LUMINAQ INDEX [LUMEX]: .274 As of January 1, 2011

Based upon public records and an analysis of publicly released information, a total of 20,800,000 loans were originated as “securitized” since the SEC began collecting this information.

Note: These figures are approximate and may be restated at a future time.

The active number of loans reported as of January 1 , 2011 was 5,700,000. 72.6% of registered “securitized” loans were removed from registration as a result of prepayment (including refinance), liquidated, REO (as reported), and re-securitized into new “asset-backed” pools.

These figures are corroborated by reports that MERS has registered over 80 million loans, indicating the relative number of private label securitization structures may be considerably higher than reported in other media. The LUMINAQ INDEX (LUMEX) .274 represents the proportion of active loans to originated loans.

The current LUMEX indicates that there are a substantial number of unreported reconstituted asset backed pools which may include loans in foreclosure by pools that have previously been dissolved, restructured or reconstituted with changed, new or deleted “assets.”

13 Responses

  1. ANONYMOUS- try me at

    Here you go please,

    Thanks for the response please

  3. Raja

    Provide your email too.

  4. Ian

    Provide your email.

  5. @ Ian,

    Thank you.

  6. kickboxer- a private label MBS is anything other than a GSE MBS. GSE securitizations are public, private label are everything else. Basically.

  7. ANONYMOUS-let me expound or expand on that- the trust is purportedly holding the note, and should be advised by the servicer that the borrower has refinanced the note(probably a mod,we have discussed this before), if the trust/trustee is not notified that this loan has been refinanced or similar, the implications on a national scale, are enormous. Tie that in with a trust/trustee who thinks that the loan is in default or has been foreclosed, when in fact it has been refinanced,or modified, and the trust is advancing payments for special servicing, the money would seem to multiply geometrically. Just connected these dots. We should comment privately perhaps. Have ideas.

  8. ANONYMOUS- ditto Raja’s comment. While I can appreciate your comment, and would generally regard it as 100% accurate, do we have any case cites? or other proof? I can give my email, we have been going back and forth for over a year, I am a known quantity, as are you. Let me know.

    Please can you explain in detail, ” loans falsely placed into default — for which “investors” in so-called securitized trusts— NEVER received payoff monies by borrower refinances”

    Thanks and Be Safe

  10. Okay, so there is a discrepancy between the number of MERS loans and the number the SEC has in their system, am I right? Is that what is being said here?

    Can someone remind me what private label securitization is again please and thank you.

  11. Can someone please give me the gist of what this means? I’ve read it over and over again and I still can’t get it to digest.

  12. Neil,

    Can you please fly to Wisconsin and speak to the crowd. Tell them where their money went. Tell them how it went missing.

  13. Oh Yeah — and includes loans falsely placed into default — for which “investors” in so-called securitized trusts— NEVER received payoff monies by borrower refinances.


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: