This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

LM Investment Management - Lack of confidence

Jump to new

Irishdan on the ball, I have it on good authority that LM gets a mention in this 4 Corners program, so its certainly worth a look
 
On Being Out of Date

http://www.peterdrake.com.au/news/l...carlet-pimpernel-of-funds-management-article/

I was struck by the feeling that there's something weird and out of touch with Drake's spruik. Especially when he defends what has proven to be the indefensible (the "hold 'em, or fold 'em" plan).

It seems to me that Peter Drake would have been better off if he'd have let the matter rest. It also seems to me that the "Scarlet Pimpernel" article didn't have the legs to change perceptions, rather it probably acted to reinforce them.

Actually I thought the article was more funny than serious - but then, I'm not an investor with him, oppps... in the fund which is managed by the company which he owns (as if that's not obvious).

Who else thinks he might be better served if he hit the "DELETE" button on the spruik?
 
Re: On Being Out of Date


I agree, I would even suggest that he hit the delete button on his website if it is not going to follow the title, his personal view on finance. It seems to me to be just another avenue for posting LM news. I am not sure who is advising him, but as a brand building exercise for Peter Drake the site doesn't seem to make sense. All it has done for me is question the intregity of LM with a story about closed funds and then a video, not even presented by Peter, talking about how successful their funds have been with no mention of the closed funds.
 
Mapc, you raise an interesting point, who is advising him? Is he following his own advice? Yipes !! As I see it, he's not doing himself any favours. I don't know what happens to many of these managers, but they really do seem to be living in a world of their own.

I wanted to comment on the spruik but I pressed the wrong button - and the whole spruik was posted - Yipes !! (again)

I'll comment in another post.
 

An extraordinary spruik – really extraordinary.

$0.73/unit is passe – the unit price is $0.58/unit and that's only achieved with 100% LVRs on ALL loans, with ALL loans in default for 90 days or more. Notably he refers to 4 June 2012, a time before the big drop to $0.59/unit as at 30 June 2012.

I'm really not sure why the word “conservative” was used in respect of the fund's impairments – at least to me, it makes no sense at all – does it mean that LM didn't impair the fund as much as they could have?

For the life of me, I just can't even see the point about bothering about his home and the number of bathrooms - who cares? Maybe he just likes a “dip (in one), dip (in another), dip ...”?

He says that the LMFMIF has performed well relative to its peers, but apart from Trilogy's FMF, I don't know of any fund reporting LVR even near the 100% in the most recent LMFMIF RG45. So, if we're to compare “apples with apples”, which funds are peers to the LMFMIF?

I'm not sure about this “moral” responsibility he speaks to? I looked, but couldn't find it in the Corporations Act.

I'm a little puzzled about the word, “client” and “client confidentiality” - who is the client of whom? Is he getting a tad confused with investors in the fund being “clients”, and financial advisors being “clients”, but I ask, “clients of whom?”? - I can't see any “client” relationships between any entities mentioned and LM. Of course, if I'm wrong, then I'm pleased (as always) to stand corrected.

I'm sure investors would like to see the “policy of continuous improvement” of the “appropriate corporate governance” - and I wonder if there's anything in there that means anything of value to investors?

He says that he and the directors have “always” been visible and available to investors, but just not at the meeting in Sydney – a bit like the Captain of the HMS “Pinafore”, perhaps it's “mostly always”.

I'm not sure about “ASIC's strict criteria for Responsible Entities to ensure that LM policies meet industry best practice” - I'm curious about ASIC's strict criteria – does anyone know where one might find them?

Oh boy – that constitutional amendment about the “innovative and unique liquidity mechanism” - it's not often that a vote's carried, a constitutional amendment is made (?), and then, the whole shooting match is disregarded – but, it happened in the LMFMIF.

There's not much point to make comment to the rest of it. The whole spruik seems to be directed to the court case, and because many of the facts relate to a time well and truly past, it all makes no sense at all.

I agree with Mapc, pressing the “DELETE” key on his whole site might be doing himself a big favour – if he keeps on posting like that, members might really start to have concerns.
 
Too Much of the Bottle?

prawn_86 said:
Info appearing on Four Corners tonight:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-...-for-potentially-misleading-investors/4550414
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm wrong, and after all, this is only my opinion, but if I was to sue someone, say, like the SMH, I don't really think that I'd put a video online that'd have the potential to cause me the slightest amount of problems.

And then if I put the video online, I don't really think that I'd go out and promote it.

OH! by the way, it seems the Peter Drake's taken off Mr. Bottle's video - poor ol' Mr. Bottle.

ABC reports, (in part), "At a recent seminar in Israel, the European development manager for LM Investment, former Goldman Sachs banker Simon Bottle, told investors and financial planners: "We are highly regulated in Australia. We are regulated twice. We are regulated as a private bank, and regulated as a fund manager.""

http://www.peterdrake.com.au/ (geez, have I missed it?)

Is this a case of too much of the bottle?

I confess that I'm perplexed, actually totally perplexed as to why Peter Drake decided to open a website in the first place.

One has to shake one's head in absolute disbelief.
 
Trilogy's Free Ride From the SMH

Here we go again - Trilogy gets a free ride.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/watchdog-eyes-mystery-man-drakes-funds-firm-20130304-2ffuo.html

The battle has certainly become personal - and who's surprised? Michael West's smiling face on a zoomed-up image of the "Scarlet Pimpernel" - to me, it's mocking, to say the least. A red flag to a bull? (so to speak)

Michael West says, "Property funds management group, Trilogy Capital, is seeking to remove LM as manager of its flagship fund, the frozen LM First Mortgage Income Fund.", and even though he knows perfectly well about Trilogy's past (and present) failures, he gives them a free ride.

If Mr. West was so concerned about members of the LMFMIF, one would have thought that, as well as bringing issues in relation to LM to investors' attention, he'd also bring Trilogy's failures to members' attention - but no, he doesn't seem to want to report anything negative about Trilogy.

Even the ABC gives Trilogy a free ride - ah! the ABC probably doesn't know any better.

Oh well, let's wait - it might just turn out to be a "Four Part Trilogy Tragedy":
http://moneymagik.com/three_part_trilogy_funds_management_tragedy.php
 
prawn_86 said:
Info appearing on Four Corners tonight:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-...-for-potentially-misleading-investors/4550414
Click to expand...

Wow could things get any worse...... one good bit of news in today's Gold Caost Bulletin is confirmation that capital repayments will start this week and according to the article LM has been able to sell down assests at a faster rate as the market had improved. Lets hope for those trusting investors, at a better price as well. I am not sure if the article is online I saw it in the printed version of the paper.
 
Media Bias


I didn't think much of the program - sure, it pointed to the impact on investors, but it didn't do anything to expose the mechanisms that allow these failures to affect investors so badly. I was wondering if the head of ASIC was going to burst into a smile, he was half-way there.

Peter Drake's performance wasn't too bad - he did well not to return for a further interview, and even at the end of the LM segment, the report more or less said that "Madison" could be a winner. wow!

It's quite the shame that these reporters strike for superficial heart-rendering reports, rather than getting to know the substance of what the real problems are - the mechanisms that allow the impact on investors.

I think that Michael West has an axe to grind and seems perfectly happy to gratiutously throw in a line about Trilogy in his SMH article without warning LM investors about Trilogy's failures. Michael West is clearly biased - there's no other word for it - as far as this matter goes, he's a lop-sided storyteller slamming Drake and LM, while letting Trilogy off with a free pass.

I think LM will fare quite well out of the episode.
 
Does anyone have a link to the 4 corners program as i live overseas and did not get to see it , tried to get it up on there wesite but says they only show it in Australia . Much apreciated if someone could post a link .
 
Edgen said:
Does anyone have a link to the 4 corners program as i live overseas and did not get to see it , tried to get it up on there wesite but says they only show it in Australia . Much apreciated if someone could post a link .
Click to expand...

I think the only way you'll be able to do it is to get/buy yourself a reliable (and fast) Australian proxy server.
 
THE INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST

A PFMF unitholder phoned Michael West (SMH) and asked him a very simple question:

"Why haven't you done an article on the performance of Trilogy in the City Pacific fund?"

Interestingly, Mr. West responds, "I'm assuming you're coming from the Sullivan (camp)" (Phil Sullivan is the ex-CEO of City Pacific Limited, the original responsible entity for the fund)

Michael West couldn't take on face value that the unitholder was simply concerned about his losses in the PFMF under Trilogy's management, rather he assumed the unitholder was associated with Sullivan merely because he was questioning Trilogy's management !

Oh, and yes, Sullivan is suing three Fairfax entities in defamation.
 
Re: On Being Out of Date

Very odd indeed, when a bunker mentality starts to set in. Look at Equititrust and McIvor and you start to see a pattern emerge.
Given the failure of mortgage funds on the Gold Coast and the fact that LM's funds have been frozen did they expect not to be scrutinised by the media ?? The more scrutiny the better as far as I am concerned...


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
586
Dona Ferentes
US Election 2024 : Stock and Economic Comment
7 8 9
Replies
171
Views
11K
divs4ever
M
WEF corrupts countries
Replies
6
Views
411
SirRumpole
M
Cooling Australian Property Market Signals Economic Trends
Replies
1
Views
1K
Joe Blow
Automatic Investment Management Redux
Replies
5
Views
2K
wayneL
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...