| • |
The term “compared” means compared to the information shown and found it to be in agreement, unless otherwise stated. Such compared information was deemed to agree if differences were within the
reporting threshold.
|
| • |
The term “recomputed” means recalculated and compared the result to the information shown and found it to be in agreement, unless otherwise stated. Such recomputed information was deemed to be in
agreement if differences were within the reporting threshold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| • |
The term “reporting threshold” means that dollar amounts, percentages, days and years were within $1, 0.2%, 1 day and .01 years, respectively.
|
| • |
The term “Source Documents” means the Loan File and Additional Document.
|
| • |
The term “Provided Information” means the Source Documents and Instructions.
|
|
Agreed Upon Procedures
|
Findings
|
|
1. Using the unaudited Extract File that contains certain information related to a pool of auto loan receivables as of August 31, 2026 (the “Cut-off Date”), provided by the Bank,
KPMG randomly selected a sample of 150 auto loan contracts from the unaudited Extract File (the “Sample Receivables”).
|
N/A
|
|
2. For each of the Sample Receivables, KPMG obtained, from the Bank, the credit agreement in respect of the loan (the “Credit Agreement”), and observed whether it contains the
respective obligor’s signature.
KPMG did not perform any procedures to establish the authenticity of the signatures or the Credit Agreement.
|
No findings noted.
|
|
3. For each of the Sample Receivables, KPMG compared the following particulars per the respective Credit Agreement to the information contained in the unaudited Extract File:
i. “Vehicle Information Number (VIN)/Serial No.” as per the Credit Agreement to the description in column entitled “VIN” in the unaudited Extract File.
ii. “Unpaid Balance of Cash Selling Price and Fees to be Financed” as per the Credit Agreement to the amount in the column entitled “FINANCEAMOUNT” per the unaudited Extract File.
iii. “Payment frequency” as per the Credit Agreement to the number in the column entitled “PYMT_FREQ_CD” per the unaudited Extract File. The Bank has informed KPMG that “Monthly” per the Credit Agreement
equates to “M” in the unaudited Extract File, “Bi-Weekly” to “B” and “Weekly” to “W”. For any exceptions noted, KPMG obtained the “Loan Account Inquiry” that included a detailed transaction history list outlining the change in payment
frequency.
iv. “Term of Loan” as per the Credit Agreement to the number (the term in months) in the column entitled “ORIGINALTERM” per the unaudited Extract File.
v. “Fixed Interest Rate” as per the Credit Agreement to the number (the rate) in the column entitled “INTERESTRATE” per the unaudited Extract File.
|
No findings noted.
|
|
Agreed Upon Procedures
|
Findings
|
vi. “New or Used” as per the Credit Agreement to the description in the column entitled “NEWUSED” per the unaudited Extract File.
vii. “Make and Model” as per the Credit Agreement to the descriptions in the columns entitled “MAKE” and “MODEL” per the unaudited Extract File.
|
|
|
4. For each of the Sample Receivables, KPMG compared the “Decision Date” contained in screenshots from the Bank’s systems to the “BOOK_DT” per the unaudited Extracted File.
KPMG has not performed any procedures to verify the authenticity of the Bank’s system screenshots.
|
No findings noted.
|
|
5. For each of the Sample Receivables, KPMG recomputed, using the respective Credit Agreement, the “Fixed Interest Rate” using the “Unpaid Balance of Cash Selling Price and Fees to be Financed”, “Term of Loan” and the
“instalment” (amount), and compared the result to the corresponding “Fixed Interest Rate” on each respective Credit Agreement.
|
No findings noted.
|
|
6. For each of the Sample Receivables, KPMG obtained, from the Bank, the Personal Property Registration document, and reported an exception if the “Registration date” was after the Cut-off Date (as defined above).
KPMG has not performed any procedures to verify the authenticity of the Personal Property Registration document.
|
No findings noted.
|
|
7. For each of the Sample Receivables, KPMG obtained, from the Bank, the Personal Property Registration document, and reported an exception if the “Expiry Date” was before the Cut-off Date (as defined above).
KPMG has not performed any procedures to verify the authenticity of the Personal Property Registration document.
|
No findings noted.
|