For my generalizations. I realize that I do that at times. I guess the point that I was trying to make regarding REIT CEFs was about the capital gains they might accumulate over the years as the REITS they hold show growth.
Because of these gains (if achieved) they can "cherry pick" from their holdings with gains. Possibly sell a few winners from time to time to help cover the dividend hence avoiding the dreaded ROC.
Tug addressed this very well I thought in his comments regarding good and bad ROC.
I was aware that the stated REIT CEFs had common stock levels well over 50% hence the generalization I made of merely over 50%.
There's no need to apology as far as I'm concerned.
I replied to your post, because I know RQI and SRO. I can assure you that they follow their stated objectives, regardless of what the Tug who tries and can't says.
You worry: Because of these gains (if achieved) they can "cherry pick" from their holdings with gains.
There's a lot more that I concern myself with first than that. They hold a lot of REITs above water. My major concern is what REITs and REIT sectors they chose and favor. In the long run that's what will determine risk adjusted performance.
IMHO: I see there are no clunkers among the top 10 holdings of NRI. There's one clunker in RQI's and one in SRO's. That's not necessarily bad, since the funds are well diversified and a clunker can turn into a winner.