OREANDA-NEWS. S&P Global Ratings today affirmed its ratings on 13 classes from seven Enterprise Fleet Financing LLC (EFF) transactions: series 2013-1, 2013-2, 2014-1, 2014-2, 2015-1, 2015-2, and 2016-1 (see list).

Today's rating actions reflect collateral performance to date and our expectations regarding future collateral performance, as well as each transaction's structure and credit enhancement. Additionally, we incorporated secondary credit factors, including credit stability, payment priorities under various scenarios, and sector - and issuer-specific analysis. Considering all these factors, we believe the creditworthiness of the notes remains consistent with the affirmed ratings.

Series 2013-1, 2013-2, 2014-1, and 2014-2 are performing better than we had initially expected. As a result, we lowered our loss expectations for these transactions because of lower-than-expected net losses and our view of future collateral performance.

Series 2015-1, 2015-2, and 2016-1--at months 16, 13, and 3, respectively--are still relatively young transactions, with pool factors of 51.83%, 64.66%, and 79.67%, respectively. These transactions are performing better than our initial expectations, but we are maintaining our initial loss expectations pending further collateral performance (see tables 1 and 2).

In table 1, cumulative net loss (CNL) data reflect net charge-offs in the column labeled Cumulative CNL. The transactions also include unaffirmed leases, reported on a gross basis without credit to recoveries, as charge-offs. In our analysis, we consider both charge-offs and unaffirmed leases on a net basis and apply a stressed recovery rate.

In our analysis, we applied stress to EFM's historical recovery rates, which have been strong and stable, to reflect potential deterioration in the pool's recovery performance due to either EFM no longer being the servicer or other factors that may affect the recovery rates. For pools with seasoning, the length of time during which recovery rates may be subject to downward pressure from declining vehicle resale values or EFM no longer being the servicer is shorter. Because the risk period is shorter, we can apply less stress when determining stressed recovery rates for transactions with lower pool factors. Our analysis takes into account stressed recovery rates that are higher than those we initially considered for series 2013-1, 2013-2, 2014-1, and 2014-2. For series 2015-1, 2015-2, and 2016-1, we did not adjust our stressed recovery rate because the pool factors remain relatively high.

Our stressed loss level for each pool considers obligor concentrations. Each individual obligor concentration is below 1.50% of the pool balance for each transaction, with the exception of series 2013-2. This threshold is the level at which we generally begin incorporating obligor default risk into our stress loss analysis as an additive factor to actuarial losses. Therefore, for all transactions other than series 2013-2, we did not adjust our stressed loss by an additive factor for obligor concentrations. For series 2013-2, we did include the one obligor concentration in excess of 1.50% of the pool balance as an additive factor in our stressed loss calculations, in addition to considering the actuarial level of losses.