dinga

G'day

I am looking for someone to install a watering system in a medium sized garden.  Don't know much about such things but am thinking of a 2 or 3 zone setup on a timer, with water supplied through a small pump from a 2,200 litre above ground plastic tank.

I live in Laem Mae Phim (near Klaeng in Rayong Province)  -  any suggested/recommended companies or individuals who can do the job?

I hold 2 investments in the LM Currency Protected Australian Income Fund (CPAIF), which is one of a number of feeder funds for the LM First Mortgage Income Fund (FMIF).

CPAIF investors should be aware that LM is proposing changes to the FMIF Constitution that I believe will have a substantial impact on investments in those feeder funds.

Despite this, at present LM will not allow feeder fund investors any input into those changes.  This is unacceptable to me.

As Responsible Entity, LM holds those CPAIF units on my behalf.  While LM will rightly will not use those Units to vote (as it recognizes the clear conflict), given the extraordinary circumstances it should afford investors in feeder funds the opportunity to vote on the proposal on the basis of their FMIF indirect investments.

In my view, CPAIF members should request a special meeting to thrash this issue out with LM and have it corrected   -  with the FMIF vote to be suspended until that is done.

I'd welcome any thoughts from feeder fund investors especially in the CPAIF.

As my earlier post indicates, I am an investor in the frozen LM First Mortage Income Fund (FMIF).

The Financial Statement for Y/E  30 June 2011 records that over A$12 million in interest was treated by LM as being 're-investments' in the Fund.  

I assume that many/most of the investors due that interest would be very unhappy with such treatment (and the impact of the consequent +20% haircut applied to unit prices).

In my circumstances, I believe the Fund Constitution indicates that interest should be paid in the period subsequent to the submission of a redemption request and that LM's treatment was not supportable.

I took the matter up directly with LM and after extended and extensive effort had them agree to rectify the situation (despite LM stating there was no liability to do so).  

Any unhappy FMIF investor in similar circumstances can contact me and I'll provide full details.

I would like to contact fellow investors in the LM First Mortgage Income Fund (FMIF), to arrange a forum for us to discuss the proposal by LM to change the Constitution of that Fund.

There is presently no ability for investors to discuss the proposal amongst themselves, and develop other recommendations/proposals to be put to a members vote as is their right under the Fund Constitution.  I have tried to make constructive suggestions about how LM can facilitate such a process but is seems none will be adopted by LM.  Given this, and LM's refusal to provide me with a copy of the members' register, I can only conclude LM seeks to discourage direct investor interaction in order to restrict investors' focus to only those matters promoted by LM.

While on the surface LM's proposal appears to be simple, it seems to me the implications of the proposed changes to the Constitution are profound and will likely have significant impact on the value of my investment.

While there may be benefits to LM, in my view LM has failed to provide sufficent information to demonstrate that its proposal is in my best interests as an investor  eg. where is the information about other options that were identified and analyzed, and why are they not preferred?; Where is the financial modelling of all options?; Has the bank financing facility been secured and do the terms and timeframes place any limitation on investors' position?  etcetcetc

In the absence of such, I have concluded there is insufficient information for me to make a informed decision on the LM recommendation being put to members' vote. I see this as being unsatisfactory, as it seems investors will be pretty well locked into the LM process if the vote is passed, and I will have to blindly gamble on what may give me the "least worse" outcome.

In my view, the vote scheduled for 16 May should therefore be postponed until sufficient information is available.  

If there are other like-minded investors in the LM FMIF, I suggest we urgently meet to:
*  discuss LM's performance to date, including whether LM should be removed and replaced as the 'responsible entity'
*  discuss the changes to FMIF Constitution proposed by LM, so that we can all be better informed (I see this as especially important given my understanding a significant proportion of investors are elderly and may rely on the opinion of the advisors who introduced them to LM and whose independence may be questionable if there are trailing commissions)
*  identify any information deficiencies, and request such information be provided prior to the vote
*  discuss the need for LM to hold Investors Forums -  also prior to the vote  -  to provide members with the opportunity to discuss and question LM on its recommendations
*  identify alternative options to be put to those Investors Forums and/or to a vote by investors

Fellow LM FMIF investors please provide urgent feedback on these thoughts.

Anyone ever used the large red clay bricks to build a small above-ground lotus/fish pond?

I'm really pleased with the outcome, but now a few of the bricks are crumbling and I'd appreciate any suggestions about how the bricks can be treated to prevent any further deterioration  (one thought was to drain the pond and apply an epoxy paint to the internal rendering - if moisture is the problem)

The bricks came from Nakhon Sawan, are handmade from (I assume) red clay and apparently have been fired.  They are clearly much weaker than the small red bricks favoured by Thai brickies, and are similar to the ones used to construct the old temples.

Thanks!