UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC  20549

________________________

FORM 10-K

x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013

or

o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _________ to ________

Commission File Number:  None

________________________

GWG HOLDINGS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware	26-2222607
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

220 South Sixth Street, Suite 1200

Minneapolis, MN  55402

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

(612) 746-1944

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

________________________

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

________________________

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o No x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer	o	Accelerated filer	o
Non-accelerated filer	o	Smaller reporting company	x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). £   Yes x No

As of March 19, 2014, GWG Holdings, Inc. had 9,124,000 shares of common stock outstanding.

GWG HOLDINGS, INC.

Index to Form 10-K

for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2013

			Page
PART I
	Item 1.	Business	3
	Item 1A.	Risk Factors	20
	Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	32
	Item 2.	Properties	32
	Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	32
	Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	32
PART II
	Item 5.	Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	33
	Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	34
	Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	35
	Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	48
	Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	49
	Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	76
	Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	76
	Item 9B.	Other Information	76
PART III
	Item 10.	Executive Officers, Directors, and Corporate Governance	77
	Item 11.	Executive and Director Compensation	83
	Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Shareholder Matters	85
	Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	85
	Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	88
PART IV
	Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules	89
SIGNATURES			91

Page 2

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS.

Overview

GWG Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, purchases life insurance policies sold in the secondary marketplace. Our objective is to earn returns from the purchased life insurance policies that are greater than the costs necessary to purchase, finance and service those policies to their maturity. GWG Holdings and its subsidiaries finance the acquisition of life insurance policies and pay premiums through funds available on its credit facility and proceeds from the issuance of debt and equity securities, as well as from proceeds from life insurance policy benefits received.

Our business was organized in February 2006. As a parent holding company, GWG Holdings was incorporated on March 19, 2008, as a limited liability company.  On June 10, 2011, GWG Holdings converted from a Delaware limited liability company to a Delaware corporation through the filing of statutory articles of conversion. In connection with the conversion, each class of limited liability company membership interests in GWG Holdings, LLC was converted into shares of common stock of GWG Holdings, Inc.

GWG Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries, located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, facilitates the purchase of life insurance policies for its own investment portfolio through its wholly owned subsidiary, GWG Life Settlements, LLC (GWG Life), and its subsidiaries, GWG Trust (Trust), GWG DLP Funding II, LLC (DLP II) and its wholly owned subsidiary, GWG DLP Master Trust II (the Trust II).  Our wholly owned subsidiary, GWG Broker Services, LLC (Broker Services), was formed to earn fees for brokering policy transactions between market participants. Our wholly owned subsidiary United Lending, LLC (United Lending) and its wholly owned subsidiary United Lending SPV, LLC (United Lending SPV) were formed to finance life settlement premiums and policy loans.  All of these entities are legally organized in Delaware. Unless the context otherwise requires or we specifically so indicate, all references in this report to "we", "us", "our", "our Company", "GWG", or the "Company" refer to these entities collectively.

Market

According to the American Council of Life Insurers Fact Book 2013 (ACLI), individuals owned over $11.22 trillion of face value of life insurance policies in the United States in 2012. This figure includes all types of policies, including term and permanent insurance known as whole life, universal life, variable life, and variable universal life. The secondary market for life insurance has developed around individuals aged 65 years or older owning either permanent insurance or term insurance convertible into permanent insurance. According to the ACLI, the average annual lapse rate and surrender rate of individual life insurance policies for 2012 was 5.9%, over $661 billion in face value of policy benefits in 2012 alone.  These figures do not include group-owned life insurance, such as employer-provided life insurance, whose market totals over $8.01 trillion of face value of life insurance policies in the United States in 2012, and whose policies exhibit similar lapse and surrender rates according to the ACLI.

Owners of life insurance policies generally allow them to lapse or surrender the policies for a variety of reasons, including: (i) unrealistic original earnings assumptions made when the policy was purchased, combined with higher premium payments later in the term of the policy than initially forecasted; (ii) increasing premium payment obligations as the insured ages; (iii) changes in financial status or outlook which cause the insured to no longer require life insurance; (iv) other financial needs that make the insurance unaffordable; or (v) a desire to maximize the policy’s investment value. Rather than allowing a policy to lapse as worthless, or surrendering a life insurance policy at a fraction of its inherent value, the sale of a life insurance policy in the secondary market can bring significant value to the policy owner.  The life insurance secondary market often pays policy sellers amounts ranging from two to ten times the surrender value that would otherwise be offered by the insurance carrier.

The market opportunity for selling and purchasing life insurance policies in the secondary market is relatively new. According to Conning Research & Consulting (Conning), the secondary market for life insurance policies grew from $2 billion in 2002 to over $12 billion in face value of life insurance policy benefits purchased in 2008. During and after the 2009 credit crisis, the secondary market for life insurance contracted significantly, evidenced by Conning's report that investors purchased approximately $2.0 billion in face value of life insurance benefits in 2012. Nevertheless, Conning reports that consumer demand for continued development for the secondary market remains strong, and there are indications of strengthening interest among investors. Conning reports that the fundamental appeal of the secondary market for life insurances remains that policy holders are offered value-added benefits and investors are offered assets with low correlation to equity markets and competitive returns.  Conning concludes that, given the current economic condition and investor sentiment, demand for life settlements will increase, and the market’s largest growth will likely come from companies which attract capital for those assets.

Page 3

The rapidly aging population of individuals aged 65 years and older in United States supports our market opportunity. According to the United States Census Bureau (Bureau) the population age 65 and older is expected to more than double between 2012 and 2060, from 43.1 million to 92.0 million. With the increase in the number of the “oldest old” being even more dramatic — those 85 and older are projected to more than triple from 5.9 million to 18.2 million, reaching 4.3 percent of the total population states the Bureau.  Research published by Natixis Global Asset Management (NGAM) reports that retirees will be required to finance a larger portion of their retirement as the government’s ability to support them fades. In 2012, the state of Texas endorsed our industry by adopting legislation that enables individuals with life insurance to enter the Medicaid program provided they sell their life insurance policy in the secondary market and use the proceeds specifically for long-term care. Several states are considering similar legislation to deal with the increasing costs of providing long-term care.

To participate in the market opportunity, we have spent and intend to continue to spend significant resources: (i) developing a robust operational platform and systems for purchasing and servicing life insurance policies; (ii) obtaining requisite licensure to purchase life insurance in the secondary market; (iii) developing financing resources for purchasing and servicing life insurance policies; (iv) recruiting and developing a professional management team; (v) establishing origination relationships for purchasing life insurance policies in the secondary market; and (vi) developing a financing strategy to participate in this business sector.  We believe that the implementation of our financing strategy, Renewable Secured Debentures (sometimes simply referred to in this report as our "debentures"), offers us a unique opportunity to attract capital and lead the future development of the life insurance secondary market.

Our Business Model

We generally purchase life insurance policies through secondary market transactions directly from the policy owner who originally purchased the life insurance in the primary market. Historically, we have purchased policies in the secondary market through a network of life insurance agents, life insurance brokers, and licensed providers who assist policy owners in accessing the secondary market.

Before we purchase a life insurance policy, we conduct an underwriting review. Presently, our review policy includes obtaining life expectancy estimates on each insured from third party medical actuarial firms. We base our life expectancy estimates on the average of two estimates. In the case of small face policies, which we define as life insurance policies with less than $250,000 in face value of policy benefits, we may choose not to obtain life expectancies from third party medical actuarial firms, but rather use standard mortality tables to develop our own life expectancy of an insured. The policies we purchase are universal life insurance policies issued by rated life insurance companies. Universal life insurance is a type of permanent life insurance in which premium payments above the cost of insurance are credited to the “cash value” of the policy. The cash value is credited each month with interest based on the terms of the insurance policy agreement. If a universal life insurance policy were to lapse, the insured or other owner of the policy would nonetheless have a right to receive the cash value of the policy. Universal life insurance is different from “term” life insurance in that “term” life insurance does not have a cash value associated with it. We seek to purchase life insurance policies issued by rated life insurance companies with investment grade credit ratings by Standard & Poor’s (AAA through BBB), Moody’s (Aaa through Baa3), or A.M. Best Company (aaa through bbb). As of December 31, 2013, over 93.5% of life insurance policies in our portfolio were issued by companies rated “A” or better under Standard & Poor’s rating system. Many of our current underwriting review processes, including our policy of obtaining two life expectancy estimates from medical actuarial firms as described above, are undertaken in satisfaction of obligations under our revolving credit facility. As a result, we may in the future modify our underwriting review process if permitted under our borrowing arrangements.

The price we are willing to pay for the policy in the secondary market is primarily a function of: (i) the policy’s face value; (ii) the life expectancy of the individual insured by the policy; (iii) the premiums expected to be paid over the life of the insured; (iv) market competition from other purchasers; and (v) the particular underwriting characteristics of the policy, relative to the design and build of our portfolio of life insurance policies.

We seek to earn profits by purchasing policies at discounts to the face value of the insurance benefit. We purchase policies at discounts that are expected to exceed the costs necessary to pay premiums and financing and servicing costs through the date of the insured’s mortality. We rely on the actuarial life expectancy assumptions to estimate the expected mortality of the insureds within our portfolio. We seek to finance our life insurance policy purchases and payment of premiums and financing costs, until we receive policy benefits, through the sale of the Renewable Secured Debentures and the use of our revolving line of credit. In the past, we have also relied on the sale of our Series A preferred stock and of our secured notes issued by our subsidiary GWG Life Settlements, LLC.

Page 4

We believe the socio-economic and demographic trends strongly support the long-term development of our market opportunity and that our business model provides significant advantages to both owners of life insurance policies and investors. For owners of life insurance, selling in the secondary market often provides significant value over that offered by the insurance carrier.  For investors, our returns derived from our investments in life insurance policies are not correlated to traditional markets such as real estate, equity markets, fixed income markets, currency or commodities. We believe that by acquiring a large portfolio of well diversified life insurance policies will offer value to both owners of life insurance and investors seeking returns derived from non-correlated assets.  We believe our financing strategy positions us as a leader in the secondary market of life insurance.

We have built our business with what we believe to be the following competitive strengths:

·           Industry Experience:  We have actively participated in the development of the secondary market of life insurance as a principal purchaser and financier since 2006.  Our position within the marketplace has allowed us to evaluate over 36,000 life insurance policies for possible purchase, thereby gaining a deep understanding of the variety of issues involved when purchasing life insurance policies in the secondary market.  We have participated in the leadership of various industry associations and forums, including the Life Insurance Settlement Association (LISA) and the Insurance Studies Institute (ISI).  Our experience gives us confidence in building a portfolio of life insurance policies that will perform to our expectations.

·           Operational Platform:  We have built an operational platform and systems for efficiently tracking, processing and servicing life insurance policies that we believe provide competitive advantages when purchasing policies in the secondary marketplace, and servicing the policies once acquired.

·           Origination and Underwriting Practices:  We seek to purchase life insurance policies that meet published guidelines on what policies would be accepted in a rated securitization. We purchase only permanent life insurance policies we consider to be non-contestable and that meet stringent underwriting criteria and reviews.  We consider a life insurance policy to be “non-contestable” once applicable state law prohibits the insurer from challenging the validity of the policy due to fraud.  In this regard, state non-contestability laws generally require a period of one to two years to elapse after the initial issuance of the policy before that policy is considered non-contestable under state law.  Non-contestability laws do not, however, prevent an insurer from challenging the validity of a policy procured by fraud for lack of an insurable interest at the time at which the policy was purchased (such as is the case with “stranger-originated” life insurance policies).

·           Origination Relationships:  We have established origination relationships with over 300 life insurance policy brokers and insurance agents who submit policies for our purchase or financing.  Our referral base knows our underwriting standards for purchasing life insurance policies in the secondary market, which provides confidence in our bidding and closing processes and streamlines our own due-diligence process.

·           Life Expectancy Methodology:  We generally rely on at least two life expectancy reports from independent third-party medical-actuarial underwriting firms such as 21st Services, AVS Underwriting, Fasano Associates, and Examination Management Services, Inc. to develop our life expectancy estimate.

·           Pricing Software and Methodology:  We use actuarial pricing methodologies and software tools that are built and supported by leading independent actuarial service firms such as Modeling Actuarial Pricing Systems, Inc. (“MAPS”) for calculating our expected returns.

·           Diversified Funding:  We have actively developed diversified sources for accessing capital markets in support of our buy-and-hold strategy for our portfolio of life insurance policies, ranging from institutional bank financing to a network of broker-dealers registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), many of whom have participated in one or more of our Series I Secured note financing, our Series A preferred stock financing, or our Renewable Secured Debenture financing.

On the other hand, our business involves a number of challenges and risks described in more detail elsewhere in this prospectus, including the following:

·           Relatively New Market:  The purchase and ownership of life insurance policies acquired in the secondary market is a relatively new and evolving market.  Our ability to source and purchase life insurance policies at attractive discounts materially depends on the continued development of the secondary market for life insurance.  This includes the solvency of the life insurance companies that pay the face value of the life insurance benefits, the accuracy of life expectancy assumptions, and other factors beyond our control.

Page 5

·           Assumptions About Valuation of Our Assets:  The valuation of our portfolio of life insurance policies, which is the principal asset on our balance sheet, requires us to make material assumptions that may ultimately prove to be incorrect. These assumptions include appropriate discount rates, cash flow projections, and actuarial life expectancies, any of which may ultimately prove to be inaccurate.

·           Ability to Expand Our Portfolio:  Our business model relies on achieving actual results that are in line with the results we expect to attain from our investments in life insurance policy assets.  In this regard, we believe that the larger the portfolio of life insurance policies we own, the greater likelihood we will achieve actuarial results matching our expected results.  Although we plan to expand the number of life insurance policies we own using proceeds raised from the sale of our Renewable Secured Debentures, we may be unable to meet this goal.  And, even if we attain the goal, we may not achieve the actuarial results we expect.

·           Reliance on Financing:  To date, we have chosen to finance our business almost entirely through the issuance of debt, including the sale of Renewable Secured Debentures, Series I Secured notes, and a senior revolving credit facility.  Our business model expects that we will have continued access to financing in order to purchase a large and diversified portfolio of life insurance policies, and thereafter pay the attendant premiums and servicing costs of maintaining that portfolio.  In building a larger portfolio of policies, our goal is to remain diversified in terms of insurance carriers and the medical conditions of insureds.  We believe that diversification among insurers and medical conditions will lower our overall risk, and that a larger number of policies will provide our portfolio with greater actuarial stability.  We will be required to rely on our access to financing until such time as we experience a significant amount of mortality within our portfolio and begin receiving revenues from the receipt of insurance policy benefits. There is no assurance that insurance policy benefits will be available to match our cash flow projections.

·           Risk of Investment in Life Insurance Policies:  Our investments in life insurance policies have inherent risks, including fraud and legal challenges to the validity of the policies, as well as the possibility that the seller of the policy may have provided us with inaccurate or misleading information.

·           Effects of Regulation:  Our business is subject to complex state regulation.  Changes in state laws and regulations governing our business, or changes in the interpretation of such laws and regulations, could negatively affect our business.

Our business also involves certain other challenges and risks described in the “Risk Factors” section of this report.

Our Portfolio

Our portfolio of life insurance policies, owned by our subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013, is summarized below:

Life Insurance Portfolio Summary

Total portfolio face value of policy benefits		$	740,648,000
Average face value per policy		$	2,816,000
Weighted average face value per insured life		$	3,099,000
Weighted average age of insured (yrs.)			82.1
Average life expectancy estimate (yrs.)			7.25
Total number of policies			263
Demographics	64% Males; 36% Females
Number of smokers	3 insureds are smokers
Largest policy as % of total portfolio			1.35	%
Average policy as % of total portfolio			0.38	%
Average annual premium as % of face value			3.07	%

Page 6

Our portfolio of life insurance policies, owned by our subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013, organized by the insured’s current age and the associated policy benefits, is summarized below:

Distribution of Policy Benefits by Current Age of Insured

Min Age	Max Age	Policy Benefits		Distribution
65	69	$	8,156,000		1.10	%
70	74		42,017,000		5.67	%
75	79		186,411,000		25.18	%
80	84		269,314,000		36.36	%
85	89		219,179,000		29.59	%
90	95		15,571,000		2.10	%
Total		$	740,648,000		100.00	%

Our portfolio of life insurance policies, owned by our subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013, organized by the insured’s current age and number of policies owned, is summarized below:

Distribution of Policies by Current Age of Insured

Min Age	Max Age	Policies		Distribution
65	69		6		2.28	%
70	74		17		6.46	%
75	79		62		23.58	%
80	84		94		35.74	%
85	89		77		29.28	%
90	95		7		2.66	%
Total			263		100.00	%

Our portfolio of life insurance policies, owned by our subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013, organized by the insured’s estimated life expectancy estimates and associated policy benefits, is summarized below:

Distribution of Policies by Current Life Expectancies of Insured

Min LE (Months)	Max LE (Months)	Policy Benefits		Distribution
144	172	$	13,000,000		1.76	%
120	143		107,674,000		14.54	%
96	119		199,027,000		26.87	%
72	95		167,919,000		22.67	%
48	71		170,612,000		23.03	%
18	47		82,416,000		11.13	%
Total		$	740,648,000		100.00	%

We track concentrations of pre-existing medical conditions among insured individuals within our portfolio based on information contained in life expectancy reports. We track these medical conditions with ten primary disease categories: (1) cardiovascular, (2) cerebrovascular, (3) dementia, (4) cancer, (5) diabetes, (6) respiratory disease, (7) neurological disorders, (8) other, no disease, or multiple. Our primary disease categories are summary generalizations based on the ICD-9 codes we track on each insured individuals within our portfolio.  ICD-9 codes, published by the World Health Organization, are used worldwide for medical diagnoses and treatment systems, as well as morbidity and mortality statistics. Currently, cardiovascular is the only primary disease category within our portfolio that represents a concentration over 10%.

Page 7

Our portfolio of life insurance policies, owned by our subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013, organized by the primary disease categories of the insured and associated policy benefits, is summarized below:

Distribution of Policy Benefits by Primary Disease Category

Primary Disease Category	Policy Benefits		Distribution
Cancer	$	47,400,000		6.40	%
Cardiovascular		152,167,000		20.55	%
Cerebrovascular		36,985,000		4.99	%
Dementia		51,649,000		6.97	%
Diabetes		39,067,000		5.27	%
Multiple		175,810,000		23.74	%
Neurological Disorders		13,000,000		1.76	%
No Disease		69,986,000		9.45	%
Other		102,884,000		13.89	%
Respiratory Diseases		51,700,000		6.98	%
Total Policy Benefits	$	740,648,000		100.00	%

The primary disease category represents a general category of impairment. Within the primary disease category, there are a multitude of sub-categorizations defined more specifically by ICD-9 codes. For example, a primary disease category of cardiovascular includes subcategorizations such as atrial fibrillation, heart valve replacement, coronary atherosclerosis, etc. In addition, individuals may have more than one ICD-9 code describing multiple medical conditions within one or more primary disease categories. Where an individual’s ICD-9 codes indicate medical conditions in more than one primary disease categories, we categorize the individual as having multiple primary disease categories. We expect to continue to develop and refine our identification and tracking on the insured individuals medical conditions as we manage our portfolio of life insurance policies.

The complete detail of the portfolio of all life insurance policies, owned by our subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013, organized by the current age of the insured and the associated policy benefits, sex, estimated life expectancy, issuing insurance carrier, and the credit rating of the issuing insurance carrier is set forth below:

Life Insurance Portfolio Detail

(as of December 31, 2013)

Face Amount		Gender	Age (ALB)(1)	LE(2)	Carrier	S&P
$	1,100,000	M	93	33.7	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	1,770,726	F	93	38.0	Aviva Life Insurance Company	A-
$	4,000,000	M	93	39.1	MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company	AA-
$	3,200,000	M	92	72.1	West Coast Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,000,000	F	91	44.4	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	2,500,000	M	90	32.1	Columbus Life Insurance Company	AA
$	2,000,000	F	90	27.1	Pruco Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	5,000,000	F	89	66.4	American General Life Insurance Company	A+
$	5,000,000	F	89	46.6	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	1,000,000	F	89	43.8	Protective Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	5,000,000	F	88	53.9	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	1,000,000	M	88	18.9	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	2,500,000	F	88	20.9	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	2,500,000	F	88	20.9	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	2,000,000	F	88	42.9	American General Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,203,520	M	88	57.2	Columbus Life Insurance Company	AA
$	600,000	F	88	34.5	Columbus Life Insurance Company	AA
$	5,000,000	M	88	44.6	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	3,500,000	F	88	70.4	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	1,500,000	F	88	78.1	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	3,000,000	F	88	46.9	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	5,000,000	F	88	31.0	Lincoln National Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,350,000	F	88	49.4	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	3,100,000	F	88	47.4	Lincoln Benefit Life Company	BBB+

Page 8

Face Amount		Gender	Age (ALB)(1)	LE(2)	Carrier	S&P
$	2,500,000	F	87	62.0	American General Life Insurance Company	A+
$	2,500,000	M	87	52.6	Pacific Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,000,000	F	87	64.9	United of Omaha Life Insurance Company	A+
$	5,000,000	M	87	67.3	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,500,000	M	87	59.7	Union Central Life Insurance Company	A+
$	3,000,000	M	87	50.8	American General Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,500,000	M	87	51.8	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	1,500,000	M	87	51.8	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	1,750,000	M	87	34.4	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	500,000	M	87	75.6	Lincoln National Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	715,000	F	87	74.4	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	2,225,000	F	87	86.7	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	3,500,000	F	87	55.3	Lincoln National Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	5,000,000	F	87	50.6	Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company	AA+
$	8,985,000	M	87	44.9	Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company	AA+
$	3,000,000	F	87	96.8	Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company	AA+
$	800,000	M	86	69.5	National Western Life Insurance Company	A
$	5,000,000	F	86	44.9	Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,000,000	M	86	68.8	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	4,445,467	M	86	72.6	Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company	A+
$	3,600,000	F	86	72.4	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	2,000,000	F	86	89.7	U.S. Financial Life Insurance Company	A+
$	3,000,000	M	86	40.4	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	250,000	M	86	86.6	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	4,000,000	F	86	87.3	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	4,785,380	F	86	53.6	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	2,500,000	M	86	61.7	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,000,000	F	86	65.7	West Coast Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	2,000,000	F	86	65.7	West Coast Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,803,455	F	86	63.4	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,529,270	F	86	63.4	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	5,000,000	M	86	66.0	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	7,500,000	M	86	47.4	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	100,000	M	86	36.5	Protective Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	100,000	M	86	36.5	Protective Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	100,000	M	86	36.5	Protective Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,000,000	F	86	40.8	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	2,000,000	M	86	52.9	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	500,000	F	86	83.2	Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.)	BBB
$	1,682,773	M	86	70.9	Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company	BBB+
$	200,000	M	86	62.2	Lincoln Benefit Life Company	BBB+
$	1,000,000	F	85	99.5	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	5,570,000	F	85	61.8	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	5,570,000	F	85	61.8	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	4,513,823	F	85	36.4	Aviva Life Insurance Company	A-
$	2,000,000	M	85	114.5	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	2,000,000	M	85	114.5	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	2,000,000	M	85	114.5	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	3,000,000	M	85	99.5	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,000,000	M	85	75.0	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	2,000,000	M	85	75.0	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	5,000,000	M	85	62.6	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	5,000,000	F	85	48.5	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-

Page 9

Face Amount		Gender	Age (ALB)(1)	LE(2)	Carrier	S&P
$	1,200,000	M	85	74.1	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	10,000,000	F	85	87.0	West Coast Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	500,000	M	85	96.6	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	5,000,000	M	85	95.9	Lincoln National Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,000,000	F	85	49.3	New York Life Insurance Company	AA+
$	8,500,000	M	85	95.7	Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company	AA+
$	6,000,000	F	85	70.7	Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.)	BBB
$	5,000,000	M	84	87.6	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	2,000,000	M	84	75.3	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,750,000	M	84	75.3	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,365,000	F	84	100.0	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	2,000,000	M	84	99.3	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,000,000	M	84	74.1	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	2,328,547	M	84	57.9	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	2,000,000	M	84	57.9	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,000,000	M	84	37.7	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	2,000,000	M	84	75.9	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	3,000,000	F	84	86.0	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,800,000	M	84	52.4	John Hancock Variable Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	2,000,000	M	84	47.8	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,000,000	M	84	56.5	Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company	AA+
$	1,000,000	M	83	68.0	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	5,000,000	M	83	103.9	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	1,500,000	M	83	62.8	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	1,500,000	M	83	62.8	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	500,000	M	83	54.2	Genworth Life Insurance Company	A-
$	4,000,000	F	83	57.3	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	3,750,000	M	83	89.7	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	2,000,000	F	83	100.1	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,500,000	M	83	94.0	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	2,500,000	F	83	76.5	American General Life Insurance Company	A+
$	5,000,000	F	83	107.9	American General Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,000,000	F	83	98.7	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	1,500,000	M	83	62.8	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	4,000,000	M	83	49.8	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	1,000,000	M	83	96.5	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	1,000,000	M	83	60.9	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	1,703,959	M	83	81.9	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	3,000,000	F	83	98.8	Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.)	BBB
$	1,500,000	F	83	124.4	Lincoln Benefit Life Company	BBB+
$	2,000,000	F	83	113.9	Lincoln Benefit Life Company	BBB+
$	829,022	F	83	38.0	Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company	BBB+
$	1,000,000	M	83	72.1	Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company	BBB+
$	3,500,000	F	83	123.3	Lincoln Benefit Life Company	BBB+
$	2,000,000	M	82	52.7	National Life Insurance Company	A
$	10,000,000	F	82	70.3	American National Insurance Company	A
$	2,275,000	M	82	106.2	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	5,000,000	F	82	112.2	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	6,000,000	F	82	126.1	American General Life Insurance Company	A+
$	5,000,000	M	82	79.9	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	5,000,000	M	82	88.0	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	3,500,000	F	82	119.6	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+

Page 10

Face Amount		Gender	Age (ALB)(1)	LE(2)	Carrier	S&P
$	2,500,000	M	82	73.6	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	2,000,000	M	82	100.8	Pacific Life Insurance Company	A+
$	3,000,000	F	82	54.3	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	500,000	M	82	115.8	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	4,200,000	F	82	142.7	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	750,000	M	82	103.7	West Coast Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	5,000,000	M	82	89.2	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	2,700,000	M	82	75.9	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	1,500,000	M	82	90.0	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	3,000,000	F	82	109.5	MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company	AA-
$	7,600,000	F	82	112.1	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	3,000,000	M	82	73.6	Lincoln National Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	3,000,000	M	82	75.3	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	500,000	M	82	36.5	West Coast Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	500,000	M	82	29.6	Great Southern Life Insurance Company	N/A
$	1,900,000	M	81	80.4	American National Insurance Company	A
$	2,500,000	F	81	87.1	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	3,000,000	M	81	53.2	U.S. Financial Life Insurance Company	A+
$	5,000,000	M	81	126.0	American General Life Insurance Company	A+
$	4,500,000	M	81	88.7	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	10,000,000	M	81	94.0	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	3,500,000	M	81	92.9	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	250,000	M	81	44.7	Jackson National Life Insurance Company	AA
$	1,250,000	F	81	75.8	Columbus Life Insurance Company	AA
$	350,000	M	81	48.7	Reassure America Life Insurance Company	AA
$	3,500,000	F	81	108.1	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,000,000	M	81	83.3	Lincoln National Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	750,000	M	81	96.8	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	1,995,000	F	81	96.0	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	4,000,000	M	81	70.7	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	5,000,000	M	81	90.7	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	2,000,000	F	81	113.8	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	5,000,000	M	81	98.8	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	500,000	M	81	58.9	New York Life Insurance Company	AA+
$	500,000	M	81	58.9	New York Life Insurance Company	AA+
$	6,217,200	F	81	122.0	Phoenix Life Insurance Company	BB-
$	5,000,000	F	81	90.0	Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.)	BBB
$	550,000	M	80	120.8	Genworth Life Insurance Company	A-
$	7,000,000	M	80	104.2	Genworth Life Insurance Company	A-
$	1,500,000	M	80	82.6	American General Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,500,000	M	80	69.0	Pacific Life Insurance Company	A+
$	5,000,000	M	80	89.3	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	3,000,000	M	80	82.6	Protective Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	2,000,000	F	80	133.0	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,000,000	F	80	114.4	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	10,000,000	M	80	131.9	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	2,000,000	M	80	86.0	Ohio National Life Assurance Corporation	AA-
$	1,000,000	M	80	86.0	Ohio National Life Assurance Corporation	AA-
$	10,000,000	M	80	96.2	New York Life Insurance Company	AA+
$	5,000,000	M	79	108.8	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	8,000,000	M	79	98.7	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,680,000	F	79	83.5	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,000,000	M	79	81.9	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,250,000	F	79	91.7	Principal Life Insurance Company	A+

Page 11

Face Amount		Gender	Age (ALB)(1)	LE(2)	Carrier	S&P
$	1,000,000	M	79	72.0	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	2,000,000	F	79	107.8	Pacific Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,750,000	M	79	100.0	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	250,000	M	79	96.9	American General Life Insurance Company	A+
$	3,000,000	M	79	128.2	Principal Life Insurance Company	A+
$	2,000,000	M	79	40.6	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,250,000	M	79	128.5	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	3,000,000	M	79	116.2	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	2,000,000	M	79	54.3	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	3,000,000	F	79	124.8	West Coast Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	4,300,000	F	78	120.9	American National Insurance Company	A
$	3,000,000	M	78	108.9	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	130,000	M	78	64.6	Genworth Life Insurance Company	A-
$	3,000,000	M	78	57.5	Pacific Life Insurance Company	A+
$	3,000,000	M	78	57.5	Minnesota Life Insurance Company	A+
$	5,000,000	M	78	96.6	Pacific Life Insurance Company	A+
$	5,000,000	M	78	96.6	Pacific Life Insurance Company	A+
$	5,000,000	M	78	132.9	Principal Life Insurance Company	A+
$	6,000,000	M	78	142.6	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	6,000,000	M	78	126.8	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	5,000,000	M	78	111.6	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	5,000,000	M	78	111.6	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	3,000,000	M	78	57.5	Prudential Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	4,000,000	M	78	97.6	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	5,000,000	M	78	109.3	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	1,000,000	M	78	143.6	Empire General Life Assurance Corporation	AA-
$	2,000,000	F	78	106.1	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	500,000	M	78	63.4	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	7,000,000	M	78	104.9	Lincoln Benefit Life Company	BBB+
$	5,000,000	F	77	137.0	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	3,750,000	M	77	77.3	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	3,000,000	M	77	115.0	Principal Life Insurance Company	A+
$	5,000,000	M	77	95.9	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	3,601,500	M	77	113.1	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	5,000,000	M	77	107.8	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	1,009,467	M	77	64.9	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	4,000,000	M	77	66.1	MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company	AA-
$	5,000,000	M	77	73.5	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	1,000,000	M	77	130.4	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	750,000	M	77	87.7	Lincoln National Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	2,250,000	M	77	113.5	Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company	AA+
$	1,000,000	M	77	109.6	Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.)	BBB
$	500,000	F	76	136.9	Columbus Life Insurance Company	AA
$	5,000,000	M	76	138.7	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	500,000	M	76	84.6	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	1,000,000	M	76	128.9	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,750,000	M	76	80.4	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	5,000,000	M	76	123.8	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	2,000,000	F	76	74.4	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	2,500,000	M	76	106.8	Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company	AA+
$	2,500,000	M	76	106.8	Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company	AA+
$	750,000	M	75	21.2	U.S. Financial Life Insurance Company	A+
$	7,000,000	F	75	167.1	Pacific Life Insurance Company	A+

Page 12

Face Amount		Gender	Age (ALB)(1)	LE(2)	Carrier	S&P
$	2,840,000	M	75	118.6	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,000,000	F	75	94.7	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	600,000	M	75	104.1	Protective Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	4,000,000	M	75	86.3	Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company	AA+
$	2,000,000	F	74	141.7	Aviva Life Insurance Company	A-
$	1,000,000	M	74	117.7	Pacific Life Insurance Company	A+
$	5,000,000	M	74	171.8	Prudential Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	5,000,000	M	74	78.3	West Coast Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	850,000	M	74	84.9	New York Life Insurance Company	AA+
$	5,000,000	M	74	48.6	Lincoln Benefit Life Company	BBB+
$	200,000	M	73	90.0	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	A-
$	8,000,000	M	73	125.2	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	300,000	M	73	30.2	Lincoln National Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	3,000,000	F	73	138.9	General American Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	500,000	M	72	52.2	Midland National Life Insurance Company	A+
$	3,000,000	M	72	96.2	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,000,000	M	72	89.6	United of Omaha Life Insurance Company	A+
$	2,000,000	M	72	121.1	American General Life Insurance Company	A+
$	2,500,000	M	71	120.8	American General Life Insurance Company	A+
$	1,167,000	M	70	44.5	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	1,500,000	M	70	136.1	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	500,000	M	69	117.1	North American Company for Life And Health Insurance	A+
$	3,000,000	M	69	98.8	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
$	500,000	M	69	117.1	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
$	2,000,000	M	66	70.3	MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company	AA-
$	2,000,000	M	66	70.3	MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company	AA-
$	156,538	F	66	131.1	New York Life Insurance Company	AA+
$	740,647,647

(1) The insured’s age is current as of the measurement date.

(2) The insured’s life expectancy estimate, other than for a small face value insurance policy benefit, is the average of two life expectancy estimates provided by independent third-party medical actuarial underwriting firms at the time of purchase, actuarially adjusted through the measurement date. This listing includes 176 policies with updated life expectancy estimates and 23 policies the life expectancy estimate of which has been increased by 8.67% over that earlier provided by 21st Services. Numbers in this column represent months. For more information, see disclosure under the caption “Pricing Life Insurance Policies.”

Obtaining Life Insurance Policies
 

We seek to purchase life insurance policies nationwide. In general, we work directly with consumers to purchase their policies in states where we hold proper licensure, and in states where we are not licensed we work through other licensed providers. Policy sourcing typically begins with life insurance agents that identify policy owners who should consider selling a life insurance policy. The agents typically work with professional life insurance policy brokers specializing in packaging the policies for presentation to potential purchasers. Their packaging includes obtaining medical records on the insured, life expectancy estimates from medical actuarial firms, current insurance policy illustrations, and other information needed to enable potential purchasers to properly evaluate the policy. The purchasers may work directly in the market or through “providers” who represent investors. Once potential purchasers have evaluated the policy, the policy is typically sold through an auction process whereby brokers facilitate competing bids from purchasers, concurrently negotiating fees. The highest bidder typically wins the auction, but not always. Brokers and agents also consider the track record of the purchaser and will sometimes award the policy to the purchaser most likely to get the sale of the policy closed. This has been one of our advantages, as we have developed a network of brokers throughout the United States who have advised us that they recognize that our purchase criteria and bids are reliable. This enables the brokers to focus on policy referrals, thus filtering out policies they know we will not consider, and maximizing their return on effort to close the sale of a policy.  Recently we began reviewing the opportunity to purchase individual policies for sale in the tertiary market.  In the future, we expect to develop new channels for obtaining life insurance policies by soliciting owners of policies directly, which may eliminate fees we pay brokers and competition we experience when a policy is auctioned by a broker.  While these new channels are unproven, we believe that consumer awareness of the life insurance secondary market is relatively low and as a result, provides a significant growth opportunity for our business.
 

We maintain membership affiliations and representation within key industry groups, such as the Life Insurance Settlement Association. Our Chairman, Paul Siegert, currently serves on the board of the Life Insurance Settlement Association.  We typically sponsor events and/or maintain a trade booth at events where we are able to maintain contacts with existing life settlement brokers and meet new brokers to submit policies for purchase.
 

Life Insurance Policy Underwriting and Purchasing Process
 

The process used to value and underwrite life insurance policies is relatively new and continues to be refined. We underwrite and service all the life insurance policies that we purchase. When we identify a suitable client owning a life insurance policy that meets our purchasing criteria, we seek to purchase the policy at a discount sufficient to provide us with an expected internal rate of return that meets our internal guidelines. Once our offer to purchase a policy is accepted, we enter into a policy purchase agreement with the seller. This agreement gives us the right to, among other things, pay premiums, collect policy benefits, file collateral assignments, change the ownership, and obtain medical records. The terms of the agreement are standardized and regulated by most states.
 

We maintain an underwriting department with experience in underwriting life insurance policies for purchase in the secondary market. The underwriting due diligence process consists of a careful review and analysis of available materials related to a life insurance policy and the covered individual. The goal of the underwriting process is to make an informed purchasing decision with respect to the life insurance policy. While we believe that our underwriting policies and practices are consistent with industry best practices, it is possible that the processes may change or may not accurately reflect actual mortality experience or catch fraud or deception by sellers. To the extent the underwriting is not accurate or we are subject to fraud or deception by sellers, the performance of policies may be different from the expected results, which could adversely affect profitability.
 

Page 13

Life Insurance Policy Characteristics
 

We purchase universal life insurance policies whose insureds are 65 years or older and whose actuarial life expectancies are less than 168 months. In some cases, however, we purchase term life insurance policies that are convertible into universal life insurance policies, depending on the analysis of the life insurance policy and the insured’s life expectancy. The life expectancy is the number of months the insured is expected to live based upon 50% mortality (meaning roughly half of the individuals with similar age, sex, smoking and medical statuses will have died within that number of months), which is in turn based upon actuarial studies. We purchase life insurance policies with the goal that the average life expectancy in the portfolio generally will not exceed 144 months. The requirements as to which life insurance policies we will purchase are set forth in the indenture. We reserve the right to disqualify some life insurance companies or categories of life insurance policies for purchasing in our sole discretion.
 

We purchase life insurance policies that have been in force for more than two years from the policy issuance date and meet our other underwriting guidelines. Our underwriting and business development departments use pricing and credit criteria that are similar to those used by other institutions that finance similar assets. As described elsewhere in this report, our current policy involves the use of two life expectancy reports for assessing the value of the life insurance policies, unless the life insurance policy is a small face (defined as a policy with $250,000 in face value benefits or less) in which case we may estimate the life expectancy using actuarial mortality table assumptions. In addition, we review the relevant historical, projected and actual premium streams to assess the accuracy of the pricing expectations and identify any variance from projected premium levels, as well as the cause of such variance. This includes a periodic review of the policy’s premium payment history and ongoing confirmations of account values with life insurance companies.
 

Pricing Life Insurance Policies
 

Pricing involves an analysis of both the policy and the insured. An analysis of the insurance policy starts with an illustration obtained from the insurance company providing a schedule of level premium payments until the insured reaches age 125. Then, utilizing pricing software now owned by Modeling Actuarial Pricing Systems, Inc. (“MAPS”), we reverse engineer the premium schedule of the policy to determine a premium schedule that provides for the minimum payments required to keep the policy in effect. An analysis of the insured involves an actuarial evaluation of the insured’s probable mortality at different points in the future—the mortality curve. This analysis covers the insured’s entire projected lifespan using estimates generated by third-party medical actuarial underwriting firms.

In determining the life expectancy estimate, we presently require at least two life expectancy reports from independent medical actuarial underwriting firms, unless the life insurance policy is a small face (defined as a policy with $250,000 in face value benefits or less) in which case we may estimate the life expectancy using actuarial mortality table assumptions.   The health of the insured is summarized by the underwriters in a written health assessment based on the review of the insured’s historical and current medical records. Underwriting assesses the characteristics and health risks of the insured in order to quantify the health into a mortality rating that represents their life expectancy. We average the life expectancy estimates provided by two independent medical actuarial underwriting firms to form our life expectancy estimate. If in the future our borrowing arrangements permit us to evaluate life expectancies differently, we may change or present policy under which we generally obtain two life expectancy estimates from independent third party medical actuarial firms.
 

By combining the optimized premiums and the insured’s life expectancy estimate within the MAPS software, we generate detailed information, including the expected mortality curve over the insured’s total projected lifespan; the expected premiums and related costs over the insured’s total projected lifespan; the expected policy benefit paid over the insured’s total projected lifespan; the account values within the policy; and the expected internal rate of return we will achieve at various purchase prices. From this information set, we are able to calculate the present value of the life insurance policy by discounting the anticipated cash flows at the sought for internal rate of return using the probabilistic pricing methodology employed by the MAPS program. The price of the policy, or its value, is the present value of the policy’s cash flows discounted at our expected internal rate of return. We expect that we will realize an operating profit as long as we are able to acquire and service life insurance policies that generate yields in excess of our borrowing and operating costs.
 

Page 14

On January 22, 2013, one of the independent medical actuarial underwriting firms we utilize, 21st Services, announced advancements in its underwriting methodology, resulting in revised estimated life expectancy mortality tables for life settlement transactions.  We had been advised by 21st Services that the changes are very granular and relate to both specific medical conditions and lifestyles of insureds.  These changes are the result of the application of additional medical information that has been gathered by 21st Services over a period of time, and which were applied to the inputs and methodologies used to develop the actuarial life expectancies.   While we do not believe these revised methodologies indicate the previous estimated life expectancies were inaccurate, we believe the revised methodologies provide additional information that should be considered in updating our estimate of the life expectancies of the insureds within our portfolio. Based upon our evaluation and analysis of data made available by 21st Services, as well as information regarding the insureds within our portfolio, we have estimated the impact of the changes in 21st Services’ methodologies for determining life expectancies on a policy-by-policy basis within our portfolio as of December 31, 2012 and applied such changes to the life expectancy inputs used to estimate fair value.  We have adjusted the original life expectancies provided by 21st Services based on four factors, the impact of each analyzed individually for each insured in the GWG portfolio.  The four factors are gender, anti-selection, age, and primary impairment. GWG applied this set of adjustments to all 21st Services life expectancy reports used in valuation of the portfolio as of December 31, 2012.  At that time, the portfolio contained 211 policies on 194 insured lives.  Of those 211 policies, 199 were valued using a 21st Services life expectancy reports as part of the pricing life expectancy estimate calculation.  While the analysis and adjustments were applied on an individual policy basis, the result was an average overall increase in the original life expectancy estimates of 8.67%.  We have a standard practice of obtaining two third-party life expectancy estimates for each policy in our portfolio.  As a result, the effective change in life expectancy on the portfolio as of December 31, 2012 was an average of approximately 4.33%, which resulted in an aggregate decrease in the fair value of our life settlements portfolio of $12.4 million as of December 31, 2012. Life expectancy reports by their very nature are estimates.

During 2013, we sought to update our life expectancy estimates from all four of the major independent third-party medical-actuarial underwriting firms (including 21st Services) with updated medical records on all of the 211 policies we originally used a life expectancy report from 21st Services.  As of December 31, 2013, GWG had successfully procured a new life expectancy reports on 176 of the 211 policies owned as of December 31, 2012. We experienced ten mortalities in 2013 for which no updated life expectancy reports were necessary. We also had two small face policies in our portfolio for which we did not update life expectancy reports. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2013 we had updated our life expectancy estimates based on updated life expectancy reports on all but 23 policies (covering 21 people) in our portfolio that we are still seeking to update.

In order to assess the reasonableness of our adjustments, made effective December 31, 2012, we compared the life expectancy estimates including any adjustments used on December 31, 2012 to the updated life expectancy estimates used on December 31, 2013.  Because an additional year has elapsed since the December 31, 2012 date, the older set of adjusted life expectancy estimates were “rolled down” to shorter numbers based on an actuarial calculation to make them comparable to the updated life expectancy estimates used on December 31, 2013.  The average amount of roll down to account for the 12-month passage of time was eight and one-half months.

We concluded that our the adjustments we made a year ago were reasonable when we the compared the rolled down life expectancy estimates from December 31, 2012 to the updated life expectancy estimates on December 31, 2013.  The average rolled down life expectancy estimate from December 31, 2012 is 80.9 months.  The average updated life expectancy estimate obtained from updated life expectancy reports as of December 31, 2013 is 79.4 months, shorter by one and one-half months. We see no need to make any further adjustments to our life expectancy estimates at this time.

Portfolio Administration
 

We have developed a comprehensive administration and servicing platform to manage the life insurance policies we own. This allows us to safeguard our life insurance policy assets and to process and report on the assets in our portfolio. We regularly contact each insurance company on every policy we own to verify policy account values, confirm the correct application of premium payments made, and the resulting account values inside the life insurance policy after application of the premium payment and the deduction of the cost of insurance. We typically maintain little account value inside the policy and seek to make only minimum premium payments necessary to keep the life insurance policy in force until the next scheduled premium payment.
 

In addition to policy servicing, we monitor insureds by periodically contacting them directly, or their appointed representatives, to confirm their location and health status. We monitor the social security database for mortalities as well as online obituary databases. When we are notified of an insured’s mortality, we are required to obtain a copy of the death certificate and present it to the life insurance company for payment of the face value of the policy benefit.
 

Page 15

Portfolio Management
 

We realize profits by earning a spread between the cost of purchasing and maintaining a life insurance portfolio over its duration and face value of the policy benefits that will be paid upon the insured’s mortality. We believe that building and managing a profitable portfolio of life insurance policies is complex, requires considerable technical knowledge and resources, and is subject to numerous regulations. We have developed extensive experience and disciplines to work toward a stable and profitable portfolio. We update our actuarial projections each month for the portfolio based on the life expectancies, premium payments made, and mortalities experienced. These data points combine to provide us with future forecasted cash flows with respect to our portfolio of life insurance assets. These forecasted future cash flows, along with our current financial position, are combined in a comprehensive model that includes detailed assumptions as to interest rates, financing costs, policy acquisitions, and capital markets activities. This comprehensive financial model enables us to closely monitor and manage our necessary capital reserves and future profitability.

While we believe our portfolio represents a balanced and stable portfolio of life insurance policies, we seek to grow the size of the portfolio in order to further mitigate risk and improve our profitability. In order to assess the stability of our portfolio, we analyze longevity risk, which is the risk of the insured living longer than his/her life expectancy estimate. Longevity risk is the single largest variable affecting the returns on an investment in life insurance policy assets and the ability to predict the portfolio’s value over time. Research by A.M. Best and others indicates that, as the number of insured lives increase within a portfolio of life insurance policies, there is a decrease in the standard deviation of the value of the portfolio—i.e., the stability of longevity risk increases with an increase in the number of insured lives.
 

While Standard & Poor’s has indicated that statistical credibility is unlikely to be achieved with a pool of less than 1,000 lives, a study published in 2009 by A.M. Best concluded that at least 300 lives are necessary to narrow the band of expected cash flow volatility using the Monte Carlo simulations, which is the same methodology we use to evaluate our portfolios. Our internal analysis of our portfolio, which as of December 31, 2013 consisted of 239 lives, resulted in a standard deviation that is comparable with the A.M. Best measurement for a portfolio of 200 lives. We believe this result is due to the specific portfolio make up of our portfolio relative to the variation in underlying life expectancy estimates. Further, A.M. Best suggests that no one life should comprise more than 3.33% of the face value of an entire portfolio or collateral pool. As of December 31, 2013, the largest face value policy on one life in our portfolio represented approximately 1.35% of the total portfolio. We intend to maintain a well-diversified portfolio as we continue to expand our purchases of life insurance policies.
 

We also believe our portfolio represents a profitable portfolio. In order to assess the profitability, we analyze the future cash flows expected from our portfolio of life insurance policies. The standard practice within the insurance industry is to analyze the timing of uncertain future cash flows through stochastic modeling, or Monte Carlo simulations. We continue to analyze the expected internal rates of return and spread against borrowing costs represented by our portfolio. As of December 31, 2013, the expected internal rate of return on our portfolio was 12.21% and our weighted average borrowing costs to finance our portfolio was 7.20%.
 

Portfolio Credit Risk Management
 

The life insurance policies that we acquire represent obligations of third-party life insurance companies to pay the benefits under the relevant policy. Because we finance life insurance policies, we rely on the payments from the face value of policy benefits from life insurance companies for revenue collections. We rely on the face value of the life insurance policy benefit at maturity as the exclusive form of payment.
 

The possible insolvency or loss by a life insurance company is a significant risk to our business. To manage this risk, we seek to purchase policies that are issued by insurance companies with investment-grade ratings from either A.M. Best, Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s. To further mitigate risk, we seek to limit the face value of policy benefits issued by any one life insurance company within the total portfolio to 20%. State guaranty funds generally guaranty policy benefits up to $200,000. In addition, to assure diversity and stability in our portfolio, we regularly review the various metrics of our portfolio relating to credit risk. We track industry rating agency reports and industry journals and articles in order to gain insight into possible financial problems of life insurance companies. Recently, some of the credit ratings on insurance companies were downgraded and we will no longer consider purchasing policies issued by these insurance companies. Finally, we will only purchase those life insurance policies that meet the underwriting standards established in the indenture governing our Renewable Secured Debentures.
 

Page 16

As of December 31, 2013, 99.09% of insurance companies in our portfolio hold an investment-grade rating by Standard & Poor’s (BBB- or better), and the face value of policy benefits issued by one life insurance company with in the portfolio was 16.58%.  Of the 41 insurance companies that insure the policies we own, ten companies insure approximately 73.56% of total face value of insurance benefits and the remaining 31 insurance companies insure the remaining approximately 26.44% of total face value of insurance benefits. The concentration risk of our ten largest insurance company holdings as of December 31, 2013 is set forth in the table below.

Rank	Policy Benefits		Percentage  of Policy Benefit Amt.		Insurance Company	Ins. Co. S&P Rating
1	$	122,780,000		16.58%	AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company	A+
2	$	83,995,000		11.34%	John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A)	AA-
3	$	69,944,000		9.44%	Transamerica Life Insurance Company	AA-
4	$	56,215,000		7.59%	ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company	AA-
5	$	55,769,000		7.53%	Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company	A-
6	$	37,735,000		5.09%	Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company	A+
7	$	37,250,000		5.03%	American General Life Insurance Company	AA+
8	$	29,000,000		3.92%	Pacific Life Insurance Company	A+
9	$	26,661,000		3.60%	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company	AA-
10	$	25,450,000		3.44%	West Coast Life Insurance Company	AA-

Servicing Agents

We have contracted with Wells Fargo Bank to provide servicing, collateral agent, and trustee services with respect to life insurance policies owned by DLP II. We have contracted with Bank of Utah to provide servicing, collateral agent, and trustee services with respect to all other life insurance policies we own. Wells Fargo Bank and Bank of Utah provide services for certain life insurance policies in connection with ownership and tracking of life insurance policies we own, including paying premiums, posting of payments (receipts) of the life insurance policies, certain monitoring, enforcement of rights and payer notifications, and related services. We reserve the right to service and provide collateral agent services for certain life insurance policies directly, or appoint additional third-party servicers in the future.

Competition

We encounter significant competition in the life insurance purchasing and financing business from numerous companies, including hedge funds, investment banks, secured lenders, specialty life insurance finance companies and life insurance companies themselves. Many of these competitors have greater financial and other resources than we do and may have significantly lower cost of funds because they have greater access to insured deposits or the capital markets. Moreover, some of these competitors have significant cash reserves and can better fund shortfalls in collections that might have a more pronounced impact on companies such as ours. They also have greater market share. In the event that the life insurance companies make a significant effort to compete against the business, we would experience significant challenges with our business model.

Competition can take many forms, including the pricing of the financing, transaction structuring, timeliness and responsiveness in processing a seller’s application and customer service. Some of the competitors may outperform us in these areas. Some competitors target the same type of life insurance clients as we do and generally have operated in the markets we service for a longer period of time. Increased competition may result in increased costs of purchasing policies, or it may affect the availability and quality of policies that are available for our purchase. These factors could adversely affect our profitability by reducing our return on investment or increasing our risk.

Government Regulation

The life insurance sector is highly regulated at both the federal and state levels. We are subject to federal and state regulation and supervision in the life insurance purchasing and finance business. There are significant regulations in many states that require us to obtain specific licenses or approvals to be able to purchase life insurance policies in those states. We continually research and monitor regulations and apply for the appropriate licenses in the required states.

Page 17

Governments at both the federal and state levels have continued to review the impact of the business on the life insurance industry. Moreover, recent federal government actions with respect to insurance companies have increased the federal government’s role in regulating the insurance industry. Recently we have seen legislative efforts by state governments to mandate the sale or liquidation of a life insurance policy as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care.  The legislative effort is designed to monetize all assets of the insured prior to eligibility under the health care provided under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  These efforts may affect the number of life insurance policies available for purchase and their attractiveness.

State statutes typically provide state regulatory agencies with significant powers to interpret, administer and enforce the laws relating to the purchase of life insurance policies in those states. Under statutory authority, state regulators have broad discretionary power and may impose new licensing requirements, interpret or enforce existing regulatory requirements in different ways or issue new administrative rules, even if not contained in state statutes. State regulators may also impose rules that are generally adverse to our industry. Because the life insurance secondary market is relatively new and because of the history of certain abuses in the industry, we believe it is likely that state regulation will increase and grow more complex in the foreseeable future. We cannot, however, predict what any new regulation would specifically involve.

Any adverse change in present laws or regulations, or their interpretation, in one or more states in which we operate (or an aggregation of states in which we conduct a significant amount of business) could result in our curtailment or termination of operations in such jurisdictions, or cause us to modify our operations in a way that adversely affects our ultimate profitability. Any such action could have a corresponding material and negative impact on our results of operations and financial condition, primarily through a material decrease in revenues, and could also negatively affect our general business prospects.

Some states and the SEC have, on occasion, attempted to regulate the purchase of non-variable life insurance policies as transactions in securities under federal or state securities laws. In July 2010, the SEC issued a Staff Report of its Life Settlement Task Force. In that report, the Staff recommended that certain types of purchased life insurance policies be classified as securities. The SEC has not taken any position on the Staff Report, and there is no indication if the SEC will take or advocate for any action to implement the recommendations of the Staff Report. In addition, there have been several federal court cases in which transactions involving the purchase and fractionalization of life insurance contracts have been held to be transactions in securities under the federal Securities Act of 1933. We believe that the matters discussed in the Staff Report, and existing case law, do not impact our current business model since our purchases of life settlements are distinguishable from those cases that have been held by courts, and advocated by the Staff Report, to be transactions in securities. For example, we are not involved in fractionalization of any life insurance policies, and we do not purchase variable life insurance policies.

If federal law were to change, whether by action of the Congress or through the courts, with the result that purchases of non-fractionalized and non-variable life insurance policies would be considered transactions in "securities," we would be in violation of existing covenants under our revolving credit facility requiring us to not be an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940. This could in the short-term or long-term affect our liquidity and increase our cost of capital and operational expenses, all of which would adversely affect our operating results. It is possible that such an outcome could threaten the viability of our business and our ability to satisfy our obligations as they come due.

With respect to state securities laws, almost all states currently treat the sale of a life insurance policy as a securities transaction under state laws, although some states exclude from the definition of a security the original sale from the insured or the policy owner to the life settlement provider. To date, due to the manner in which we conduct and structure our activities and the availability, in certain instances, of exceptions and exemptions under securities laws, such laws have not adversely impacted our business model.

State Life Settlement License Requirements

State laws differ as to the extent to which purchasers of life insurance policies are required to be licensed by a state regulatory agency. We may elect to conduct life insurance policy purchasing only in those states in which we are licensed or where no licensure is required.  The licensing requirements differ from state to state, but where they exist, they typically require the payment of licensing fees, periodic reporting, and submission to audit by state regulators. We do not intend to purchase any life insurance policies in any states that require a license or similar qualification without first obtaining such license or qualification or purchasing through a licensed provider in that state.

Page 18

The table below identifies all states (and the District of Columbia) in which we can conduct business directly with the seller of a life insurance policy or through a licensed provider. An asterisk (*) indicates that the state does not require licensing. In those states identified in the right-hand column, we can purchase policies through our provider relationships with Magna Administrative Services, Inc. Abacus Settlements, LLC, and Lotus Life, LLC. If our relationships with either Magna Administrative Services, Abacus Settlements or Lotus Life were to end, for any reason, we believe we would be able to replace that relationship quickly.

States Where We Conduct Business Directly	States Where We Conduct Business Through Other Licensed Providers
Alabama*	Colorado
Arizona	Georgia
Arkansas	Illinois
California	Kentucky
Connecticut	Minnesota
Delaware	Nevada
District of Columbia*	New Jersey
Florida	Oregon
Indiana	Utah
Illinois	Wisconsin
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan*
Mississippi
Missouri*
Nebraska
New Mexico*
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina*
South Dakota*
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Wyoming*

We are not presently able to conduct business in the following states due to the fact that we neither have a license to operate in that state nor do we have a relationship with another licensed provider in that state: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia.

Page 19

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)

HIPAA requires that holders of medical records maintain such records and implement procedures in ways designed to assure the privacy of patient records. HIPAA has precipitated widespread changes in record keeping, including patient consent forms and access restrictions in data processing software. In order to carry out the business, we receive medical records and obtain a release to share such records with a defined group of persons. We are entitled to have access to patient information, take on the responsibility for preserving the privacy of that information, and use the information only for purposes related to the life insurance policies.

Regulatory Matters

We have been informed that the SEC is conducting a private investigation of our company and its offering of Renewable Secured Debentures. The SEC has advised us in writing that the investigation is a fact-finding inquiry and does not mean the SEC has concluded that we, or anyone else, have violated any laws or regulations. Also, the SEC has advised us in writing that the investigation does not mean that they have a negative opinion of any person, entity or security. The SEC has not informed us of any intent on its part to stop order our registration statement; it has not asked us to modify our registration statement in any way; and it has not stated that it has found the registration statement to be deficient in any respect. We are fully cooperating with this investigation.

Employees

We employ approximately 32 employees.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS.

Our business involves a number of challenges. In addition to the other information in this report, you should consider carefully the following risk factors in evaluating us and our business. Moreover, the risks described below are not the only ones that we face. Additional risks not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also affect our business, financial condition, operating results or prospects.
 

Risks Related to Our Company and Our Industry

Material changes in the life insurance secondary market, a relatively new and evolving market, may adversely affect our operating results, business prospects and our ability to repay our debt obligations.

Our sole business is the purchase and ownership of life insurance policies acquired in the secondary market, which is a relatively new and evolving market. The success of our business and our ability to satisfy our debt obligations depends in large part on the continued development of the secondary market for life insurance, including the solvency of life insurance companies to pay the face value of the life insurance benefits, both of which will critically impact the performance of the life insurance policy assets we own. We expect that the development of the secondary market will primarily be impacted by a variety of factors such as the interpretation of existing laws and regulations (including laws relating to insurable interests), the passage of new legislation and regulations, mortality improvement rates, and actuarial understandings and methodologies. Importantly, all of the factors that we believe will most significantly affect the development of the life insurance secondary market are beyond our control. Any material and adverse development in the life insurance secondary market could adversely affect our operating results, our access to capital, our ability to repay our various debt and other obligations, and our business prospects and viability. Because of this, an investment in our common stock generally involves greater risk as compared to investments offered by companies with more diversified business operations in more established markets.

We have a relatively limited history of operations and our earnings and cash flows may be volatile, resulting in future losses and uncertainty about our ability to service and repay our debt when and as it comes due.

We are a company with a limited history, which makes it difficult to accurately forecast our earnings and cash flows. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we incurred a net loss of $(195,000), and in the year ended December 31, 2012, we incurred a net loss of $(1,013,000).  Our lack of a significant history and the evolving nature of our market make it likely that there are risks inherent in our business and the performance characteristics for portfolios of life insurance policies that are yet to be recognized by us or others, or not fully appreciated, and that could result in earning less than we anticipate or even suffering further losses.
 

Page 20

The valuation of our principal assets on our balance sheet requires us to make material assumptions that may ultimately prove to be incorrect.  In such an event, we could suffer significant losses that could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and eventually cause us to be in default of restrictive covenants contained in our borrowing agreements.

Our principal asset is a portfolio of life insurance policies purchased in the secondary market, comprising approximately 83% of our total assets at December 31, 2012 and 85% of our total assets at December 31, 2013.  Those assets are considered “Level 3” fair value measurements under ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, as there is currently no active market where we are able to observe quoted prices for identical assets.  As a result, our valuation of those assets incorporates significant inputs that are not observable.  Fair value is defined as an exit price representing the amount that would be received if assets were sold or that would be paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.  As such, fair value is a market-based measurement that should be determined based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability.

A Level 3 fair value measurement is inherently uncertain and creates additional volatility in our financial statements that are not necessarily related to the performance of the underlying assets.  As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, we estimated the fair value discount rate for our portfolio to be 11.69% and 12.08%, respectively.  If in the future we determine that a higher discount rate is required to ascribe fair value to a similarly situated portfolio of life insurance policies, we could experience significant losses materially affecting our results of operations.  It is also possible that significant losses of this nature could at some point cause us to fall out of compliance with certain borrowing covenants contained in our various borrowing agreements.  This could result in acceleration of our loan balances under the revolving credit facility or our Series I Secured notes and Renewable Secured Debentures, which we may not be able to repay.  We may be forced to seek additional debt or equity financing to repay such debt amounts, which may not be available on terms acceptable to us, if at all.  If we are unable to repay when debt comes due, then our senior lender or the holders of our Series I Secured notes and Renewable Secured Debentures, or both, would have the right to foreclose on our assets.

In an effort to present operating results not subject to the valuation volatility associated with the discount rate we choose, we intend to provide additional non-GAAP financial disclosures, on a consistent basis, presenting the actuarial economic gain we expect within our portfolio of life insurance policies at the expected internal rate of return against the costs we incur over the same period. We report these very same non-GAAP financial measures to the lender under our revolving credit facility pursuant to financial covenants in the related borrowing documents.  Nevertheless, our reported GAAP earnings may in the future be volatile for reasons that do not bear an immediate relationship to the cash flows we experience.
 

For further disclosure relating to the risks associated with the valuation of our assets, see the risk factor below “ If actuarial assumptions we obtain from third-party providers . . . .” on page 26.

Our expected results from our life insurance portfolio may not match actual results, which could adversely affect our ability to service and grow our portfolio for diversification.

Our business model relies on achieving actual results that are in line with the results we expect to attain from our investments in life insurance policy assets.  In this regard, we believe that the larger portfolio we own, the greater the likelihood that we will achieve our expected results.  To our knowledge, rating agencies generally suggest that portfolios of life insurance policies be diversified enough to achieve actuarial stability in receiving expected cash flows from underlying mortality.  For instance, in a study published in 2012, A.M. Best concluded that at least 300 lives are necessary to narrow the band of cash flow volatility and achieve actuarial stability, while Standard & Poor’s has indicated that stability is unlikely to be achieved with a pool of less than 1,000 lives.  As of December 31, 2012, we owned approximately $572 million in face value of life insurance policies covering 194 lives. As of December 31, 2013, we owned $741 million in face value of life insurance policies covering 239 lives.  Accordingly, while there is risk with a portfolio of any size that our actual yield may be less than expected, we believe that the risk we face is presently more significant given the relative lack of diversification in our current portfolio as compared to rating agency recommendations.

Page 21

Although we plan to expand the number of life insurance policies we own using proceeds raised from our ongoing offering of Renewable Secured Debentures, we may be unable to meet this goal if sufficient financing from capital sources is not available or is available only on unfavorable or unacceptable terms.  Furthermore, even if our portfolio reaches the size we desire, we still may experience differences between the actuarial models we use and actual mortalities.

Differences between our expectations and actuarial models on the one hand, and actual mortality results on the other hand, could have a materially adverse effect on our operating results and cash flow.  In such a case, we may face liquidity problems, including difficulties servicing our remaining portfolio of policies and servicing our outstanding debt obligations.  Continued or material failures to meet our expected results could decrease the attractiveness of our securities in the eyes of potential investors, making it even more difficult to obtain capital needed to service our portfolio, grow the portfolio to obtain desired diversification, and service our existing debt.

We critically rely on debt financing for our business. Any inability to borrow could adversely affect our business operations, our ability to satisfy our obligations under the debentures and, ultimately, our viability.

To date, we have chosen to finance our business principally through the issuance of debt, including debt incurred by DLP II under a senior revolving credit facility provided by Autobahn/DZ Bank (which we refer to throughout this prospectus as our “revolving credit facility”), our Series I Secured notes and our Renewable Secured Debentures.  Our revolving credit facility is secured by all of the assets of DLP II, has a maximum amount of $100 million, and the outstanding balance at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 was approximately $79 million and $71 million, respectively.  Obligations under the revolving credit facility have a scheduled maturity date of December 31, 2014, and obligations under our Series I Secured notes and Renewable Secured Debentures have scheduled maturities as indicated below in the risk factor “If a significant number of holders . . . .,” on page 28.  Our debt arrangements comprise the most important sources of financing on which our business critically relies to grow our portfolio of life insurance policies and maintain those policies.

Our business model expects that we will have continued access to financing in order to purchase a large and diversified portfolio of life insurance policies and pay the attendant premiums and costs of maintaining the portfolio, all while satisfying our current interest and principal repayment obligations under our revolving credit facility and other indebtedness.  We expect to refinance our revolving credit facility, either through renewal or replacement, when it comes due December 31, 2014.  Pending the due date or refinancing of our revolving credit facility, we expect that proceeds from our life insurance policies will first be used to satisfy our obligations under that facility, as required by the agreement governing the revolving credit facility.  Accordingly, until we achieve cash flows derived from the portfolio of life insurance policy benefits, we expect to rely on the proceeds from our ongoing offering of Renewable Secured Debentures to satisfy our ongoing financing and liquidity needs.  Nevertheless, continued access to financing and liquidity under the revolving credit facility or otherwise is not guaranteed.  For example, general economic conditions could limit our access to financing, as could regulatory or legal pressures exerted on us, our financiers or those involved in our general plan of financing such as brokers, dealers and registered investment advisors.  If we are unable to borrow under the revolving credit facility or otherwise for any reason, or to renew or replace the revolving credit facility when it comes due in December 2014, our business would be adversely impacted and our ability to service and repay our obligations would be compromised.

Page 22

Our investments in life insurance policies have inherent risks, including fraud and legal challenges to the validity of the policies, which we will be unable to eliminate and which may adversely affect our results of operations.

When we purchase a life insurance policy, we underwrite the purchase of the policy to mitigate certain risks associated with insurance fraud and other legal challenges to the validity of the life insurance policy.  For example, to the extent that the insured is not aware of the existence of the policy, the insured him or herself does not exist, or the insurance company does not recognize the policy, the insurance company may cancel or rescind the policy thereby causing the loss of an investment in that policy.  In addition, if medical records have been altered in such a way as to shorten a life expectancy report, this may cause us to overpay for the related policy.  Finally, we may experience legal challenges from insurance companies claiming that the insured failed to have an insurable interest at the time the policy was originally purchased or that the policy owner made fraudulent disclosures to the insurer at the time the policy was purchased (e.g., disclosures pertaining to the health status of the insured or the existence or sources of premium financing), or challenges from the beneficiaries of an insurance policy claiming, upon mortality of the insured that the sale of the policy to us was invalid.

To mitigate these risks, we require a current verification of coverage from the insurance company, complete a due-diligence investigation of the insured and accompanying medical records, review the life insurance policy application, require a policy to have been in force for at least two years before purchasing, and require a legal review of any premium financing associated with the life insurance policy to determine insurable interest existed.  Nevertheless, we do not expect that these steps will eliminate the risk of fraud or legal challenges to the life insurance policies we purchase.  Furthermore, changes in laws or regulations, or the interpretation of existing laws or regulations, may prove our current due-diligence and risk-mitigation efforts inadequate for us to have confidence that our portfolio of life insurance policies are unlikely to be successfully challenged or to purchase new policies with such confidence.  If a significant face amount of policies were invalidated for reasons of fraud or any other reason, our results of operations would be adversely affected, perhaps materially.

Every acquisition of a life insurance policy necessarily requires us to materially rely on information provided or obtained by third parties.  Any misinformation or negligence in the course of obtaining information could materially and adversely affect the value of the policies we own.

The acquisition of each life insurance policy is negotiated based on variables and particular facts that are unique to the life insurance policy itself and the health of the insured.  The facts we obtain about the policies and the insured at the time at which the policy is applied for and obtained are based on factual representations made to the insurance company by the insured, and the facts the insurance company independently obtains in the course of its own due-diligence examination, such as facts concerning the health of the insured and whether or not there is an insurable interest present when the policy was issued.  Any misinformation or negligence in the course of obtaining or supplying information relating to an insurance policy or insured could materially and adversely impact the value of the life insurance policies we own and could, in turn, adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, and the value of your common stock.

Our business is subject to state regulation and changes in state laws and regulations governing our business, or changes in the interpretation of such laws and regulations, could negatively affect our business.

When we purchase a life insurance policy, we are subject to state insurance regulations.  Over the past years, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of states that have adopted legislation and regulations from a model law promulgated by either the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) or by the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL).  These laws are essentially consumer protection statutes responding to abuses that arose early in the development of our industry, some of which may persist.  Today, almost every state has adopted some version of either the NAIC or NCOIL model laws, which generally require the licensing of purchasers of and brokers for life insurance policies, the filing and approval of purchase agreements, and the disclosure of transaction fees.  These laws also require various periodic reporting requirements and prohibit certain business practices deemed to be abusive.

Page 23

State statutes typically provide state regulatory agencies with significant powers to interpret, administer and enforce the laws relating to the purchase of life insurance policies.  Under statutory authority, state regulators have broad discretionary power and may impose new licensing requirements, interpret or enforce existing regulatory requirements in different ways or issue new administrative rules, even if not contained in state statutes.  State regulators may also impose rules that are generally adverse to our industry. Because the life insurance secondary market is relatively new and because of the history of certain abuses in the industry, we believe it is likely that state regulation will increase and grow more complex during the foreseeable future.  We cannot, however, predict what any new regulation would specifically involve.

Any adverse change in present laws or regulations, or their interpretation, in one or more states in which we operate (or an aggregation of states in which we conduct a significant amount of business) could result in our curtailment or termination of operations in such jurisdictions, or cause us to modify our operations in a way that adversely affects our profitability.  Any such action could have a corresponding material and negative impact on our results of operations and financial condition, primarily through a material decrease in revenues, and could also negatively affect our general business prospects.

If federal or state regulators or courts conclude that the purchase of life insurance in the secondary market constitutes, in all cases, a transaction in securities, we could be in violation of existing covenants under our revolving credit facility, which could result in significantly diminished access to capital. We could also face increased operational expenses. The materialization of any of these risks could adversely affect our operating results and possibly threaten the viability of our business.

Some states and the SEC have, on occasion, attempted to regulate the purchase of non-variable universal life insurance policies as transactions in securities under federal or state securities laws.  In July 2010, the SEC issued a Staff Report of its Life Settlement Task Force.  In that report, the Staff recommended that certain types of purchased life insurance policies be classified as securities.  The SEC has not taken any position on the Staff Report, and there is no indication if the SEC will take or advocate for any action to implement the recommendations of the Staff Report.  In addition, there have been several federal court cases in which transactions involving the purchase and fractionalization of life insurance contracts have been held to be transactions in securities under the federal Securities Act of 1933.  We believe that the matters discussed in the Staff Report, and existing case law, do not impact our current business model since our purchases of life settlements are distinguishable from those cases that have been held by courts, and advocated by the Staff Report, to be transactions in securities.  For example, neither we nor any of our affiliates are involved in the fractionalization of any life insurance policies, and we do not purchase variable life insurance policies.

With respect to state securities laws, almost all states currently treat the sale of a life insurance policy as a securities transaction under state laws, although some states exclude from the definition of security the original sale from the insured or the policy owner to the life settlement provider.  To date, due to the manner in which we conduct and structure our activities and the availability, in certain instances, of exceptions and exemptions under those state laws, such laws have not adversely impacted our business model.
 

As a practical matter, the widespread application of federal securities laws to our purchases of life insurance policies, either through the expansion of the definition of what constitutes a “security,” the expansion of the types of transactions in life insurance policies that would constitute transactions in “securities,” or the elimination or limitation of available exemptions and exceptions (whether by statutory change, regulatory change, or administrative or court interpretation) could burden us and other companies operating in the life insurance secondary market through the imposition of additional processes in the purchase of life insurance policies or the imposition of additional corporate governance and operational requirements through the application of the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940.  Any such burdens could be material.  Among the particular repercussions for us would be a violation of existing covenants under our revolving credit facility requiring us to not be an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940, which could in the short or long term affect our liquidity and increase our cost of capital and operational expenses, all of which would adversely affect our operating results.  It is possible that such an outcome could threaten the viability of our business and our ability to satisfy our obligations as they come due.

Page 24

Being a public company results in additional expenses and diverts management’s attention, and could also adversely affect our ability to attract and retain qualified directors.

We have been a public reporting company since January 31, 2012.  As a public reporting company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  These requirements generate significant accounting, legal and financial compliance costs, and make some activities more difficult, time consuming or costly, and may place significant strain on our personnel and resources.  The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting.  In order to establish the requisite disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, significant resources and management oversight are required.

As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could have an adverse and even material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.  These rules and regulations may also make it more difficult and expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance.  If we are unable to obtain appropriate director and officer insurance, our ability to recruit and retain qualified officers and directors, especially those directors who may be deemed independent, could be adversely impacted.

Our business and prospects may be adversely affected by changes, lack of growth or increased competition in the life insurance secondary market.

The growth of the life insurance policy secondary market and our expansion within the market may be negatively affected by a variety of factors beyond our control, including:

· the inability to locate sufficient numbers of life insurance policy sellers and agents to source life sellers;

· the inability to convince life insurance policy owners of the benefits of selling their life insurance policy;

· competition from other companies in the life insurance secondary market;

· negative publicity about the market based on actual or perceived abuses; and

· the adoption of additional governmental regulation.

The relatively new and evolving nature of the market in which we operate makes these risks unique and difficult to quantify. Nevertheless, contractions in the secondary market for life insurance policies, whether resulting from general economic conditions, regulatory or legal pressures or otherwise (including regulatory pressures exerted on us or others involved in the secondary market for life insurance or involved with participants in that market), could make participation in that market generally less desirable.  This could, in turn, depress the prices at which life insurance policies on the secondary market are bought and sold.  As indicated elsewhere in this prospectus, decreases in the value of life insurance policies on the secondary market could negatively affect our results of operations and our financial condition since the value of our policy portfolio is marked to market on a quarterly basis.

Changes in general economic conditions could adversely impact our business.
 

Changes in general economic conditions, including, for example, interest rates, investor sentiment, changes specifically affecting the insurance industry, competition, technological developments, political and diplomatic events, tax laws, and other factors not known to us today, can substantially and adversely affect our business and prospects.  For example, changes in interest rates may increase our cost of capital and ability to raise capital, and have a corresponding adverse impact on our operating results.  While we may engage in certain hedging activities to mitigate the impact of these changes, none of these conditions are or will be within our control.
 

Page 25

If actuarial assumptions we obtain from third-party providers and rely on to model our expected returns on our investments in life insurance policies change, our operating results and cash flow could be adversely affected, as well as the value of our collateral and our ability to service our debt obligations.
 

The expected internal rate of return we calculate we will earn when purchasing a life insurance policy is based upon our estimate of how long the insured will live—an actuarial life expectancy. We obtain actuarial life expectancies from third-party medical-actuarial underwriting companies.  These actuarial life expectancies are subject to interpretation and change based on evolving medical technology, actuarial data and analytical techniques.  Any increase in the actuarial life expectancies of insureds within our portfolio could have a materially adverse effect on our operating results and cash flow.  Adverse impacts on the value of our life insurance policy portfolio or our cash flow could in turn impair the value of the collateral we have pledged to our creditors, and our ability to service our debt and obligations as they come due.

On January 22, 2013, 21st Services, an independent provider of life expectancy analysis and related services for the life settlement industry in general, announced advancements in its underwriting methodology, resulting in revised life expectancy mortality tables for life settlement transactions.  Based on information publicly released by 21st Services, the revised tables incorporate significantly more older‐age mortality data than earlier versions commonly used by the life insurance industry, resulting in a far greater ability to:

· assess the magnitude of impact that hundreds of different types of health impairments have on senior mortality on a case-by-case basis;

· apply credits and debits during the underwriting process in a manner that accounts for the different impacts of the same impairments upon males and females; and

· reflect the difference in mortality between insureds who have sold policies and the group of 90,000 insureds underwritten by 21st Services, most of whom did not ultimately sell their policies in the life settlement market (such difference is frequently referred to in the life-settlement industry as “anti-selection”).

21st Services reported that the revised mortality tables reflected an average 19% increase in the life expectancy of insureds.  Nevertheless, 21st Services representatives have also advised us that generalizations could not be gleaned from their report as the changes that were made were very granular and dependent upon the specific medical conditions of an insured, as well as other factors.   More specifically, mortality tables increased the general life expectancies most significantly for people leading an active lifestyle.  The revised tables also generally reflect increased life expectancies for non-smoking men and women.  21st Services representatives have further advised us that (i) certain medial conditions have resulted in increased life expectancies (e.g., cardiovascular disease) and some conditions resulted in decreased life expectancies, and (ii) the revised tables also have greater impact on the life expectancies of insureds who are younger.

We have used 21st Services life expectancy reports as one of two such reports we generally obtain prior to purchasing life insurance policies on the secondary market and average those reports for our life expectancy estimate.  The life expectancy of an insured has an inverse relationship to the expected internal rate of return to be generated from life insurance policies purchased in the secondary market.  A reduced internal rate of return may reduce the value of a life insurance policy available for purchase on the secondary market, and the value of life insurance policies already purchased by us and being serviced in our portfolio.
 

As of December 31, 2012, we increased all life expectancy reports provided by 21st Services by an average of 8.67%.  The impact of this adjustment to the fair value of our portfolio was a decrease of $12.4 million as of December 31, 2012, and the impact on our expected internal rate of return was a decrease from 14.27% to 12.84%. In February 2013, we began the process of evaluating the impact of 21st Services’ revised mortality tables upon our portfolio.  We concluded that the adjustments we made a year ago were reasonable based upon the updated life expectancy estimates we have on December 31, 2013.  It is possible that the updated life expectancies we use presently use will again change in the future or that the life expectancy assumptions will fail substantially to meet actuarial estimates, and that any such failure could have a materially adverse effect on our business.

Page 26

In addition to actuarial life expectancies, we rely on pricing and premium forecasting software models developed by third-party actuarial companies for the valuation of policies we purchase, future mortality revenues, and the calculation of anticipated internal rates of return.  These pricing models forecast the estimated future premiums due, as well as the future mortalities based on the survival probabilities of the insureds over their life expectancies.  It is possible that the actuarial tables we presently use will again change in the future or that the mortality assumptions will fail substantially to meet actuarial estimates, and that any such failure could have a materially adverse effect on our business.
 

We rely on estimated rates of mortality for the actuarial assumptions we use when valuing life insurance policies and forecasting the performance of our portfolio, and we also rely on other estimates derived from statistical methodologies for projecting our future cash flows, among other things. If our estimates prove to be incorrect, it could materially and adversely affect our ability to satisfy our debt service and repayment obligations.
 

If we assume we will receive cash inflows from policies sooner than we actually do, we may not be able to make payment on our debt obligations in a timely manner, or at all.  Moreover, a significant discovery that results in mortality improvements among seniors, above historically predicted rates by medical actuaries providing life expectancies, could have a material adverse effect on our life insurance policy investments.
 

For example, we use a modeling method for projecting cash flows known as the “probabilistic method.” This is an actuarial method that uses a mortality curve to project the likely flow of policy benefits to us, and attempts to reflect the probability that each premium must be paid.  We have in fact experienced fewer cash flows from policy benefits than projected in the early stages of ownership of our current life insurance policy portfolio using this method.  We had expected to receive approximately $65.7 million in cumulative policy benefits as of December 31, 2013, and in fact received $28.6 million. This has resulted in greater than expected premium payments, increasing from an expected $58.6 million to $61.0 million.  Barring significant mortality improvements (i.e., medical advancements relating to the medical conditions of insureds), however, the fact that actual results have differed from the expectations derived from the probabilistic method of projecting cash flows should ordinarily result in greater cash flows later in the portfolio’s servicing period.

We update and revise our projected future cash flows each month using the probabilistic method to reflect the actual experience within our life insurance policy portfolio to date.  We use the current future cash flow projection to generate our expected internal rate of return on the life insurance policy portfolio we own.  We would expect to change our method of calculating our future cash flows only if leading actuarial firms no longer believed such methodology was the most appropriate means of generating projected cash flows from a life insurance policy portfolio.  Any change to the pricing model, methodology, premium forecasting assumptions, cash flow projections, or the mortality assumptions accompanied therewith that increase the projected cost of insurance premiums or decrease the probability of mortality could have a material and adverse impact on our results of operations and cash flows.  Ultimately, this could adversely affect our ability to meet our debt service and repayment obligations.
 

We may not be able to raise the capital that we are seeking, and may be unable to meet our overall business objectives of growing a larger, more statistically diverse portfolio of life insurance policies without the proceeds from the sale of Renewable Secured Debentures.
 

Arque Capital serves as the underwriter in our ongoing offering of Renewable Secured Debentures on a best-efforts basis.  Although Arque Capital has agreed to use its best efforts in the offer and sale of these debentures, we may not be able to sell the debentures that we are seeking to sell in the offering. Consequently, the additional capital we are seeking may not ultimately be obtained.

Page 27

While we plan to continue the offering of our Renewable Secured Debentures in support of our overall business objectives of growing a larger, more statistically diverse portfolio that is more likely to meet our actuarial cash flow projections, if we are unable to continue the offering for any reason we may be unable to meet that goal.  In addition, if holders of our Series I Secured notes were to fail to renew those notes with the frequency we have historically experienced, and actual cash flows from our portfolio of life insurance policies do not occur as our actuarial projections have forecasted, we could be forced to sell our investments in life insurance policies in order to service or satisfy our debt-related obligations.  If we are forced to sell investments in life insurance policies, we may be unable to sell them at prices we believe are appropriate.  In any such event, our business may be materially and adversely impacted.

We depend upon cash distributions from our subsidiaries, and contractual restrictions on distributions to us or adverse events at one of our operating subsidiaries could materially and adversely affect our ability to pay our debts and to continue to operate our business.
 

GWG Holdings, Inc. is a holding company.  As a holding company, we conduct our operations through our operating subsidiaries, and our only significant assets are the capital stock of our subsidiaries.  Accordingly, our ability to meet our cash obligations depends in material part upon the ability of our subsidiaries to make cash distributions to us.  In this regard, the ability of our subsidiaries to make distributions to us is, and will continue to be, restricted by certain negative covenants in the agreement governing our revolving credit facility.  DLP II is the borrower under our revolving credit facility (see note 6 to our consolidated financial statements).  The significant majority of insurance policies we own are subject to a collateral arrangement with the agent for our revolving credit lender, as described in note 2 to our consolidated financial statements. Under this arrangement, collection and escrow accounts are used to fund purchases and premiums of the insurance policies and to pay interest and other charges under the revolving credit facility. The lender and its agent must authorize all disbursements from these accounts, including any distributions to GWG Life.  Distributions are limited to an amount that would result in the borrowers (us) realizing an annualized rate of return on the equity-funded amount for such assets of not more than 18%, as determined by the agent.  After such amount is reached, the credit agreement requires that excess funds be used to fund repayments or a reserve account in certain amount, before any additional distributions may be made.
 

If any of the above limitations were to materially impede the flow of cash to us, such fact would materially and adversely affect our ability to service and repay our debt, including obligations under the Renewable Secured Debentures and Series I Secured notes.  In addition, any adverse event at the subsidiary level, such as a declaration of bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization or an event of default under our revolving credit facility, could materially and adversely affect the ability of our subsidiaries to make cash distributions to us.  Just as with a material contractual impediment to cash flow, any such subsidiary corporate event would materially and adversely affect our ability to service and repay our debt, and negatively impact our ability to continue operations.
 

If a significant number of holders of our Series I Secured notes and Renewable Secured Debentures demand repayment of those instruments instead of renewing them, and at such time we do not have sufficient capital on hand to fund such repayment (and do not otherwise have access to sufficient capital), we may be forced to liquidate some of our life insurance policy assets, which could have a material and adverse impact on our results of operations.

Our direct and wholly owned subsidiary, GWG Life, had issued and outstanding approximately $29.7 million and $38.6 million in Series I Secured notes as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. By virtue of GWG Life’s full and unconditional guarantee of obligations under our Renewable Secured Debentures, and other agreements contained in or made in connection with the indenture relating to those debentures, the debentures are pari passu in right of payment and collateral with the Series I Secured notes. The indenture governing the debentures, and the note issuance and security agreement governing the Series I Secured notes, each provide for cross defaults upon an event of default under the provisions of the other agreement (i.e., an event of default under the note issuance and security agreement will constitute an event of default under the indenture, and vice versa).

Page 28

The terms of the Series I Secured notes have renewal features.  Since we first issued our Series I Secured notes, we have experienced $114,803,000 in maturities, of which $86,990,000 has renewed for an additional term as of December 31, 2013. This has provided us with an aggregate renewal rate of approximately 76% for investments in our Series I Secured notes.  Future contractual maturities of Series I Secured notes payable at December 31, 2013 are as follows:

Years Ending December 31,
2014	$	16,111,000
2015		6,700,000
2016		2,030,000
2017		4,085,000
2018		754,000
Thereafter		64,000
	$	29,744,000

The terms of the Renewable Secured Debentures also have renewal features.  Since we first issued our debentures, we have experienced $18,330,000 in maturities, of which $11,572,000 has renewed for an additional term as of December 31, 2013.  This has provided us with an aggregate renewal rate of approximately 63% for investments in the debentures.  Future contractual maturities of debentures at December 31, 2013 are as follows:

Years Ending December 31,
2014	$	34,258,000
2015