Went into a lien fund three years ago and the deed conversion rate is running at 23 percent, which is not what the deck suggested

The assumption doing the most work in the manager's explanation is the "market timing" framing. It converts a structural underwriting failure into an exogenous event, which lets them off the hook for the 4-5 percent conversion projection. The more uncomfortable read is that the original deck either modeled redemption behavior on a low-rate environment where owners had refinance options and equity cushions, or it cherry-picked a performance window. 2021 rural Ohio assessments running ahead of actual values is not a black swan, it was visible in real-time if you were watching county-level assessment-to-sale-price ratios. The question is whether the fund was.

The number that matters most right now is not the 23 percent conversion rate in isolation. It is the carrying cost on those converted parcels against your $200k allocation, and you said you cannot see that figure broken out. That opacity is the real problem. "Asset management phase" with a combined figure is not adequate reporting for a fund that is now operating as a property liquidation vehicle on a meaningful portion of its book. You should be able to see, at minimum, estimated holding costs by parcel, the disposition timeline, and what the fund models as the net recovery per converted position.

On the third raise: the structure of that decision depends on whether the fund's bid discipline has changed since 2021 and whether their jurisdictional mix for new capital avoids the same rural counties with thin buyer pools. If they are still bidding the same markets at similar premiums, the conversion exposure in the new book is not corrected.

One risk you have not named directly is liquidity. If those parcels are in thin rural Ohio markets, the disposition timeline could extend well past what the fund is projecting, and your capital stays illiquid in an asset class you did not underwrite for. A tax and legal professional needs to look at what any eventual parcel disposition or fund redemption triggers for you, I won't get into that.

What does the fund's LP agreement say about your rights to request position-level reporting?

That 11.2 percent net on the redeemed certs is actually solid, which makes the situation more annoying, not less, because the instrument worked exactly as advertised on the certificates that behaved normally.

What I'd want to know before anything else: are those rural Ohio parcels in the same two counties for the third raise, or is he moving the geographic focus?

The combined reporting is the part that would make me walk right now.