Turning down a seven year lockup when the same exposure already sits in a broad index fund

Here is a pattern worth studying, because the comparison at the center of it gets skipped constantly. Someone gets a call about a data center deal from a friend who knows the sponsor through somebody else. The minimum is larger than anything that person has ever put into one thing. Seven year lockup with a possible two year extension at the manager's discretion. The spreadsheet includes a chart of technology company capital spending going up and to the right, which is true, and a page about the site saying power availability is being finalized. Being finalized. On the thing that determines whether the project exists at all. That is a fair place to say no on the call, even for a person whose habit is to say they will think about it and then think about it for five weeks. The part that makes the case interesting comes afterward. Pull up the holdings list for the boring broad index fund that has been absorbing paycheck contributions since 2016, and both of the big public data center names are sitting in there. Small weights, but there. It is common to have owned that sector the entire time it was becoming the most in demand thing in real estate and to find out on a Tuesday night by scrolling a PDF. The private deal may do great. The person who passes still owns the same idea with no lockup and no capital call, and never has to learn what a chilled water loop is.