Would you hold an mREIT if you already own the buildings

Consider an owner running a handful of small multifamily units where the rent covers the debt with room to spare, so the question of where the surplus goes comes up every quarter. The case for putting some into mREITs is that the owner would be on the other side of the trade they are already in. They owe mortgage money. An mREIT owns mortgage money. When rates rise the refinance gets worse, and the mortgage side of the business is supposed to be earning on a wider or narrower spread depending on the curve. It also pays out quarterly in a way buildings do not, since operating cash flow arrives in dribs and gets eaten by a water heater. The case against is that it is still real estate credit, and if property values in the owner's market slide far enough to put their equity in trouble, the loans backing the mREIT portfolio are secured by properties in the same national market. That is one exposure wearing two outfits rather than two exposures. Someone who owns no property at all might get real diversification from mortgage paper. Someone who already owns four buildings arguably just gets more of what they have, with added rate sensitivity and borrowed money at the fund level they do not control. Which reading is right for an owner in that position probably depends on whether property values and mortgage credit performance move together closely enough to matter. Vote and say what is missing.