Why send 30k to a pooled debt fund when a local lender offers a first lien note at 11 percent?

Here is a choice worth working through. Say a lender who works the next county over offers a piece of a note at 11 percent on a 1950s three bedroom in a town of about 4,000. First lien, roughly 60 percent of a value the investor can argue with, and the investor can stand in the yard and look at the roof. Everything written in this room instead points at pooled debt funds, which take the same kind of money and spread it over dozens or hundreds of loans in places the investor will never visit. The fund case: one note is one bet, and if the borrower stops paying the investor owns a foreclosure in a county where nobody wants that house at any number. Spread across a book, one bad loan is a rounding error. The single note case: a fund is a stack of paper the investor has no way to verify, run by someone whose management fee shows up whether the loans pay or not, and the exit depends on whatever the redemption language says. Put 30k sitting still in front of that choice. Both arguments sound right on the same afternoon, which usually means something is missing. For those who have done both, what actually settled it?