GoodLeap Sustainable Home Solutions Trust 2021-5

Presale:

GoodLeap Sustainable Home Solutions Trust 2021-5October 14, 2021

Preliminary Ratings

Class Preliminary rating(i)Preliminary amount

(mil. $)Subordination and overcollateralization

(%)(ii)Legal finalmaturity

Class A A (sf) 245.879 31.50 Oct 20, 2048

Class B BBB (sf) 32.306 22.50 Oct 20, 2048

Class C BB (sf) 24.229 15.75 Oct 20, 2048

Note: This presale report is based on information as of Oct. 14, 2021. The ratings shown are preliminary. This report does not constitute arecommendation to buy, hold, or sell securities. (i)The ratings on this series are preliminary and subject to change at any time. (ii)As % ofadjusted pool balance. Excludes yield supplement amount and excludes reserve account.

Profile

Expected closing date Nov. 17, 2021.

Collateral The notes will be secured by an underlying trust certificate representing an ownership interestin the trust, whose assets consist of sustainable home improvement loans.

Issuer GoodLeap Sustainable Home Solutions Trust 2021-5.

Sponsor Lime Residential Ltd.

Originator and servicer GoodLeap LLC (formerly known as Loanpal LLC).

Backup servicer Vervent Inc.

Owner trustee Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

Custodian U.S. Bank.

Joint bookrunner andstructuring agent

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC.

Joint bookrunner Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC.

Rationale

The preliminary ratings assigned to GoodLeap Sustainable Home Solutions Trust 2021-5's$302.414 million solar loan backed notes series 2021-5 notes reflect our view of:

- The credit enhancement available in the form of overcollateralization, a yield supplementovercollateralization amount, subordination for classes A and B, and a fully funded cash

Presale:

GoodLeap Sustainable Home Solutions Trust 2021-5October 14, 2021

PRIMARY CREDIT ANALYST

Christine Dalton

New York

+ 1 (212) 438 1136

[email protected]

SECONDARY CONTACTS

Jesse R Sable, CFA

New York

+ 1 (212) 438 6719

[email protected]

Brian Kearon

New York

+ 1 (212) 438 8156

[email protected]

ANALYTICAL MANAGER

Ildiko Szilank

New York

+ 1 (212) 438 2614

[email protected]

www.standardandpoors.com October 14, 2021 1

© S&P Global Ratings. All rights reserved. No reprint or dissemination without S&P Global Ratings' permission. See Terms of Use/Disclaimeron the last page.

2738153

mailto: [email protected]








reserve account;

- The servicer's operational, management, and servicing abilities;

- The obligor base's initial credit quality;

- The projected cash flows supporting the notes; and

- The transaction's structure.

Environmental, Social, And Governance (ESG) Factors

Our rating analysis considered the potential exposure of the transaction to the ESG credit factors.We have not identified any material ESG credit factors in our analysis. Therefore, ESG creditfactors do not influence our assessment of the transaction's credit quality.

Transaction Strengths

The transaction's strengths, in our opinion, include the following:

- The transaction structure;

- The high specified class overcollateralization amounts for each class;

- The relatively young age (approximately two months, on average) of the photovoltaic (PV)systems financed by the solar loans;

- The experienced counterparties, including sub-servicer and backup servicer, on thetransaction;

- The presence of a reserve account equal to one percent of the initial note balance; and

- The performance test of the cumulative default trigger.

Transaction Weaknesses

In our opinion, the transaction's weaknesses include the following:

- The asset and underlying customer performance histories are limited.

- Solar panel quality and performance could vary across different manufacturers and installers.

- Contract start dates are concentrated with an average seasoning of two months (which mightsuggest that future maintenance costs could be clustered), creating liquidity stress on thetransaction cash flows should borrowers have trouble paying as a result of this increased cost.

- There is the risk of borrowers not prepaying their loans with the Solar Tax Credit or withproceeds from a mortgage refinancing, resulting in a higher monthly payment afterreamortization.

Mitigating Factors

The following factors, in our opinion, partly mitigate the transaction's weaknesses:

- Most customers have high FICO scores, with the weighted average being 740.



2738153

Presale: GoodLeap Sustainable Home Solutions Trust 2021-5

- GoodLeap LLC actively solicits borrowers who are in good standing, and who would benefit fromsuch an undertaking, to refinance outstanding mortgage loans. These proceeds can sometimesbe used to prepay the sustainable home improvement loans and other related sustainableassets, resulting in higher prepayments on their loans, a positive for the transaction.

- Solar energy prices have been typically lower than other utility prices. As such, customers willlikely continue to make payments on their solar agreements as long as there is meaningfulvalue proposition and cost savings.

- Recent legislation appears to suggest some balancing of the utilities' and solar developers'needs, including potential transition periods to modified rates for existing solar customers.

- Under our rating scenarios, we used our LEVELs model to assume a stress that is a full ratingcategory higher for the 'A' and 'B' scenarios, and a rating notch higher for the 'C' ratingscenarios. Under these conservative loss assumptions, the structure still withstood the stress.

- PV solar panel technology has existed for many years, and viable replacement technology willlikely take a long time to develop.

- The top three states are among the sunniest states in the U.S., with a higher percentage ofsunny days per year than other states.

- We assume the customers do not prepay their loans with the Solar Tax Credit, and assumingthe higher monthly payment throughout, the classes still pass their relative stress scenarios.

- The systems in the portfolio have completed installation, and the average system has beeninstalled for approximately two months.

- Our stress analysis assumes two waves of default, resulting in cumulative actual default levelsabove our stress assumptions.

- Under our rating scenarios, timely interest and ultimate principal payments are paid on theclass A, B, and C notes by the legal final maturity in the corresponding scenarios.

- Revenue breakevens suggest significant cushion in the structure at each rating level.

Business Description: GoodLeap LLC

Formerly known as Loanpal LLC, Goodleap LLC is a corporation formed in California, originallyunder the Paramount Equity Mortgage Incl in February 2003. Goodleap is the both the originatorand servicer of the sustainable home improvement loans that are contributed to the underlyingtrust. As of May 1, 2021, the company had 1,003 employees and is headquartered in Roseville,Calif. Operating in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the company uses its financialtechnology platform to originate loans that finance purchases of residential sustainable homeimprovements, including solar panels and batteries, smart home devices, HVAC, energy efficientwindows, upgraded roofing, and battery storage. The company launched its core solar productofferings in December 2017, and as of April 2021, the company had originated approximately $6.9billion in sustainable home improvement loans since its inception.

Sustainable Home Improvement Loans

The current loan origination platform for GoodLeap LLC's core solar loan product launched inDecember 2017. Today, Goodleap LLC originates residential sustainable home improvement loansfor residential solar energy systems, energy storage systems, and home efficiency improvements.



2738153


Each sustainable home improvement loan is secured by the sustainable product purchased withthe proceeds of that loan. A solar energy system is a PV energy generating system consisting ofpanels, inverters, electricity storage, energy efficient monitoring, and related equipment. Anenergy storage system refers to a unit that stores energy from a PV system to make it available foruse at a later time. In 2021, GoodLeap launched an offering where the borrower pays interest onlyduring a designated "interest-only period," and then it amortizes into a standard principal andinterest loan thereafter. These interest-only loans make up approximately 14% of the pool byaggregate principal balance,; while this is an uptick from the 2021-4, management expects thiswill level off as the product matures.

Origination Of Customer Agreements And Credit Underwriting

GoodLeap originates solar loans through its relationships with approved installers. In conjunctionwith those agreements, the approved installers typically access GoodLeap's website or API in realtime during the process of selling the solar product in order to qualify the consumer for a solarloan while making the sale. To help process the sale, GoodLeap utilizes an algorthimic approachbased on factors like FICO score, credit bureau reports, bankruptcy/foreclosure status, currentdelinquencies, and debt-to-income limits. For residential customers, the current creditunderwriting policy tiers the minimum FICO score required by maximum loan amounts, with a 600FICO representing the minimum requirement for the lowest loan tier. The fully automatedelectronic credit decisioning system relies on certain consumer supplied information, such aspersonal identity and income. With the prospective obligor's permission, other information ispulled from credit bureaus and other providers of consumer information. The credit decisioningsystem uses this information to substantiate the consumer-provided information and to process acredit decision using a set of rules established by GoodLeap's credit policies and procedures.

Historical Performance Of GoodLeap Solar Loans

Although the historical data is short, there is still value in looking at how GoodLeap's loans haveperformed since they started issuing them in December 2017. Of the approximately $5.8 billionoutstanding loans originated in their initial customer base of FICO 650+ borrowers, over the pastyear, the share of loans that were more than 30 days delinquent has averaged approximately 1.7%as a percentage of outstanding balance, and the share of loans that were more than 120 daysdelinquent has averaged approximately 0.9%. In terms of voluntary prepays, GoodLeap has seen amonthly average constant prepayment rate of approximately 11.7% since first-quarter 2018.

Industry Characteristics: Distributed Solar Generation Sector Outlook

S&P Global Ratings segments the solar industry into three sectors: utility scale, commercial andindustrial, and residential. The latter two sectors are referred to as "distributed solar generation,"or "rooftop solar."

The solar market is transitioning to a market more focused on solar energy systems financedthrough loans, as opposed to solar financed through a lease/power purchase agreement model.This is likely the result of a couple factors. Customers who own their solar energy system via loanfinancing are eligible to reap the benefits of federal tax credits that are worth as much as 26% ofthe value of their system. On the installer side of the equation, installation companies may preferto sell solar energy systems via third-party loan financing because of the accounting benefits thatcome along with recognizing revenue upfront, freeing up operating capital to spur growth.

Residential rooftop solar continues to grow strongly. According to the "Solar Energy Industries



2738153


Association U.S. Solar Market Insight Report 2021 Q2®," residential PV grew 11% year over year,but declined 8% from a record-setting fourth-quarter 2020. Residential solar had its largest firstquarter ever this year, installing 905 megawatts (DC) capacity, which was 11% higher thanfirst-quarter 2020 installations. Florida and Arizona saw record highs for installations in a singlequarter. Texas, despite being offline due to a strong winter storm in February, still saw itsstrongest first quarter ever of installations.

Overall, all solar PV installations represented 58% of new electricity generating capacity additionsin first-quarter 2021.

From now through the end of 2023, we expect distributed solar generation to continue to growrapidly, fueled by:

- Declining PV system installation-related costs, such as customer acquisition and financing andsystem component costs;

- SEIA sees the two-year extension of the federal solar Investment Tax Credit through 2023driving double-digit growth for the next two years;

- President Biden's infrastructure plan, if passed, could provide significant upside to the industryas a whole; and

- Policies aiming to increase the use of distributed solar generation. However, the outlook forsustained, long-term growth is tempered as the new industry faces specific challenges relatingto possible policy changes.

Transaction Structure

GoodLeap Sustainable Home Solutions 2021-5, the issuer, is a statutory trust formed under thelaws of the state of Delaware for the purposes of: forming the underlying trust to acquire and holda portfolio of solar loans and other related sustainable assets; owning the underlying trustcertificate, which proves entire beneficial ownership of the underlying trust; and to issue thesesecurities. On the closing date, pursuant to a sale and contribution agreement, the issuer willacquire from the sponsor all the rights, title, and interest in the portfolio of solar loans and otherrelated sustainable assets, as well as the obligor note and security agreement, including the rightto receive all payments, security interests, liens, and assignments securing the paymentagreement. Pursuant to the indenture, the issuer will pledge the trust estate to the indenturetrustee for the noteholders' benefit to secure the notes. See chart 1 below for the transactiondiagram.



2738153


Pool Characteristics And Transaction Comparison

The collateral pool consists of $358.9 million of residential solar loans. The pool characteristics forGoodLeap Sustainable Home Solutions 2021-5 are as of the Sept. 22, 2021, the statistical cutoffdate. We have also included several recent transactions in the solar loan securitization sector forcomparison. With the exception of Goodleap 2021-4, these deals have not been rated by S&PGlobal Ratings. Tables 1 and 2 compare the structures and some collateral information acrossthose deals.



2738153


Table 1

Transaction Size And Credit Enhancement Comparison

GOOD2021-5

GOOD2021-4

GOOD2021-3

LPSLT2021-2

LPSLT2021-1

LPSLT2020-3

LPSLT2020-2

LPSLT2020-1

Class A ($) 245,879,000 253,722,000 304,696,000 290,698,000 327,259,000 292,038,000 211,998,000 181,354,000

Class B ($) 32,306,000 26,037,000 29,217,000 27,385,000 32,015,000 26,830,000 18,042,000 15,457,000

Class C ($) 24,229,000 24,744,000 27,130,000 25,278,000 30,828,000 27,862,000 21,801,000 13,750,000

Class D ($) -- -- -- --

Total ($) 302,414,000 304,503,000 361,043,000 343,361,000 390,102,000 346,730,000 251,841,000 210,561,000

Initialovercollateralization(%)(i)

13.73 9.15 10.18 10.98 9.39 9.90 11.46 12.48

Initial reserve (%)(i) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10

Reserve floor (%)(ii) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

YSOC - specifieddiscount rate (%)

3.25 3.50 3.50 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.50

(i)Of the aggregate principal amount of the notes outstanding. (ii)Of the initial principal amount of the notes outstanding. GOOD--GoodLeap Sustainable HomeSolutions Trust. LPSLT--. YSOC--Yield supplement overcollateralization.

Table 2

Collateral Comparison

GOOD2021-5

GOOD2021-4

GOOD2021-3

LPSLT2021-2

LPSLT2021-1

LPSLT2020-3

LPSLT2020-2

LPSLT2020-1

Initial poolbalance ($)

358,947,397 369,318,847 417,392,201 421,301,321 474,288,715 434,499,053 300,707,012 263,998,381

Number of loans 8,920 9,333 10,569 10,840 14,364 11,860 8,739 8,387

Avg current loanbalance ($)

40,241 39,571 39,492 38,865 33,019 36,636 34,704 31,477

WA coupon (%) 2.72 2.96 3.12 3.12 3.61 3.15 3.37 3.99

WA FICO 740 741 741 744 742 744 743 750

WA original term(months)

289 289 293 294 268 294 285 244

WA remainingterm (months)

285 286 289 290 258 291 282 239

FICO score distribution (%)

600 to 649 3.91 2.69 1.03 0.63 3.02 3.27 2.47 -

650 to 699 21.55 22.38 23.44 21.52 20.78 19.90 22.53 20.94

700 to 749 32.74 32.08 33.10 34.16 32.91 32.04 30.79 30.50

750 to 799 22.68 23.48 23.78 24.68 23.95 24.88 24.21 25.10

800+ 19.13 19.37 18.65 19.01 19.34 19.91 20.00 23.46

Top three states concentration (%)

State 1 TX: 22.43 TX: 23.47 TX: 25.07 TX: 27.56 TX: 21.97 TX: 24.81 TX: 22.47 CA: 22.83

State 2 FL: 14.28 FL: 13.82 FL: 16.76 FL: 14.77 CA: 17.01 FL: 13.01 FL: 16.45 TX: 17.97



2738153


Table 2

Collateral Comparison (cont.)

GOOD2021-5

GOOD2021-4

GOOD2021-3

LPSLT2021-2

LPSLT2021-1

LPSLT2020-3

LPSLT2020-2

LPSLT2020-1

State 3 CA: 11.21 AZ: 11.06 AZ: 10.44 AZ: 9.66 AZ: 10.21 AZ: 12.04 AZ: 14.01 AZ: 11.40

Top threestates

47.91 48.34 52.28 51.99 49.19 49.86 52.93 52.20

Type of loans

Interest only 13.92 7.99 0.88 -- -- -- 0.00 --

Standard(fullamortization)

86.08 92.01 99.12 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

(i)All percentages are of initial unadjusted collateral balance. GOOD--GoodLeap Sustainable Home Solutions. LPSLT-- WA--Weighted average.

Tables 3, 4, and 5 look at the collateral for this transaction at a more detailed level.

Table 3

Amortization Type

Loan productNo. ofloans

% of no. ofloans

Aggregate principalbalance ($)

% of aggregateprincipal balance

WAFICO

WA interestrate

Fully amortizing 7,644 85.70 308,994,119 86.08 738 2.80

18-month interestonly

1,276 14.30 49,953,278 13.92 749 2.22

Total 8,920 100.00 358,947,397 100.00 740 2.72

WA--Weighted average.

Table 4

FICO Score At Origination

FICO ccore atorigination

No. ofLoans

% of no. ofloans


% of aggregateprincipal balance

WAFICO

WA interestrate (%)

600 to 649 393 4.41 14,018,168 3.91 628 3.29

650 to 699 1,968 22.06 77,337,195 21.55 675 2.79

700 to 749 2,741 30.73 117,515,407 32.74 723 2.71

750 to 799 2,044 22.91 81,401,275 22.68 773 2.66

800 and above 1,774 19.89 68,675,352 19.13 824 2.63

Total 8,920 100.00 358,947,397 100.00 740 2.72




2738153


Table 5

Portfolio Distribution By State

StateNo. ofLoans % of pool


% of aggregate principalbalance

WAFICO

WA interest rate(%)

Texas 1,900 21.30 80,503,083 22.43 726 2.64

Florida 1,146 12.85 51,249,375 14.28 730 2.72

California 1,151 12.90 40,224,520 11.21 756 2.78

Arizona 888 9.96 34,845,494 9.71 743 2.50

Nevada 589 6.60 21,877,311 6.09 746 2.41

Colorado 594 6.66 17,700,728 4.93 755 2.72

NorthCarolina

340 3.81 13,577,102 3.78 737 2.79

Virginia 279 3.13 12,621,331 3.52 753 2.77

New Mexico 260 2.91 8,138,998 2.27 742 2.79

SouthCarolina

174 1.95 7,230,038 2.01 724 2.82

All others 1,599 17.93 70,979,417 19.77 745 2.96

Total 8,920 100.00 358,947,397 100.00 740 2.72


Cash Flow Assumptions

Solar asset-backed securities (ABS) is a relatively new asset class, so the underlying performancehistory is limited as the sector continues to grow and evolve. S&P Global Ratings considers theperformance of related asset classes to develop involuntary default assumptions for solarcontracts.

For residential solar obligors, we use our methodology for determining foreclosure frequency, ameasure of the probability of default, for residential mortgages as a proxy for residential solarinvoluntary defaults. We believe that if the homeowner defaults on their mortgage, they will alsolikely default on their solar contract. Solar involuntary defaults may even be higher thanresidential mortgage loans, as homeowners are still connected to the grid and can switch back togrid-provided electricity if they fail to make their solar payments.

Foreclosure frequency for residential mortgages is a function of characteristics related to theborrowers, loans, security arrangements, and properties that are distinct to each country. Themethodology to determine the foreclosure frequency for this pool was thus taken from our U.SRMBS criteria.

Because residential mortgages are only a proxy for solar defaults, conventional borrowercharacteristics for mortgages that may have an impact on foreclosure frequency, such asloan-to-value ratios, may not be available for solar contracts. In addition, there is also thepossibility that solar involuntary defaults could be higher than residential mortgages. Therefore,our criteria assume a solar contract default rate that will exceed the foreclosure frequency forresidential mortgages for any given rating level. For investment-grade rating scenarios, weassume a foreclosure frequency associated with a rating of one-to-three notches higher than therating level desired, depending on the performance factors. For speculative-grade ratings, we



2738153


assume one notch higher. For example, in order to assign a 'BBB' rating, we may assume aninvoluntary default assumption consistent with a 'A' rating stress for residential mortgages.

To determine how many notches our stress assumptions will exceed that of the assigned solarrating, we consider many performance factors, such as the historical collateral performance,years of historical data, originator and servicer experience and capabilities, underwriting criteria,industry position and reputation, geographic risks and market- and jurisdiction-specificconsiderations.

We assess the strength of the above-mentioned performance factors and then increase theforeclosure frequency from the RMBS model results.

Even though the loans are backed by the value of the equipment they are used to finance, wetypically assume no recoveries for equipment associated with solar systems upon removal due toan involuntary default. Typically, there is minimal value in old solar systems, given the rapidevolution of technology in the industry and the often-uneconomical removal costs.

In this specific pool, we encountered two groups of loans that we considered to have higher riskprofiles than others. These were the loans with an 18-month interest-only period before theyamortize, and the loans made to borrowers with FICO scores between 600 and 649. Due to the lackof history and the higher risk profiles of these loans, they were stressed with a 1.5x multiple whenrunning our LEVELs model.

The results of these different stresses can be seen in the following loss rates for each economicrating scenario; we arrived at a gross default rate of 14.0% for the 'A' scenario, 11.1% for the 'BBB'scenario, and 6.7% for the 'BB' scenario.

Default Timing Curves And Prepayment Speeds

As laid out in our solar criteria, we also borrow from our RMBS criteria for the default timing curvesand prepayment speeds used in our analysis. We run each scenario through the following defaulttiming curves and prepayment speeds.

Table 6

Gross Default Timing Curves For Cash Flow Modeling (%)

Year Standard Back-loaded

1 7.00 5.00

2 22.00 12.00

3 28.00 12.00

4 18.00 12.00

5 10.00 19.00

6 7.00 15.00

7 4.00 9.00

8 4.00 7.00

9 0.00 5.00

10 0.00 4.00

11 7.00 5.00

12 22.00 12.00

13 28.00 12.00

14 18.00 12.00



2738153


Table 6

Gross Default Timing Curves For Cash Flow Modeling(%) (cont.)

Year Standard Back-loaded

15 10.00 19.00

16 7.00 15.00

17 4.00 9.00

18 4.00 7.00

19 0.00 5.00

20 0.00 4.00

Note: These percentages add up to 200% because they reflect our use of two separate default waves.

Table 7

Prepayment Speeds by Rating Scenario (%)

Scenario AAA AA A BBB BB B

Low 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

High 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

Cash Flow Results

Because this asset class has a relatively limited operating history, we examined residentialmortgage customer defaults as a potential proxy for default risk, given similarities in customercredit profiles and duration of cash flow.

We believe the primary drivers for determining the cash flows generated by the transaction are theinvoluntary default and prepayment speed. While we view the model results as good quantitativeindications, qualitative measures may also affect the transaction's actual performance, includingthe:

- Originator's underwriting standards;

- Servicing, operations, and maintenance provider's strength and responsibilities;

- Economic value and savings associated with solar systems;

- Geographic diversity;

- Customer credit quality and diversity;

- Terms of the customer agreements;

- Portfolio seasoning and performance history;

- Quality and diversification of manufacturers of systems financed by the solar loans;

- System installation and maintenance quality;

- Duration and diversification of cash flow sources;

- Federal, state, and local government support and incentives;



2738153


- Level of third-party participation within the structure; and

- Political backdrop and regulatory framework.

Rating Scenarios

Our rating scenarios incorporate the default and prepay assumptions above. We do not considerstresses to solar energy production estimates, customer agreement reassignment andrenegotiation, and operating and capital expenditures. This is because we view borrower behaviordifferently for loans due to the ownership aspect of loan borrowers.

Although a solar loan may be secured by the PV system's equipment, we typically do not assumeany recoveries given the limited value of the equipment upon repossession due to depreciationand advances in technology. Furthermore, we do not believe it is likely for the solar system to beredeployed, and the cost to remove a solar system from a residential property may offset anyrecoveries.

We typically do not assume loan reassignments upon an involuntary default or a homeownermove. In the case of GoodLeap LLC's loans, the borrower owns the solar system, and thesecuritization is only entitled to principal and interest payments on the loan. While GoodLeap LLCdoes attempt to repossess the solar system equipment, it is often costly and difficult to do so. Forthese reasons, we assume zero recovery on defaulted loans.

When an obligor of a solar loan involuntarily defaults, because we assume no reassignments orany recoveries on the equipment after default, 100% of solar loans enter a permanent dark periodwhere all cash flow terminates upon the default.

We do not assume voluntary defaults for residential solar loans. We believe that ownership in thesolar system should mitigate voluntary defaults. As the borrower's equity ownership percentageincreases and the loan becomes more seasoned (getting closer to full ownership), there is lesslikelihood of the obligor voluntarily defaulting.

Additionally, when consumers own the system, they may have also taken advantage ofgovernment tax credits or other incentives that may result in repayment or recapture if they loseownership. We believe that this is a significant incentive to continue paying on their contract. Thetax credits may also be used to prepay the loan directly and possibly maintain a beneficial interestrate, which further accelerates the principal balance reduction and ownership percentage.

GoodLeap LLC's solar loan products have fixed payments and are agnostic to the level of solarproduction. The only variability in payments may occur surrounding a reamortization period,usually around month 18, depending on if or how much of the solar Investment Tax Credit hasbeen applied to the loan or if it is prepaid with a mortgage refinance. For our modeling purposes,we make the conservative assumption that this prepayment is not made for any loans.

Therefore, our rating scenarios is comprised of two primary drivers: involuntary default levels andprepayment speeds.

Our rating assumptions are significantly more stressful than GoodLeap LLC's historicalexperience. In each of our 12 rating scenarios, the rated class in question received timely interestand ultimate principal due before legal final maturity.



2738153


Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity run: revenue breakeven

We performed break-even tests, in addition to the stressed scenarios, to provide informationabout the transaction's cash flow to the key stress factors discussed above. In the revenuebreakeven test, we strip out a certain percentage of the deal's incoming revenue each period, andsee how high this number can go before causing a failure in the relevant bond. See the below tablefor the revenue breakeven results by rating scenario.

Table 8

Revenue Breakevens by Rating Scenario

Tranche/Scenario A BBB BB

Default curve Standard Back-loaded Standard Back-loaded Standard Back-loaded

Prepay speed (%) 3.00 20.00 3.00 20.00 4.00 20.00 4.00 20.00 5.00 20.00 5.00 20.00

Revenue breakeven (%) 14.00 16.00 14.00 11.00 7.00 8.00 7.00 2.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 2.00

Payment Priority

Tables 9 and 10 detail the distribution of payments each period. Table 9 represents the pre-eventof default (EOD) payment priority to noteholders, and table 10 represents the payment priorityafter an EOD has been deemed to occur.

Table 9

Pre-EOD Payment Priority To Noteholders

Payment Priority

1 Fees and expenses owed to the indenture trustee, custodian, trustee, payment agent, and backupservicer, subject to a senior expense cap.

2 Fees and expenses to the servicer.

3 Transaction expenses.

4 Class A interest.

5 Class A first-priority distribution.

6 Class R equity priority distribution.

7 Class A subordinate lockout principal distribution, in the event of the cumulative default trigger.

8 Class B interest.

9 Sequentially, class A second priority principal distribution amount, and then class B second priorityprincipal distribution amount.

10 Class B subordinate lockout principal distribution amount, in the event of the cumulative defaulttrigger.

11 Class C interest.

12 Sequentially, class A third-priority principal distribution amount, then class B third-priority principaldistribution amount, and then class C third-priority principal distribution amount.

13 Class C subordinate lockout principal distribution amount.



2738153


Table 9

Pre-EOD Payment Priority To Noteholders (cont.)

Payment Priority

14 Replenish the reserve account.

15 Class A regular principal distribution amount.

16 Class B regular principal distribution amount.

17 Class C regular principal distribution amount.

18 Indenture trustee, custodian, paying agent, note registrar, owner trustee, and backup servicersubordinate transaction expenses, pro rata fees, capped due amounts.

19 Servicer subordinate transaction expenses, capped at due amounts.

20 Remainder to go to class R subordinate noteholders.

Table 10

Post-EOD Payment Priority To Noteholders

Payment Priority

1 Fees and expenses owed to the indenture trustee, custodian, trustee, payment agent, andbackup servicer, subject to a senior expense cap.

2 Fees and expenses to the servicer.

3 Transaction expenses.

4 Class A interest.

5 Class A principal until reduced to zero.

6 Class B interest.

7 Class A principal until reduced to zero.

8 Class C interest.

9 Class C principal until reduced to zero.

10 Remainder to go to class R subordinate noteholders.

EODs

Under the transaction documents, each of the following constitutes an EOD:

- Default on the interest payments on the most senior class of notes continuing for five days;

- Default on principal payments at the rated final maturity;

- The issuer fails to perform its obligations in the transmitting of moneys to the collectionaccount within five business days;

- The issuer fails to perform any of the covenants, agreements, or conditions in the indenture orunderlying trust agreement, or any representation or warranty made by the issuer is proven tohave been false; and

- The issuer becomes insolvent.



2738153


Servicer Events Of Default

Under the transaction documents, a servicer event of default will occur if certain events orconditions occur and are continuing, including:

- The servicer fails to make any required payment, transfer, or deposit within three business dayof when it's required

- The servicer fails to deliver to the indenture trustee the monthly servicer report within fivebusiness days of when it is required;

- The servicer fails to materially observe or perform any covenant or agreement contained in thetransaction documents;

- Certain events of bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership, or reorganization of the servicer occur;and

- Any representation, warranty, or statement of the servicer made in any transaction documentsprove to be incorrect in any material respect.

Legal Matters

We expect the issuers' special-purpose entity provisions to be consistent with S&P Global Ratings'bankruptcy-remoteness criteria. In rating this transaction, we will review the legal matters that webelieve are relevant to our analysis, as outlined in our criteria.

Surveillance

We will maintain active surveillance on the rated notes until the notes mature or are retired. Thepurpose of surveillance is to assess whether the notes are performing within the initialparameters and assumptions applied to each rating category. The transaction terms require theissuer to supply periodic reports and notices to S&P Global Ratings for maintaining continuoussurveillance on the rated notes.

Related Criteria

- General Criteria: Environmental, Social, And Governance Principles In Credit Ratings, Oct. 10,2021

- Criteria | Structured Finance | General: Global Framework For Payment Structure And CashFlow Analysis Of Structured Finance Securities, Dec. 22, 2020

- Criteria | Structured Finance | ABS: Global Methodology For Solar ABS Transactions, May 16,2019

- Criteria | Structured Finance | Legal: U.S. Structured Finance Asset Isolation AndSpecial-Purpose Entity Criteria, May 15, 2019

- Criteria | Structured Finance | General: Counterparty Risk Framework: Methodology AndAssumptions, March 8, 2019

- Criteria | Structured Finance | RMBS: Methodology And Assumptions For Rating U.S. RMBSIssued 2009 And Later, Feb. 22, 2018



2738153


- Criteria | Structured Finance | General: Global Framework For Assessing Operational Risk InStructured Finance Transactions, Oct. 9, 2014

- General Criteria: Global Investment Criteria For Temporary Investments In TransactionAccounts, May 31, 2012

- General Criteria: Principles Of Credit Ratings, Feb. 16, 2011



2738153


S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain credit-related 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,www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributedthrough other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available atwww.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.

S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respectiveactivities. 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 establishedpolicies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process.

Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed andnot 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 toupdate 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 andexperience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not actas 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. Rating-relatedpublications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limitedto, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.

To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certainregulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Partiesdisclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damagealleged to have been suffered on account thereof.

Copyright © 2021 Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved.

No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any partthereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrievalsystem, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not beused for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees oragents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are notresponsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or forthe 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 EXPRESSOR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ORUSE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THECONTENT 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, withoutlimitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advisedof the possibility of such damages.

Standard & Poor’s | Research | October 14, 2021 17

2738153


GoodLeap Sustainable Home Solutions Trust 2021-5

Documents

Transcript of GoodLeap Sustainable Home Solutions Trust 2021-5