escrow or earnest money deposits, and (vi) settlement statements or other evidence of conveyance and transfer of funds (if a sale of assets was involved).

Hazard/Flood Insurance/Taxes: A review of the insurance present on the mortgage loan was also performed by AMC. During the course of this review, AMC (i) verified that the hazard insurance met the minimum required amount of coverage in the guidelines, (ii) confirmed that the mortgage clause listed the lender’s name and “its successors and assigns,”, (iii) confirmed that the premium amount on both the hazard and flood insurance matched what was used in the DTI calculations, (iv) reviewed the tax certificate to verify and compare monthly escrows used to calculate DTI matched and that taxes were current, (v) confirmed that the flood certification was for the correct borrower, property, lender and mortgage loan number and was a “Life of Loan” certification, and (vi) completed other property specific items including (a) for condominium properties, confirming that the blanket policy met the minimum amount of coverage in the guidelines and (b) for properties in a flood zone per the flood certification, confirming that flood insurance met guideline requirements and met the minimum required amount of coverage in the guidelines.

Occupancy Review: AMC confirmed the property occupancy is consistent with the mortgage loan approval and borrowers’ application disclosure based solely on information contained in the mortgage loan file and any fraud report obtained in connection with the mortgage loan.

Guideline Review: During the course of the review, AMC confirmed the mortgage loan was originated in accordance with required guidelines by reviewing conformity of mortgage loan, transaction type, and borrower characteristics to stated guidelines. Mortgage characteristics examined included (i) DTI of the borrower, (ii) the LTV/TLTV/HTLTV, (iii) the credit score for each borrower, (iv) asset reserves of the borrower, (v) property type, (vi) property usage, and (vii) other property specific items including (a) for condominium or cooperative properties, assessing whether the condominium or cooperative project adheres to required guidelines.

Fraud Review: AMC reviewed fraud report results in each mortgage loan file, to the extent present, in conjunction with source documents found in the mortgage loan file to assess the likelihood of any misrepresentations associated with the origination of the mortgage loan. If the mortgage loan file did not contain a fraud report and the counterparty did not produce one, AMC conditioned the mortgage loan for the missing fraud report product.

If a report was present, AMC reviewed the report for (i) any name variations for the borrowers, (ii) any social security number variations for the borrowers, (iii) any potential occupancy issues based on the borrower’s address history, (iv) any noted employment issues, and (v) any additional consumers associated with the borrower’s profile. If any findings were noted, AMC confirmed that such findings and/or variations were addressed by the originator in the origination of the asset or that such red flag issues were fully addressed via mortgage loan documentation provided.

Title Review: AMC’s review included a review of the chain of title and the duration of ownership by the seller or borrower (whichever is applicable) and ensured that the title conformed with the guidelines. Included in this review was a verification of whether the appropriate vestee was on the title documentation (if a purchase, the seller; if a refinance, the borrower) and that the title commitment addressed issues such as assessments; covenants, conditions and restrictions; access problems; vicinity of property to military airports; prior leases; court orders/divorce decrees; public probate issues; foreclosures; bankruptcies; judgment liens; state and federal tax liens; environmental liens, and oil/gas leases.

Additional Review of Mortgage Loan File: AMC also reviewed the closing documents to ensure that the mortgage loan file information is complete, accurate, and contains consistent documentation. Included in the portion of the review are items such as reviewing for (i) evidence of primary mortgage insurance, (ii) if the property is located in an area that was listed as a FEMA disaster zone post origination, (iii) the presence of loan modification documents, and (iv) general conformity to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac approved formats at the time of origination.

DATA COLLECTION

AMC will compare data fields on the bid tape provided by the client to the data found in the actual file as captured by AMC. All material discrepancies will be noted.

BUSINESS PURPOSE SCOPE

Each loan, reviewed under this scope, was reviewed for adherence to the relevant credit policy as indicated by the Client. For this review, procedures followed included:

Documents reviewed include the following items (* = where applicable):

(6) Value of collateral securing the assets: review and methodology.

AMC’s review included a review of the valuation materials utilized during the origination of the loan and in confirming the value of the underlying property. AMC’s review included verifying the appraisal report was (i) on the appropriate GSE form, (ii) materially complete, (iii) in conformity with the guideline requirements for the property type in question, (iv) completed by an appraiser that was actively licensed to perform the valuation, (v) completed such that the named client on the appraisal report is the lender or a related entity that is permitted to engage the lender per Title XI of FIRREA, (vi) made and signed prior to the final approval of the mortgage loan application, (vii) completed and dated within the guideline requirements, (vii) made on an “as is” basis or provides satisfactory evidence of completion of all material conditions including all inspections, licenses, and certificates (including certificates of occupancy) to be made or issued with respect to all occupied portions of the mortgaged property and with respect to the use and occupancy of the same, have been made or obtained from the appropriate authorities.

With regard to the use of comparable properties, AMC’s review (i) captured the relative comparable data (gross and net adjustments, sale dates and distance from subject property) and ensured that such comparable properties are within standard appraisal guidelines; (ii) confirmed the property value and square footage of the subject property was bracketed by comparable properties, (iii) verified that comparable properties used are similar in size, style, and location to the subject, and (iv) checked for the reasonableness of adjustments when reconciling value between the subject property and comparable properties.

Other aspects of AMC’s review included (i) verifying that the address matched the mortgage note, (ii) verifying that the appraisal  and the policies and procedures with regard to the appraisal, including the appropriate level of review, when originating the mortgage loan, were followed, (iii) noting whether the property zip code was declared a FEMA disaster area after the valuation date and notifying the Client of same (iv) confirming the appraisal report does not include any apparent environmental problems, (v) confirming the appraisal notes the current use of the property is legal or legal non-conforming (grandfathered), (vi) reviewing pictures to ensure (a) that the property is in average or better condition and any repairs are noted where required and (b) that the subject property is the one for which the valuation was ordered and that there are no negative external factors; and (vii) confirming that the value product that was used as part of the origination decision was directly accessible to AMC or if it was not directly accessible that another valuation product that was directly accessible to AMC was ordered in accordance with the Client’s specific valuation waterfall process. If more than one valuation was provided, AMC confirmed consistency among the valuation products and if there were discrepancies that could not be resolved, AMC created an exception.

(7) Compliance of the originator of the assets with federal, state and local laws and regulations: review and methodology.

Please be advised that AMC did not make a determination as to whether the mortgage loans complied with federal, state or local laws, constitutional provisions, regulations or ordinances that are not expressly enumerated below. There can be no assurance that the Review uncovered all relevant factors relating to the origination of the mortgage loans, their compliance with applicable law and regulations and the original appraisals relating to the mortgaged properties or uncovered all relevant factors that could affect the future performance of the mortgage loans. Furthermore, the findings reached by AMC are dependent upon its receiving complete and accurate data regarding the mortgage loans from mortgage loan originators and other third parties upon which AMC is relying in reaching such findings.

Please be further advised that AMC does not employ personnel who are licensed to practice law in the various jurisdictions, and the findings set forth in the reports prepared by AMC do not constitute legal advice or opinions. They are recommendations or conclusions based on information provided to AMC. Information contained in any AMC report related to the applicable statute of limitations for certain claims may not be accurate or reflect the most recent controlling case law. Further, a particular court in a particular jurisdiction may extend, not enforce or otherwise allow claims beyond the statute of limitations identified in the report based on certain factors, including the facts and circumstances of an individual mortgage loan. All final decisions as to whether to purchase or enter into a transaction related to any individual mortgage loan or the mortgage loans in the aggregate, any investment strategy and any legal conclusions, including the potential liability related to the purchase or other transaction involving any such mortgage loan or mortgage loans, shall be made solely by the Client, or other agreed upon party, that has engaged AMC to prepare its reports pursuant to its instructions and guidelines. The Client, or other agreed upon party, acknowledges and agrees that the scoring models applied by AMC are designed to identify potential risk and the Client, or other agreed upon party, assumes sole responsibility for determining the suitability of the information for its particular use. AMC does not make any representation or warranty as to the value of any mortgage loan or mortgage loan’s collateral that has been reviewed by AMC.

AMC reviewed each mortgage loan to determine, as applicable, to the extent possible and subject to the caveats below, whether the mortgage loan complies with:

FOR APPLICATION DATES BEFORE JANUARY 10, 2014

(I) Federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), as implemented by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Part 1026, as set forth below:

(II) Federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), as implemented by Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. Part 1024, as set forth below:

(III) The disclosure requirements and prohibitions of Section 50(a)(6), Article XVI of the Texas Constitution and associated regulations;

(IV) The disclosure requirements and prohibitions of state, county and municipal laws and ordinances with respect to “high-cost” loans, “covered” loans, “higher-priced” loans, “home” loans or any other similarly designated loan as defined under such authorities, or subject to any other laws that were enacted to combat predatory lending, as may have been amended from time to time;

(V) Federal and state specific late charge and prepayment penalty provisions;

(VI) Document Review

AMC reviewed each mortgage loan file and verified if the following documents, if applicable, for the Review scope in question at the time of review, were included in the file and if the data on these documents was consistent:

FOR APPLICATION DATES ON OR AFTER JANUARY 10, 2014

For mortgage loans with application dates on or after January 10, 2014 additional compliance testing was applicable and conducted by AMC. Testing during this period included all items as referenced in the FOR APPLICATION DATES BEFORE JANUARY 10, 2014 section above plus:

(VII) Federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), as implemented by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Part 1026 testing included:

(VIII) Federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), as implemented by Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. Part 1024, as set forth below:

(IX) Sections 1411 and 1412 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) amending TILA, as implemented by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 1026.43, as set forth below:

AMC reviews applicable loans for compliance with the ATR and QM rule requirements based upon each loan’s originator designation (Safe Harbor QM, Higher-priced QM, Temporary SHQM, Temporary HPQM, Non-QM, Exempt from ATR). AMC determines the loan’s status under the ATR or QM rule requirements and assigns a due diligence loan designation. Generally, AMC notes a material exception if the due diligence findings do not confirm the originator’s loan designation. Additionally, AMC notes if an originator loan designation was not provided.

Qualified Mortgage

With respect to QM (Safe Harbor and Higher-priced) designated loans, AMC reviews the loan to determine whether, based on available information in the mortgage loan file: (i) the loan contains risky loan features and terms (e.g. an interest only feature or negative amortization), (ii) the “points and fees” exceed the applicable QM threshold, (iii) the monthly payment was calculated appropriately, (iv) the creditor considered and verified income or assets at or before consummation, (v) the creditor appropriately considered debt obligations, alimony and child support, and (vi) at the time of consummation, if the debt-to-income ratio exceeds 43% (calculated in accordance with Appendix Q to Regulation Z). This portion of the Review includes a recalculation of all income and liabilities with attention to the appropriate documentation of each source.

If a loan was designated as QM and identified as eligible for guarantee, purchase, or insurance by an applicable agency as permitted under the QM final rule, AMC reviews the loan to determine whether, based on available information in the loan file, the loan satisfied (i), (ii) and (iii) in the preceding paragraph and reviews the Automated Underwriting System output within the file to confirm agency eligibility.

For each QM designated loan that satisfied the applicable requirements enumerated above, AMC then determines whether the loan is a Safe Harbor QM or Higher Priced QM by comparing the loan’s actual annual percentage rate, as recalculated, to the applicable average prime offer rate plus a certain applicable percentage.

The Review also includes determining, as applicable, whether a loan is a qualified mortgage as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (24 C.F.R. 201 and 203 et seq.) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (38 C.F.R. Part 36 et seq.).

For each QM designated loan that does not satisfy the applicable requirements enumerated above, AMC then determines whether the loan complies with the ATR rule consideration and verification requirements and provides a due diligence designation of Non-QM compliant or non-compliant.

General Ability to Repay

AMC reviews the loan to determine whether, based on available information in the mortgage loan file, the creditor considered, as applicable, the following eight underwriting factors and verified such information using reasonably reliable third-party records, at or before consummation: (i) the consumer's current or reasonably expected income or assets; (ii) if the creditor relied on income from the consumer's employment in determining repayment ability, the consumer's current employment status; (iii) the consumer's monthly payment; (iv) the consumer's monthly payment on any simultaneous loan that the creditor knows or has reason to know will be made; (v) the consumer's monthly payment for mortgage-related obligations; (vi) the consumer's current debt obligations, alimony, and child support; (vii) the consumer's monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income; and (viii) the consumer's credit history. This portion of the Review also focuses on full recalculation of income and debts, as well as the documentation provided to support each item used in originator’s determination of the ability to repay.

Note: for loans designated as QM – agency eligible, AMC will not review for compliance with the requirements of Appendix Q or General Ability to Repay.

AMC reviews loans to determine their conformity with the ATR/QM factors above, and is not rendering an independent assessment or opinion, warranting or representing that a loan will be deemed to conform to Safe Harbor, Rebuttable Presumption, ATR or other status based on any additional or revised factors that may be considered by legislative, regulatory, administrative or judicial authorities (“Authorities”). AMC does not represent or warrant that the factors for which it is reviewing the loans constitute all of the factors and/or criteria that Authorities may consider in determining the status of a loan. AMC’s review is based on information contained in the mortgage loan file at the time it is provided to AMC to review, and only reflects information as of that point in time.

(X) The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as implemented by Regulation B, 12 C.F.R. Part 1002, as set forth below:

(XI) FIRREA Review

AMC confirmed that the appraiser and the appraisal made by such appraiser both satisfied the requirements of Title XI of FIRREA. Specifically, AMC reviewed the appraisal for conformity to industry standards, including ensuring the appraisal was complete, that the comparables and adjustments were reasonable and that pictures were provided and were accurate. 

FOR APPLICATION DATES ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 3, 2015

For mortgage loans with application dates on or after October 3, 2015 additional compliance testing was applicable and conducted by AMC. Testing during this period included all items as referenced in the FOR APPLICATION DATES BEFORE JANUARY 10, 2014 and FOR APPLICATION DATES ON OR AFTER JANUARY 10, 2014 sections above plus:

With regard to TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (“TRID”) testing, AMC implemented the TRID scope of review referenced within the Regulatory Compliance section (XII) based on (i) the RMBS 3.0 TRID Compliance Review Scope published by the Structured Finance Industry Group (the "SFIG Compliance Review Scope") and (ii) outside counsel’s interpretations of the published regulations as of the date of review of each mortgage loan. AMC worked with outside counsel and continues to obtain updated interpretations relative to the informal guidance provided by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) which has caused alterations in the review scope and severity of TRID related exceptions, including applicable cures. (This will continue as necessary as additional guidance becomes available, as well as any future rulemaking.) While AMC continues to make a good faith effort to identify material TRID exceptions and apply the appropriate grading, the implementation of new regulations (including TRID) that impact residential mortgages carries certain interpretive risk and continues to evolve, impacting the review scope and exception severity. AMC has worked closely with the NRSROs and Client to disclose, as mutually agreed upon by the parties, the relevant exceptions per AMC’s suggested review implementation as reviewed by outside counsel; however, no assurances can be provided and/or are given that AMC has included within its Review all areas that may represent risk to the securitization trust or that areas of risk identified by AMC will result in the potential level of risk indicated by an Event Level or NRSRO grade.

Please be further advised that AMC does not employ personnel who are licensed to practice law in the various jurisdictions, and the findings set forth in the reports prepared by AMC do not constitute legal advice or opinions. They are recommendations or conclusions based on information provided to AMC. Information contained in any AMC report related to the applicable statute of limitations for certain claims may not be accurate or reflect the most recent controlling case law. Further, a particular court in a particular jurisdiction may extend, not enforce or otherwise allow claims beyond the statute of limitations identified in the report based on certain factors, including the facts and circumstances of an individual mortgage loan. All final decisions as to whether to purchase or enter into a transaction related to any individual mortgage loan or the mortgage loans in the aggregate, any investment strategy and any legal conclusions, including the potential liability related to the purchase or other transaction involving any such mortgage loan or mortgage loans, shall be made solely by the Client, or other agreed upon party, that has engaged AMC to prepare its reports pursuant to its instructions and guidelines. The Client, or other agreed upon party, acknowledges and agrees that the scoring models applied by AMC are designed to identify potential risk and the Client, or other agreed upon party, assumes sole responsibility for determining the suitability of the information for its particular use. AMC does not make any representation or warranty as to the value of any mortgage loan or mortgage loans collateral that has been reviewed by AMC.

AMC reviewed each residential mortgage loan to determine, as applicable, to the extent possible and subject to the caveats below, whether the mortgage loan complies with:

(XII) Sections 1098 and 1100A of Dodd-Frank amending TILA and RESPA, as implemented by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Part 1026, as set forth below (applicable only for mortgage loans with application dates on or after October 3, 2015):

(XIII) Document Review

AMC reviewed each mortgage loan file and verified if the following documents, if applicable, were included in the file and if the data on these documents was consistent (where applicable):

BUSINESS SCOPE LIMITED COMPLIANCE REVIEW

Includes Business Review Scope with additional limited compliance review below.

State Compliance Review applicable to non-owner occupied loans:

SitusAMC will review each mortgage loan file to determine coverage, and if covered, verify compliance with the following:

(8) Other: review and methodology.

Title Review: As requested by the Client, a title review was included in SitusAMC’s scope of review. To facilitate this review, the Client provided SitusAMC with identifying data on the population of mortgage loans. Data provided by the client, included mortgage loan and servicer identification numbers as well as subject property address, borrower names, origination date, original mortgage loan amount for the subject mortgage and title policies from origination as it relates to the subject mortgage. Using the data provided, SitusAMC ordered a current owner’s title search on these mortgage loans through a service provider. Upon receipt and review of the current owner’s title search results, SitusAMC identified whether the title search report revealed any liens and/or judgments which could affect the seniority of the subject mortgage, including potentially superior post origination liens and/or judgments as well as subject mortgage not of record. For the purposes of identifying potentially superior post-origination homeowners’ association (“HOA”) liens, the Client has vetted and approved for use a list of states prepared by outside counsel for which potentially superior post origination HOA liens may take priority over the subject mortgage. The states identified by the Client to be super lien states are AL, AK, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, HI, IL, MA, MD, MN, MO, NV, NH, NJ, OR, PA, RI, TN, VA, VT, WA, and WV. SitusAMC reviewed the title policies for all liens and/or judgments that were recorded before the recordation of the subject mortgage to determine if any identifiable liens and/or judgments were listed as an exception on schedule B of the applicable title policies.

The final review results reflected in the Overall Review Results Summary herein may include additional exceptions identified after AMC’s initial review was completed where loan level issues were identified by external parties as a result of separate, distinct quality control evaluation of the loan files. In such cases, any additional exceptions cited by any such quality control evaluation would either be reflected (i) as an open exception or (ii) remediated if required documentation and/or curative actions were provided to AMC. The exception totals reflected herein, and corresponding Exception Rating, include exceptions that were so subsequently identified, if any. Please note that only a limited number of loans, if any, reflected in the Review Results Summary were subject to such external quality control evaluations.    

(9) Disclaimer

Except as expressly enumerated above, please be advised that SitusAMC has not performed any review to determine whether the mortgage loans covered in this Report complied with federal, state or local laws, constitutional provisions, regulations, ordinances or any other laws or guidance, including, without limitation, licensing and general usury laws (“Applicable Law”).  Further, there can be no assurances that in performing the review and preparing this Report that SitusAMC has uncovered all relevant factors and potential issues relating to the origination of the mortgage loans, their compliance with Applicable Law, or the original appraisals relating to the mortgaged properties, or that SitusAMC has uncovered all relevant factors that could affect the future performance of the mortgage loans. Please note that the results set forth in this Report are dependent upon receipt of complete and accurate data regarding the mortgage loans from mortgage loan originators, sponsors, issuers, underwriters, and other third parties upon which SitusAMC is relying in reaching such results.  Except as expressly stated herein, SitusAMC did not verify the data relied upon in performing its review and producing this Report.  In addition, the findings and conclusions set forth in this Report are provided on an “as is” basis and are based on available information and Applicable Law as of the date of this Report, and SitusAMC does not undertake any obligation to update or provide any revisions to this Report to reflect events, circumstances, changes in Applicable Law, or changes in expectations after the date this Report was issued.  SitusAMC also hereby disclaims any representation or warranty as to accuracy or completeness of the Report, the inclusion or omission of any facts or information, or as to its suitability, sufficiency or appropriateness for the purposes of the transaction parties or investors or the use of the Report in preparation of any other document in connection with the subject transaction.). 

Please be further advised that SitusAMC does not employ personnel who are licensed to practice law in the various jurisdictions covered in this Report, and the results set forth in this Report do not constitute legal advice or legal opinions whatsoever. The findings are recommendations or conclusions based on information provided to SitusAMC, and are not statements of fact or legal conclusions. Information contained in the Report related to the applicable statute of limitations for certain claims may not be accurate or reflect the most recent controlling case law. Further, a particular court in a particular jurisdiction may extend, not enforce or otherwise allow claims beyond the statute of limitations identified in the Report based on certain factors, including the facts and circumstances of an individual mortgage loan.  The authorities administering the Applicable Law that was part of the review have broad discretionary powers which may permit such authorities, among other things, to withdraw exemptions accorded by statute or regulation, to impose additional requirements or to reach a conclusion that is not consistent with the results set forth in the Report. All decisions as to whether to issue, purchase, hold, sell or otherwise transact in securities backed by the mortgage loans reviewed in this Report, any investment strategy and any legal conclusions, including the potential liability related to the purchase or other transaction involving any such securities, shall be made solely by the parties to or investors in the transaction. The results set forth in this Report do not constitute tax or investment advice.  The scoring models in this Report are designed to identify potential risk in the securities backed by the mortgage loans reviewed, and each party or investor assumes sole responsibility for determining the suitability of the information for its particular use. SitusAMC does not make any representation or warranty (express or implied) as to the value of any mortgage loan or mortgage loan’s collateral that has been reviewed by SitusAMC. 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The NRSRO criteria referenced for this report and utilized for grading descriptions is based upon the NRSROs listed in the Form ABS Due Diligence-15E.

OVERALL REVIEW RESULTS SUMMARY

There were two hundred thirty-five (235) loans in the securitization population reviewed by AMC. After all documents were presented, under DBRS NRSRO grading criteria thirty (30) (12.77%) of loans had an Overall grade of “A”, one hundred sixteen (116) (49.36%) of the loans generated an Overall grade of “B”, forty-four (44) (18.72%) of loans had an Overall grade of “C”, and forty-five (45) (19.15%) of loans had an Overall grade of “D”. After all documents were presented, under Fitch NRSRO grading criteria thirty (30) (12.77%) of loans had an Overall grade of “A”, one hundred nineteen (119) (50.64%) of loans had an Overall grade of “B”, forty-six (46) (19.57%) of loans had an Overall grade of “C”, and forty (40) (17.02%) of loans has an Overall grade of “D”.

CREDIT RESULTS SUMMARY

Seventy-seven (77) loans were reviewed to a Compliance Only Scope and therefore not included in the credit results summary. One hundred fifty-eight (158) loans were reviewed in the credit review scope. Fifty-three (53) (33.54%) loans reviewed received an “A” Credit grade, fifty-one (51) (32.28%) loans reviewed received a “B” credit grade, fifty-one (51) (32.28%) loans reviewed received a “C” credit grade, and three (3) (1.90%) loans received a “D” Credit grade.

COMPLIANCE RESULTS SUMMARY

Eight (8) loans were reviewed to a business purpose scope and therefore not included in the compliance results summary. After all documents were presented, under DBRS NRSRO grading criteria sixty (60) (26.43%) loans had a Compliance review grade of “A”, one hundred thirty-eight (138) (60.79%) loans had a Compliance review grade of “B”, seventeen (17) (7.49%) loans had a Compliance review grade of “C”, and twelve (12) (5.29%) had a Compliance review grade of “D”. After all documents were presented, under Fitch NRSRO grading criteria sixty (60) (26.43%) loans had a Compliance review grade of “A”, one hundred thirty-seven (137) (60.35%) loans had a Compliance review grade of “B”, eighteen (18) (7.93%) loans had a Compliance review grade of “C”, and twelve (12) (5.29%) loan had a Compliance review grade of “D”.

PROPERTY/VALUATION RESULTS SUMMARY

After all documents were presented, under DBRS NRSRO grading criteria one hundred twenty-one (121) (76.58%) loans had a Property/Valuation grade of “A”, one (1) (0.63%) loan had a Property/Valuation grade of “B”, five (5) (3.16%) loans had a Property/Valuation grade of “C”, and thirty-one (31) (19.62%) loans had a Property/Valuation grade of “D”. After all documents were presented, under Fitch NRSRO grading criteria one hundred twenty (120) (75.95%) loans had a Property/Valuation grade of “A”, seven (7) (4.43%) loans had a Property/Valuation grade of “B”, five (5) (3.16%) loans had a Property/Valuation grade of “C”, and twenty-six (26) (16.46%) loans had a Property/Valuation grade of “D”.

TAPE INTEGRITY REVIEW RESULTS SUMMARY

Of the two hundred thirty-five (235) loans reviewed, two hundred eight (208) unique loans had one thousand seventy-two (1,072) different tape discrepancies across seventy-five (75) data fields (some Loans had more than one data delta). The most variances were found on Original P&I, Refi Purpose and Maturity Date.

SitusAMC TITLE REVIEW SUMMARY (54 Mortgage Loans)

As part of the due diligence services, the Client provided AMC with identifying data on fifty-four (54) mortgage loans. Based on the scope of review set forth herein, the critical findings are summarized as follows:

ADDITIONAL LOAN POPULATION SUMMARY (some totals may not add due to rounding)