Maduran Hypocrisy

 

Brandon Lehman is a smart young YouTuber who I’ve followed for years. He usually has a smart and knowledgeable take on world affairs. Obviously from a conservative perspective. You want the Left perspective, go to any of the legacy media, CNN, MSNBC, BBC… 

Old dog. Young dog. NYE 31 December 2025

Trump Manacles Maduro. Yay!

Maduro in manacles. Yukking it up, with his captors

Amazing News! 

Nicholas Maduro and his Missus are captured, in the middle of the night, by US forces. Spirited away to New York, where they await trial for being major drug and human traffickers. 

Quick initial reactions:

• Venezuelans are cheering and weeping with happiness. 
• Republicans are a bit bamboozled and not sure if they like it or not, based on their "America First" philosophy. Should we really be going into another country? [See below links to some of this].
• Democrats hate it because it's Trump. [See CNN and MSNBC]
• I love it. Because it's forceful and has more upsides than downsides. 

The upsides: 

Venezuelans love it

America reclaims the oil leases that were stolen ("expropriated without compensation" by Hugo Chavez). 

Some hope that the Venezuelan economy can be reignited. Venezuelans in the US go back to Venezuela. Venezuelans prosper. 

Stopping -- or at least dramatically reducing -- drug shipments to the US and human trafficking. 

The downsides: 

Just go to CNN and MSNBC to see the freak out. Which mostly seems to be: it was done by Trump, therefore we hate it. 

Recalling that the Dems hated Maduro when he came to power. They criticised him because he was, they said, "illegitimate". They claimed that Trump adored Maduro, a "fellow dictator", a person he wanted to emulate, said the Dems. Now here is Trump putting Maduro in manacles, to prep him for a serious court case. 

Go figure that one. The hypocrisy is rank.

The Dems are constantly being outed for their hypocrisy. But they seem no longer to even care. Their hypocrisy is out and about, in the open and they don't care. 

In short: this is a major power play. I'm betting that Trump & Co will win the day. 

We'll see. 

Related Vids: 

• Trump blasts Maduro. Devory Darkins. A vet
• Venezuela Liberated. Greg Foreman. A financier
• Trump changed history. Brandon Lehman. A youngpreneur
• Joy erupts in Venezuela. The State of Daniel. An actor

Israel recognises Somaliland. Yay!

 

Good. I'm glad that Israel recognises the State of Somaliland. 

Yay, Somaliland!

The rest of the world, the United Nations, losing their minds over this, is the best part. For it highlights their hypocrisy. 

Natasha Hausdorff, international law expert, who I've had on here many times, sets it out. 

The case for recognising "Palestine" was about zero of the four requirements of statehood. That is: 1. A permanent population. 2. A defined terrirory. 3. A government. 4. A capacity to enter into international relations. NONE of those was present when my own country, of which I'm ashamed in this regard, recognised "The State of Palestine". 

ALL of these criteria exist in the case of Somaliland. 

And: Israel will have an ally opposite the Houthis. An ally which says it will join the Abraham Accords. 

The Abraham Accords are the greatest chance of making the Middle East a livable, a growing, a flourishing, centre of humanity. Not Hamas. Not Iran. Not Islam. No. The practicalities of the Abraham Accords. To invent. To innovate. To be an open, liberal, tolerant, clever society. 

New Year Yuks. All the times "Trump can't win"

 This is so funny to review. Funny New Year's laughs. They were all soooo sure that Trump would not, could not, win. Yet, all these people are still there, still pontificating, and we still, for some weird reason, pay attention to them. 

Iran: Mullocracy on death watch?

 

“Mullocracy” = Dictatorship of the Mullahs. Aka Dictatorship of the Ayatollahs. Aka Theocracy. Aks Iran. 

Which Iran has been since 1979. And which so many Iranians have come to hate. And now bravely say so. As in the video above.

Unlike the faux “bravery” of a Greta Thunberg in the west. Who is performative in her “resistance”, who “speaks truth to power”, is “bravely” arrested, and out of jail before the day has ended, in Iran, women who resist, who break the law by going into public with hair uncovered risk jail, rape and death. To resist the Iranian regime is the real bravery. Western women defying cops in western cities are performative. 

Do not forget: this regime in Iran is the one who came to power in 1979, via revolution fomented by leftist allies. The Mullah regime, the Islamic theocracy then repaid their allies by executing over 30,000 of them. 

Zero good has come out of the Mullocracy since 1979. Only oppression and terrorism. Terrorism exported to allies and proxies: Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen…. Even in South America where they fund nasty regimes like Maduro’s Venezuela. 

If it’s true that the Iranian demonstrators are out in force this time because “enough is enough”, that’s a good thing. But I’ve seen reports that counter the one in the video above, that claim today’s demonstrations are like the demonstrations during Obama — unsupported by Obama — which failed to overturn the Theocracy, perhaps precisely because of that lack of American and western support. 

This time Washington has come out in support of regime change. Good.

I drove through a lot of Iran in 1974. I was in a clapped-out Ford Anglia, on the way from London to New Delhi, with girlfriend and another couple. In Iran, we visited old friends, Aussies, teaching in Isfahan. We met their students. Lovely, open, friendly people. Society was open. The Shah was in charge. He a moderate, liberal, pushing for open education, women’s rights, housing reform… all kinds of nice stuff. Stuff the Left loves! But the Shah had secret police, the Savak, notoriously violent. And so, to the liberal west this was a Bad Man. He had to go. 

This case is just one of many that reminds me of Thomas Sowell’s famous quote: 

“There are no solutions; only trade offs”. 

People made the mistake of assuming the Ayatollah, the Mullahs, the Islamists, the Theocracy was a Solution. Had they thought it was a matter of Trade Off, we’d rather have an open minded, secular -Shah, even with his dreaded Savak, than an oppressive, dictatorial Islamist theocracy. It’s not a matter of hindsight either. Plenty of people warned about this at the time. But President Jimmy Carter, that achingly liberal incompetent, preferred Ayatollah Khomeini. Because, you know, you’d rather have an anti-west Theocracy than a pro-west Shah who had secret police. 

Of such quirks is world history made. 

Now, nearly 50 years later, it may be time for history to turn again. Inshallah….

ADDED: How do I feel overall? About the demonstrations in Iran? Pessimistic. I doubt the unarmed populace will be able to topple the theocrats, protected as they are by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps — the much-worse-than-Savak armed police who protect the regime. I hope I’m wrong. 

If you are convinced you have “Solutions”, you can get yourself into real trouble. That’s the key problem with communism, with socialism. People keep on thinking they’re Solutions. Whereas they are almost always worse than the “bad” situation they replace. 

Much safer to consider if what you’re facing, the problem you want to solve, may be one of “Trade Offs”. Where there are choices, often between bad and worse. Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979 was one much. A matter of people supporting a worse outcome because it was seen as a Solution to a “bad” situation. 

"Massive Somali Fraud in Minnesota..." | All-in Podcast

 

The All-in Podcast bros, the "besties": Jason Calecanis; Chamath; David Sacks; David Friedman. Talk about Nick Shirley, the exposer of Minnesota Somali fraud. And more. 

There's a lot that's disturbing and worrying on this video, a record of the thinking of some of the brightest minds in tech America. They worry about the viability of America if states continue on the California-type line, of ever increasing taxes to fund ever more far-left causes. But also.. we now know... to fund so much fraud, in the "Charity Industrial Complex", aka the "NGO Industrial Complex". 

And we end up thinking: THAT's why they hated it, the Dems and TDS people, back in Feb-March, when Elon Musk pursued DOGE, tried to cut off clearly fraudulent or wasteful spending of government charitaable funds. Because it was all -- and remains all -- a huge money laundering operation. 

And yet.. if the amount of fraud were stopped in its tracks, it's likely that the US could cut its annual deficit to zero. That would surely help with the viability of America.  A country with over $US 37 Trillion on debt. 

But the Dems don't want that. Because the money is too good. 

Shame. 

See also: "The basic canon of Arab life"

"The basic canon of Arab life" | Leon Uris

“So before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world. And all of us against the infidel.”

― Leon Uris, The Haj

This is clearly how the Somali community in Minnesota operates. It's support the Clan no matter what, especially when you're being attacked by the hated infidel. 

It's the clannishness that's led to them deflecting, denying and obfuscating the huge, massive fraud (ok, "alleged" fraud) that's ripped over $US 8 Billion from the American taxpayer -- money that was to go to children and autism sufferers -- and instead of saying "We have a problem in our community and we must cooperate to help stamp it out", are saying "Not me, boss. Not us". And "you're all racists and white supremacists" for noticing the fraud. ("alleged" fraud...). 

Such a huge story on the Right. Such a non-story on the Left: full of deflection, deletion, denial and name-calling, not just by the Somali Clans, but also by the legacy media, who are all-in to deny the rampant fraud, that even they admitted was happening during Biden's admin... Weird. 

Related: 

• Batya Ungar-Sargon on how "infuriating" all this fraud is...
• Doc Rich: the Somali fraud keeps getting worse... 
• Nellie Miranda about Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's connection to the fraud
• The All-in besties on the Minnesota fraud

What's the Truth? How do you find it? (Spoiler: Rigorous Inquiry)

"How do you know what the Truth is?" asks a guest at our Boxing Day Recovery Buffett. 

"Good question," I answer. 

Before launching into a confusing, half-baked answer to her question. Where I got lost in a tangle of brambles and a wilderness of weeds, about my time as an intelligence analyst in the Australian government, back in the 1980s. Where I had to make some judgement about which incoming Intelligence info should be passed on up the chain and which should be binned in the Classified Trash. I mean, kind of relevant, but also kind of roundabout and incoherent. 

Recovered the next morning, I sent her a text saying again "good question", and that I'd not really answered it well. I wanted to add some factors. Like: 

1.  Primary Sources: Make sure you look at, delve into, Primary Sources. And.. 

2.  Many Sources: Look at the media from Left to Right; where there's intersection is more likely to be truth. As I covered years ago, here. (See the Venn Diagram at top). 

I should have added some more. Like: 

3. Read past the Headline. I've been surprised, but now no longer, at just how many friends and rellies will happily admit to reading only the headline of an article. I had one tell me, proudly!: "I only read the headlines from the Guardian". I mean: not that you'll always get nonsense by reading only the Guardian, but for sure you'll always get only one side, the far Left side, of a story. And one of the things about seeking the Truth is that it's rarely a monopoly of just one side of an argument. If you read past the headlines, there's often times when the contents of a story itself will reverse what the headline says. 

4. Social Media: We have to rely on it, at least for some of our news and for some of our Truth-seeking. But the biases are very different across the range. Reddit is way more slanted to the Dems than is YouTube, for example. The most balanced, by Pew Research results, is X, the Twitter platform that Elon Musk bought and made Free Speech its guiding light:

The most skewed is Bluesky, the X equivalent on the Left

A good topic for the first day of the New Year, is it not? How do we know what The Truth is? So therefore...

I asked my AI about this Truth business. The first two items it mentioned were exactly those I texted the Boxing Day questioner above: Primary Sources. And Many Sources. 

Here's the rest of AI's answer to my question "How can we tell the Truth about Event X?"

When two people hold conflicting views on "Event X", determining the truth requires systematic critical thinking rather than accepting one side outright.

Start by seeking primary evidence: original documents, videos, eyewitness accounts, or data directly related to X. 

Avoid relying solely on interpretations.Consult diverse, credible sources representing all perspectives—reputable news outlets, academic studies, fact-checking sites (e.g., FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, Snopes), and expert analyses. 

Look for consensus among independent verifiers; agreement across biases strengthens reliability.

Evaluate sources for credibility: Check author expertise, potential biases, and whether claims are supported by verifiable evidence, not just opinions or anecdotes.

Identify logical fallacies, emotional appeals, or selective framing in arguments. Ask: What evidence would falsify each view? Be open to updating your beliefs.

Truth about events is often probabilistic, not absolute—aim for the most justified conclusion based on available evidence. 

Recognize personal biases may cloud judgment; steelman opposing views to test them fairly.

Absolute certainty is rare, but rigorous inquiry gets closest to reality.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, we have our first and very serious, New Year's Resolution: Let us commit to "Rigorous Inquiry"!

Happy Doggy New Year!

Nicky and Marcus in Siena Park, Discovery Bay. 
New Year 2017

"My best of 72 sit downs in 2025" | Dave Rubin

Dave Rubin is a ex Leftie. Now a self-described "classical liberal". AKA, kind of middlish slightly Right. So, he platforms mostly conservative voices. 

But that’s OK. 

Because the mainstream media, aka the “legacy media”, are all on the Left. We know their views. They surround us. They are the water in which we swim. The likes of CNN, MSNBC, abc, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post…. In Britain, the BBC. In Australia, the ABC. These are the media that tell us ever day what the view of the Left is. 

Above video: Dave showing us some of his best interviews of 2025.

Somali Fraud in Minnesota

 

Youngest Nobel Laureate: Peter Sholze

 

Americans are fed up with Islam. Australia should do the same

 

A large minority — perhaps even a majority — of adherents to the “Religion of Peace” want to destroy the West. 

The reason they want to do this is set out in the Koran. And the Hadith. And the Sirah. The Trinity of Islamic doctrine. 

The reason is: 

They -- Muslims -- are "Correct". We -- all the rest of the non-Muslim world -- are "Wrong". We should not just be "educated" to Submit to Islam. If we offer any resistance, we must be fought and subdued. 

That's Islam for you. That's not me saying that. That's the Islamic Trinity. The core, the foundational, documents of Islam.

Don't believe me? Read a Koran. 

“Why no one wants the Palestinians “ | Israel my Channel

 

I've written about this several times over the years. These people, the "Palestinians", who are Arabs living in the Levant, are everywhere sacralised. We ask for them to be "Free". To own a land that is currently owned and run by Jews, to own that land, "From the River to the Sea". In pursuit of that, to encourage the "Global Intifada", which is nothing less than the murder, the extirpation of every Jew in the Holy Land; every Jew in the world. Actual, real, true, Genocide, IOW. All that, we call for. 

Yet, they -- these "Palestinians" -- are welcomed nowhere in the Arab world. 

And why are "Palestinians" welcome nowhere in the Arab world? 

It's simple: because everywhere they have been allowed to settle, they have created CHAOS. Which has harmed or even entirely ruined the societies into which they had been welcomed. Jordan had its Black September massacres. Lebanon turned from a mixed religious and peaceful society, to one at Civil War, killing or driving out the Christians and Jews that had lived there for millenia. In Egypt it was supporting the terrorist-loving Muslim Brotherhood, parents of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. 

All these Islamic Arab countries, who rail against Israel for being too harsh in their war on Gaza, want nothing to do with Palestinians in their own countries. And tell us, sometimes behind the backs of their own Arab Streets, that we, the West, ought to be much tougher on the militant Islamist groups in our own countries. 

But, no. We don't do that. Because to do so is "racist". To attempt to do so is "Islamophobic". 

Sheesh. 

A visitor to Hong Kong gives a fair picture

Merry Christmas 2025

A quarter century already …

Christ and Muhammad, a history lesson | Brigitte Gabriel

 

On this day, the birth day of Christ, the prophet. And King. And consider what Muhammad took from the Old Testament to cobble together his “recitation”, his “Koran”. 

And of course a Merry Christmas to One and All! 🥂❤️🎉🎄

The new Middle East | Dan Schueftan

Broadcaster Jonathan Sacerdoti speaks to professor Dan Schueftan.

I’ve posted Dan Schueftan before. 

Many will find him too… Right Wing. I’d rather call him Sound. Robust. Based. 

Some of his points:

In the Middle East you have to be strong. And you have to show your strength. If you are weak and seen to be weak you risk attack. Israel has shown its strength since October 7. It has come out of two + years of war much stronger. 

If someone is not afraid of you, you have to be afraid of them. You can’t appease. 

Israel has come out of this latest war much stronger. It has weakened Iran and all its proxies. Weakened Syrian Jihadist forces. 

 Arab countries support Israel because they’re decimating their strongest enemies, the Muslim Brotherhood. But publicly they have to diss on Israel because that’s what the Arab Street expects. 

“I don’t like the Jews or Jewish society — too noisy, too messy. But I Love them.” 

Meantime western countries like Britain, the EU, Australia and even the U.S. allow the Muslim Brotherhood free rein, with its dozens of allied bodies. Which Arab countries do not allow. They ban the Brotherhood. They tell us we must do the same. We ignore them. Because we are smarter! We know more than all these Muslim states.... Right. 

From the Show Notes:

Condemned by mobs on the streets of the West, denounced by governments across Europe and beyond, and vilified by the United Nations and its satellite institutions, Israel might nevertheless be in a stronger strategic position than at any point in its history.
 
Two years after October 7th, Israel’s international standing has deteriorated even as its regional power has expanded. What appears in Western capitals as isolation and moral failure is understood very differently in the Middle East, where strength is measured not by approval but by the capacity to act, to endure condemnation, and to defeat enemies who interpret restraint as weakness.

This discussion moves beyond the battlefield to examine why Europe has drifted from strategic thinking into ideological paralysis, why progressive politics treats self defence as a moral failure, and why Israel’s greatest strength lies not in its political leadership but in a society willing to fight, endure and rebuild without illusions.

👁‍🗨 Watch if you want to understand why Israel’s unpopularity in the West has coincided with a historic consolidation of power in the Middle East, and what that reveals about the condition of Western opinion.

The inevitable partition of Ukraine? | George Yeo

Listen carefully to George Yeo, former foreign minister of Singapore.

He displays a far deeper understanding of European history and its conflicts than most Western politicians ever have.

It’s rare to see a high-ranking official speak with this level of depth, clarity, and insight in an interview. Here.

Having listened, I don't agree with George Yeo on Taiwan. I don't believe Taiwanese are taking an independent line, wanting to remain as they are, de facto if not de jure independent, just because the US says so. All the polls over many years, shows they don't want to be a part of the mainland. And that's the story. An independent people want to remain independent.

But on the Ukraine-Russia war question, perhaps he's got a point. Which is simply this: that any settlement, any Cease Fire, will involve Ukraine giving up some land. I think those of us that followed this at all were already there.

By the way, to be clear when i say "independent line" I don't mean that the want to declare independence. Which would be suicidal. They simply want the status quo. Which is effective independence. Without calling for it in legal international terms.

There is no Sisterhood

 

I was told this years ago, by a senior manager in a finance company here in Hong Kong. A woman. By some criteria "a person of colour". A minority. Who was nonetheless very senior in her organisation: up to the Managing Director level. 

But who told me that she didn't like to work with women. Because they were always talking behind your back and waiting for you to fail. Men were different, she told me. An Old Man. With men, she said, they fitted in to a hierarchy straight away. They were natural at it. When the boss was named, they followed the boss. 

No, you don't have "lots of Muslim friends", OtherBarak! They don't love you. They're just waiting for the chance.

 

Birth of a Grand-Nephew

Grand-Nephew, Noah, born to Dr Meredith Davies and Zed. 

A birth. Always a thing to celebrate. Especially these days of such low birth rates. 

A son to my niece, daughter of my sister and Ian. 

Hurrah! 

Is it better to own property direct or indirect via a REIT?

We have properties here in Hong Kong. Which we rent out. That's us owning property direct. It's been pretty good for the best part of two decades. But recently, I calculated that it would be better, for us, to own property INdirect. That is, via a fund of properties, like the REITS, which are Real Estate Investment Trusts. These invest in a portfolio of properties and divide up the net rental returns, after taking a management fee, between all the share owners. 

I calculated that it would be better to own property INdirect: 

(1) Easier. Less hassle

(2) More money. About $HK 1 million more per year.

This is not accepted by my partner in all this. 

I asked Grok. 

Look at hong kong property. Compare owning of apartments direct, leasing them out to ordinary people. Compare that with putting the same amount of money into a REIT, like the LINK Reit. Compare for the period 2008 to 2025. Compare CAGR and ROI (Net rent divided by value of the property).  

Tell me if you think it would have been better to invest in property direct, or in property indirect, like in a REIT.

Here's the answer. 

Direct Ownership of Residential Apartments (Buy and Lease Out) vs. Investing in Link REIT (2008–2025)To compare these two approaches over the period from the start of 2008 to the end of 2025 (approximately 18 years), we focus on key metrics: CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate of total return, including capital appreciation and income) and net rental yield (net rent as a percentage of property value, averaged or representative over the period).Note: Direct residential ownership involves buying apartments and renting them to ordinary tenants. Link REIT (0823.HK) is primarily a retail-focused REIT (shopping malls, car parks, some office/logistics), not residential, so it's an indirect property investment but in a different sector. This is an apples-to-oranges comparison in asset type, but as requested.1. Direct Residential Property Ownership (Buy-to-Let)

• Price Appreciation:
  • Hong Kong residential prices rose dramatically from 2008–2013 (~+134%).
  • Peaked around 2021 (BIS index ~263 vs. base periods).
  • Then declined sharply due to high interest rates, economic pressures, and policy changes: ~25–30% drop from 2021 peak by mid-2025, with ongoing year-on-year declines (e.g., -7.76% y-o-y in Q1 2025).
  • Overall from 2008 to 2025: Strong gains early, but recent corrections mean net appreciation is positive but moderated. Estimated total capital growth: ~150–200% (rough, based on index from low post-GFC to current levels around 190–200 on various bases like BIS 2010=100 or RVD 1999=100 equivalents).
• CAGR (Capital Only): ~5–7% annually.
• Rental Income:
  • Rents followed prices upward but with less volatility and lagged during downturns.
  • Gross rental yields have been consistently low in Hong Kong: Averaged ~3–4% over the period, recently ~3.9% (Q2 2025), with ranges 2.4–4.99% depending on size/location.
  • Net yield (after management fees, maintenance, vacancy, rates/taxes, but before financing costs): Typically ~2–3% (gross minus ~1% costs).
• Total Return CAGR (capital + reinvested net rent): Estimated 7–9% annually, driven mostly by early appreciation. Recent years have lower/negative capital returns, dragging overall performance.
• ROI as Net Rent / Property Value: Average ~2.5% annually (varying from ~2% in high-price periods to ~4% recently as prices fell faster than rents).

Challenges: High transaction costs (stamp duties), leverage risks (many use mortgages, amplified losses in downturns), management hassle, vacancy risks, and illiquidity.2. Investing in Link REIT (Indirect via Retail-Focused REIT)

• Price Appreciation:
  • IPO in 2005; from 2008 lows (post-GFC dip to HK$0.65 adjusted) to 2025 prices (HK$35–42 range in recent data).
  • Peak 2019 (HK$89–90).
  • Recent declines due to retail challenges (post-COVID, mainland competition, negative reversions).
  • Overall capital growth from 2008–2025: Positive but lower than residential peak-to-trough swings.
• CAGR (Capital Only): ~4–6% annually.
• Distribution Income (DPU):
  • Consistent growth historically (e.g., from ~HK$1.8 in mid-2010s to peaks ~HK$2.7–3).
  • Yield typically 5–7% (higher than residential due to commercial efficiencies and mandatory 90%+ payout).
  • Recent: Some declines (e.g., -5.9% in H1 FY2026), but resilient with diversification (China, Australia, etc.).
• Total Return CAGR (price appreciation + reinvested distributions): Estimated 8–10% annually over long periods (since IPO ~10–12% in some analyses, adjusted down post-2019). Link has delivered stable income even during property downturns, outperforming direct in volatile periods due to professional management and diversification.

Advantages: Liquidity, diversification (portfolio of 150+ assets), no management hassle, higher yields.Comparison Summary

Metric	Direct Residential (Buy-to-Let)	Link REIT (Indirect Retail)
Total CAGR (2008–2025)	~7–9% (strong early gains, recent drag)	~8–10% (steadier, income-driven)
Net Rental/Distribution Yield (Avg.)	~2–3% (low due to high prices)	~5–7% (higher efficiency)
Volatility	High (price swings, leverage risks)	Medium (stock-like, but income buffer)
Key Driver	Capital appreciation (boom-bust)	Consistent distributions + moderate growth

Conclusion: Which Was Better?Over 2008–2025, investing in Link REIT (indirect via REIT) would likely have been better overall for most investors.

• It provided higher and more consistent income yields.
• Total returns were comparable or slightly superior, with lower hassle and risk (no single-property exposure, professional management).
• Direct residential benefited hugely from the 2009–2021 bull run but suffered sharp corrections recently, compressing yields and eroding gains for late entrants or leveraged buyers.

If you were unleveraged and held through the full period, direct might edge on capital gains—but factoring in costs, time, and recent performance, Link REIT offered a superior risk-adjusted return. For pure residential exposure, direct ownership captured the boom better early on, but REITs like Link provided smoother, more passive returns.This is based on aggregated historical data; individual results vary by timing, location, and leverage. If you'd like more precise calculations with specific indices or assumptions, let me know!