Subject: Re: Brazil the cheapest?
> "US stocks, REITs rank 80th out of 94 industries for average ROE, and 82nd for average ROA."

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't invest in US REITs either, separate from the boycotting issue, they're just too expensive.

But you have a good chance to get a humble 10-11% with relatively little volatility in your income, and very little stress, from UK REITs.

Assuming you are in the UK and investing optimally with ISAs/SIPPs etc.

For people in other countries, it's less appealling. That 10-11% becomes 9% after withholding tax.

At which point you might well say 'unless some REIT offers a chance of additional gains, I'd rather have the index at 11% than UK REITs at 9%'.

Alternatively, you might say 'well, 9% sucks, but it behaves a bit differently to bonds and non-REIT stocks, it's some useful diversification'.

> "Just look at prime central London housing, often cited as the world's best example of a "never lose" real estate market...prices are ~10% lower than they were 12 years ago even before you count inflation."

Prime? Central? 12 years? That's an odd combination.

Especially since I just made the argument for *not* viewing residential as having pricing power, in my previous post.

And I thought you had a stance against things that resemble cherry picked timeframes/datasets?

Let's look at the last 25 years, every 5 years, government data, all of London, and see what result we get.

https://landregistry.data.gov....

Jan 2000: 140k
Jan 2005: 250k
Jan 2010: 300k
Jan 2015: 430k
Jan 2020: 510k
Jan 2025: 563k

*And* generating substantial rental income that whole time. *And* with tax relief as a UK investor that you wouldn't have had on shares & dividends.

Those numbers above are hard facts - it's government land registry data for achieved prices at city level.

I wouldn't invest in regular London residential property myself, but the fact is, it has *printed* money.

More generally, using such a niche of real estate and a VERY niche timeframe as a criticism of REITs/real estate, presented without any source to verify it, is hardly fair to the argument that I actually made in the post you replied to.

Since I had pointed out, directly, that *residential is in general not a good example of REITs with sustainable pricing power*.

Would it not be fairer to respond to the argument that was made, than the opposite of it?

As far as long term returns go, I would not advocate holding REITs (UK or US) blindly regardless of price for the long term, even though the total return from REITs is roughly the same as stocks over very long periods of time.

But as long as they are much cheaper, and less vulnerable to Trump's insanity (tariffs, etc), and efficient (for me) to hold in savings wrappers, then why not?

TRS