> Why not just buy fractional shares of a property?
Transaction costs for diversification. The same reason it makes sense to buy ETFs versus directly balance your own portfolio for anything below your first million.
But owning a REIT is nothing like owning property. Sure, REITs and investment properties both derive cash flows from rent, but the similarities stop there.
In general, asking “why not X instead of Y” without giving reasons why X is preferable over Y is just a waste of everyone’s time.
Really? Most people own fractional shares of real estate, e.g. when the property is part of a marital estate.
Investing in a REIT is just investing in a company that happens to derive cash flows from real estate. You’re not buying fractional ownership of real estate when investing in a REIT. You’re investing in a management team and a capital allocation strategy. It’s much more similar to a mutual fund or PE fund. The only difference between a normal business and a REIT is that you have to pay income tax on your dividends. Owning a fractional share of a property is taking an ownership stake in a real asset. The two aren’t related at all.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Typically, fractional ownership of real estate assets is typically done via a tenancy in common title, not via a share mechanism, so your “share” (literally “portion”, which can be partial or whole) is a fraction of the whole.
Transaction costs for diversification. The same reason it makes sense to buy ETFs versus directly balance your own portfolio for anything below your first million.