Ratings

Preliminary Ratings As Of Nov. 4, 2009
Class	Preliminary rating*	Type	Interest rate¶	Preliminary amount (mil. $)§	Legal final maturity date
A-1**	AAA	Senior	Fixed	224.0	Nov. 15, 2010
A-2	AAA	Senior	Fixed	195.0	March 15, 2012
A-3	AAA	Senior	Fixed	385.0	Feb. 18, 2014
A-4	AAA	Senior	Fixed	176.0	July 15, 2015
B**	NR	Subordinate	Fixed	20.0	May. 16, 2016
*The rating of each class of securities is preliminary and subject to change at any time. ¶The interest rates on the notes will be determined on the pricing date. §The actual size of these tranches will be determined on the pricing date. **The class A-1 and B notes are not being offered for sale at this time. NR�??Not rated.

Profile
Expected closing date	Nov. 13, 2009.
Collateral	Prime auto loan receivables.
Originator, sponsor, seller, and servicer	USAA Federal Savings Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Services Automobile Association (AAA/Stable/--).
Indenture trustee	The Bank of New York Mellon.
Depositor	USAA Acceptance LLC.
Underwriters	Barclays Capital Inc. and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC.
Owner trustee	Wells Fargo Delaware Trust Co.

Credit Enhancement Summary (%)
	USAA Auto Owner Trust 2009-2			USAA Auto Owner Trust 2009-1
	Initial*	Target¶	Floor*	Initial*	Target¶	Floor*
Class A
Subordination	2.00	2.00*	2.00	3.00	3.00*	3.00
Reserve account	0.50	1.00	0.50	0.50	1.35	0.50
Total	2.50	3.00	2.50	3.50	4.35	3.50
Class B
Reserve account	0.50	1.00	0.50	0.50	1.35	0.50
Total	0.50	1.00	0.50	0.50	1.35	0.50
Estimated annual excess spread¶	3.76	�??	�??	2.45	�??	�??
*Percent of the initial receivables balance. ¶Percent of the current receivables balance. ¶Assume a 0.50% annual servicing fee.

The preliminary ratings assigned to USAA Auto Owner Trust 2009-2's (the trust's) asset-backed notes reflect our view of:

• The availability of approximately 6.47% of credit support for the class A notes, based on stressed break-even cash flow scenarios, which provides coverage of approximately 5x our 1.10%-1.30% expected net loss range (see Standard & Poor's Expected Loss section for more information);
• The transaction's ability to withstand more than 1.5x our expected net loss level in our "what-if" scenario analysis before becoming vulnerable to a negative CreditWatch action and/or a potential downgrade;
• The timely interest and ultimate principal payments made under stressed cash flow modeling scenarios appropriate to the assigned preliminary ratings;
• The collateral characteristics of the securitized pool of auto loans; and
• The transaction's payment and legal structures.

The structural and enhancement changes from the series 2009-1 transaction include:

• Our expected loss range increased to 1.10%-1.30% from 1.00%-1.20%;
• Subordination decreased to 2.00% from 3.00% for the class A notes;
• The reserve account target decreased to 1.00% of the outstanding pool balance from 1.35%; and
• The estimated annual excess spread increased to 3.76% from 2.45%.

The changes in the collateral composition from the series 2009-1 transaction include:

• The weighted average annual percentage rate (APR) decreased to 6.39% from 6.70%;
• The weighted average FICO score increased to 735 from 730;
• The percentage of loans with a weighted average FICO score above 700 increased to 73.4% from 68.2%;
• The percentage of used vehicles increased to 45.78% from 40.67%; and
• The percentage of loans with original term greater than 60 months increased to 36.45% from 36.05%.

The series 2009-2 transaction incorporates the following structural features:

• A sequential pay mechanism between the class A and B notes that results in increased credit enhancement for the class A notes as the pool amortizes;
• The subordination of approximately 2.00% for the benefit of the class A noteholders; and
• An initial reserve account of 0.50% of the initial pool balance, which will grow to 1.00% of the current pool balance, and a floor of 0.50% of the initial pool balance.

The transaction structure is shown in chart 1.

Interest and principal is scheduled to be paid on the rated notes on each monthly distribution date, beginning Dec. 15, 2009.

The payment priority that USAA Federal Savings Bank (USAA) presented to Standard & Poor's Ratings Services provides that the available auto loan collections will be used to make the distributions shown in table 1. In addition, the funds in the reserve account are intended to be available to cover interest shortfalls, make priority principal payments, and make principal payments that are due at the notes' final maturity date.

Table 1 Payment Waterfall
Priority	Payment
1	Reimburse outstanding advances to the servicer.
2	The 0.50% annual servicing fee to the servicer.
3	Class A note interest, ratably to the class A noteholders.
4	First priority principal payment.
5	Class B note interest to the class B noteholders.
6	Regular principal payment.
7	Reserve account deposit, up to its required level.
8	Indenture and owner trustee fees and expenses.
9	Any unpaid servicer fees and expenses not paid in item 2.
10	Remaining amounts to the certificateholders.

We expect to receive legal opinions to the effect that:

• The transfer of the receivables from USAA to the depositor will constitute a true sale for purposes of applicable Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. regulations and would not be avoidable in the event of an insolvency of USAA; and
• The depositor's assets would not be consolidated with those of its parent company, USAA, in the event of USAA's bankruptcy.

In addition, we will look for representations and warranties in the appropriate underlying documents indicating that the indenture trustee has a first-priority perfected security interest in the receivables and any related proceeds for the noteholders' benefit.

Electronic contracts make up approximately 62% of the initial receivables pool. Unlike indirect originators, who acquire auto loan contracts from the dealers, USAA makes the loans directly to the dealers' customers. Therefore, the series 2009-2 transaction does not face the risk that the dealers' creditors could achieve rights in the contracts ahead of USAA and, consequently, the noteholders. Accordingly, unlike transactions involving indirect origination of electronic contracts, we do not look for legal comfort regarding USAA's rights in the contracts relative to the dealers in this transaction.

Our cumulative net loss projections for the USAA Auto Owner Trust 2005-3 through 2008-3 pools range from 0.35% to 1.23%. Paid-off securitizations from the series 2000-1 to 2005-2 transactions had cumulative net losses ranging from 0.18% to 0.68% (see chart 2).

We do not expect the 2006 vintage to perform as well as the 2001-2005 vintages. The weighted average FICO score for the 2006 vintage ranged from 704 to 716. The weighted average FICO score on the earlier vintages since 2001 were, in general, higher than 716 and ranged from 716 to 728. The 2006 vintage consistently recorded higher 30-plus-day delinquencies than the previous five annual vintages and currently tracks losses above the 2000 vintage levels (see chart 3).

We expect the 2008 vintage, which had higher weighted average FICO scores (in the 740-749 range) than any of the previous vintages, to perform in line with our 0.8%-1.0% cumulative net loss expectations.

Cumulative net losses and 30-plus-day delinquencies for the series 2009-1 pool, which has six months of performance history, are tracking higher than the 2007 and 2008 pools, but compare favorably to the 2006 pools.

USAA's securitization data shows that cumulative recoveries decreased to a 27%-34% range between months 15 and 34 for the 2006-2008 pools from a 33%-53% range for the previous pools during the same period (see chart 4). The recovery rates for the series 2009-1 pool, which has six months of performance data, are currently tracking higher than the rates for the 2006-2008 pools. This is likely due to improvements in the used car market (the Manheim Used Vehicle Value Index rose 6.9% in September 2009 to 118.5 from 110.8 as of September 2008).

Similar to other banks and prime auto loan finance companies, USAA's current managed portfolio performance has been affected by the weaker economy (see table 2). Annualized net losses as a percentage of the average net receivables outstanding increased to 0.82% for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, from 0.61% for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008. Thirty-plus-day delinquencies as a percentage of the outstanding receivables balance increased to 0.89% as of Sept. 30, 2009, from 0.78% as of Sept. 30, 2008. USAA's serviced portfolio has contracted since 2008: as of Sept. 30, 2009, USAA's serviced portfolio totaled approximately $12.11 billion, an approximately 7.5% reduction since Sept. 30, 2008.

Table 2 Managed Portfolio Performance
	Nine months ended Sept. 30		Year ended Dec. 31
	2009	2008	2008	2007	2006	2005	2004
Total retail contracts outstanding at the end of the period (bil. $)	12.112	13.095	12.761	13.801	12.334	10.152	7.361
30-plus-day delinquencies as a % of the balance outstanding	0.89	0.78	0.87	0.68	0.50	0.26	0.20
Loan loss experience
Avg. contracts outstanding (bil. $)	12.282	13.413	13.289	13.199	11.178	8.583	6.616
Net charge-offs as a % of avg. outstanding*	0.82	0.61	0.74	0.54	0.32	0.24	0.15
*Annualized.

While the 2006 pools are not performing as well as the earlier pools, those transactions are adequately enhanced for the assigned ratings. We will continue to monitor the performance of all outstanding USAA Auto Owner Trust transactions to determine if the assigned ratings are sufficient and if any rating actions are deemed appropriate.

As of the statistical cutoff date, the series 2009-2 statistical pool consisted of approximately $1.03 billion in USAA-originated automobile loans that have the collateral characteristics shown in table 3. As of the cutoff date, the receivables that will be sold to the trust on the closing date are expected to have an aggregate principal balance of approximately $1.0 billion. The characteristics of the statistical pool and the cutoff date pool are not expected to differ materially.

Table 3 Collateral Comparison*
	USAA Auto Owner Trust
	2009-2	2009-1	2008-3	2008-2	2008-1	2007-2	2007-1	2006-4
Receivables balance (mil. $)	1,030.96	1,553.49	1,033.95	1,000.00	1,250.00	1,341.75	1,222.03	1,667.34
No. of receivables	59,319	93,484	56,679	52,057	63,071	84,401	64,604	102,470
Avg. loan balance ($)	17,380	16,618	18,242	19,210	19,819	15,897	18,916	16,271
Weighted avg. APR (%)	6.39	6.70	6.21	6.23	6.32	6.48	6.73	6.69
Weighted avg. original term (mos.)	62.18	62	62	62	63	63	Table 3
Weighted avg. remaining term (mos.)	57.85	56	58	58	60	55	58	58
Weighted avg. seasoning (mos.)	4	6	4	4	3	8	4	5
Weighted avg. FICO score	735	730	740	749	745	730	723	716
% of loans with FICO score greater than 700 (%)	73.4	68.2	�??	�??	�??	�??	�??	�??
% of loans with original maturities greater than 60 months	36.45	36.05	34.63	33.51	42.03	42.41	-	47.59
Electronic contract (%)	61.82	58.20	48.04	42.00	24.40	-	-	-
% of new vehicles	54.22	59.33	60.22	68.71	70.65	65.39	66.40	67.27
% of used vehicles	45.78	40.67	39.78	31.29	29.35	34.61	33.60	32.73
Top five state concentrations by billing address (%)
	TX=18.35	CA=9.58	TX=15.69	TX=16.54	TX=15.88	TX=14.78	TX=15.14	TX=14.21
	CA=7.75	FL=7.60	CA=7.99	CA=8.13	CA=8.34	CA=9.22	CA=9.08	CA=9.04
	FL=6.57	VA=7.00	FL=6.54	FL=6.23	FL=6.68	FL=6.68	FL=6.97	FL=7.71
	VA=6.12	GA=6.71	VA=5.82	VA=6.10	VA=6.15	VA=6.32	VA=6.31	VA=5.93
	GA=5.41	NC=6.15	GA=5.50	GA=5.32	GA=5.07	GA=5.32	GA=5.37	GA=5.36
*All percentages are of the initial receivables balance. APR�??Annual percentage rate.

To derive the base case net loss for the series 2009-2 transaction, we analyzed the cumulative net loss, cumulative gross loss, and cumulative recovery performance of USAA's outstanding securitizations. Our analysis also considered USAA's paid-off pools and delinquency trends.

In addition, we projected static pool cumulative net losses on USAA's portfolio originations by new and used vehicle composition and original loan term. We also considered the credit quality of the series 2009-2 collateral pool and compared it with the credit quality of recent vintages.

Based on this information, we expect the cumulative net losses for the series 2009-2 pool to be in the 1.10%-1.30% range. We expect cumulative gross losses to be in the 1.70%-1.90% range.

We modeled the series 2009-2 transaction to simulate stress scenarios commensurate with a preliminary 'AAA' rating (see table 4).

Table 4 Cash Flow Assumptions And Results
	Scenario 1	Scenario 2
Class	A	A
Scenario	'AAA' back-loaded loss curve	'AAA' back-loaded loss curve
Cumulative net loss timing (mos.)	12/24/36/48	12/24/36/48
Cumulative net loss (%)	31/71/91/100	31/71/91/100
ABS voluntary prepayments (%)	1.8	1.8
Recoveries (%)	50	30
Recovery lag (mos.)	3	4
Approximate gross loss break-even levels (%)*	12.94	9.52
Approximate net loss break-even levels (%)*	6.47	6.67
*The maximum cumulative losses on the pool that the series 2009-2 transaction can withstand without triggering a payment default on the relevant class of notes. ABS�??Absolute prepayment speed.

In scenario 1, we used our 1.10%-1.30% expected net loss range and applied the standard stresses in our internal cash flow runs. In addition, we also stressed the cash flows using a more front-loaded 35%/76%/95%/100% loss curve scenario, which yielded a 6.71% break-even net loss level. The break-even results for the class A notes was less stressful after we used a more front-loaded loss curve (not presented in this presale) compared with the more back-loaded 31%/71%/91%/100% loss curve scenario (as presented in table 4). The back-loaded scenario was more stressful as less excess spread was used to cover losses in the earlier years; consequently, more excess cash flow was released.

In scenario 2, we assumed a 30% recovery rate to reflect the downward trend in USAA's recovery rates in recent years. The breakeven results show that the class A notes could withstand approximately 5x our expected 1.10%-1.30% net loss range and 5x our expected 1.7%-1.9% gross loss range.

The break-even results in both scenarios show that the class A notes are enhanced to the degree necessary to withstand a stressed level of net losses that are consistent with the assigned preliminary ratings.

In addition to running a break-even cash flow analysis, we ran a sensitivity analysis to see how high losses would need to rise, holding all other variables constant, before the preliminary ratings on the notes would become vulnerable to a negative rating action (see table 5).

Table 5 Scenario Analysis Summary
	Scenario 1	Scenario 2
Cumulative net loss level (%)	1.80	2.40
Cumulative gross loss level (%)	3.00	4.00
Recoveries (%)	40	40
Recovery lag (mos.)	3	3
Loss timing (12/24/36/48) (%)	35/76/95/100	35/76/95/100
Voluntary ABS (%)	1.6	1.6
Servicing fee (%)	0.5	0.5
Remaining loss coverage	Initially 4.4x, reaching 5.0x by month 18 and increasing thereafter	Initially 3.3x, reaching 4.0x by month 20 and increasing thereafter
ABS�??Absolute prepayment speed.

Under the 1.80% stressed loss scenario (approximately 1.5x our expected net loss level), the loss coverage multiple for the preliminary 'AAA' rated classes never falls below the 4.0x multiple, which is the multiple that we would likely use to determine whether a class of notes would be susceptible to a negative rating action. Due to the transaction structure's sequential pay nature, credit enhancement builds over time (the reserve account reaches the 1.00% target of the current pool balance by month two and excess cash is released thereafter), reaches a 5.0x multiple by month 18, and continues to increase thereafter. Chart 5 shows the 1.80% and 2.40% cumulative net loss scenarios. The threshold multiple for the class A notes is lower than the multiple we use at the outset for a prime auto loan receivables transaction. In analyzing a deal for a potential rating action, we may adjust the loss coverage multiples downward as the pool ages to account for improved ability to project losses given the pool's actual performance (see "Scenario Analysis: What Would it Take to Cause Downgrades on U.S. Auto Loan ABS?," published May 7, 2008, on RatingsDirect, at www.ratingsdirect.com). It is unlikely that the class A notes would be downgraded under the 1.5x expected net loss scenario.

USAA, the sponsor, seller, and servicer of the auto receivables, is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of the United Services Automobile Association, an insurance and financial services provider primarily serving current and former members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their dependents.

USAA was founded in San Antonio, Texas, in 1922 to provide auto insurance to military officers. USAA was formed as a member association with a reciprocal form of ownership that allows member policyholders to pool their insurance risks by exchanging insurance contracts. Over the years, USAA has expanded its lines of business to include various property and casualty insurance subsidiaries, which provide personal lines of insurance, including automobile, homeowners, and renters insurance, to its policyholders. In addition, through its various wholly owned subsidiaries and affiliates, USAA offers personal planning services products, including life insurance, mutual funds, banking services, and financial planning services. USAA markets its products and services principally through a direct-mail and telecommunications program.

USAA expanded its services to include enlisted members of the U.S. Armed Services in 1996 and noncommissioned officers of the National Guard in 1997.

• "Scenario Analysis: What Would It Take To Cause Downgrades on U.S. Auto Loan ABS?," published May 7, 2008;
• "Auto Loan Criteria: The Rating Process For Auto Loan-Backed Transactions," published Sept. 1, 2004;
• "Auto Loan Criteria: Credit Analysis For Auto Loan-Backed Transactions," published Sept. 1, 2004;
• "Auto Loan Criteria: Structural Analysis For Auto Loan-Backed Transactions," published Sept. 1, 2004; and
• "Auto Loan Criteria: Legal Considerations In Rating Auto Loan-Backed Transactions," published Sept. 1, 2004.

The analysts would like to thank Toms Zachariah and Ryan Volpe for their analytical contributions to this presale report.