“If it were such a good business, they would do it themselves…”

“…do the business themselves” ignores key economic principles

If there were still margin somewhere, the seller would have to realize it themselves.

This ignores key economic principles:

• Division of labor increases productivity.
• Capital commitment reduces returns.
• Risk profiles differ.
• Scaling is industry-specific.
• Opportunity costs are real.

The crucial question is not: “Where is there still profit?” But rather:

“Where does this company achieve the highest risk-adjusted return with its capital?”

And that is often not in full vertical integration.

Total vertical integration

Those who argue this way are essentially demanding total vertical integration. There would be no trade, no supplier industry, no division of labor in the economy:

The manufacturer would have to sell their products themselves. Directly to end customers, without intermediaries. Otherwise, the manufacturer would be “giving away” potential profits — and that makes no sense at all, right?

Taking the idea even further: whoever extracts the raw materials would also have to take over manufacturing, as well as logistics, distribution, and sales to end customers. After all, money is earned at all of these stages.

Companies do not specialize because they are incapable of doing the rest

…but because specialization creates efficiency. They concentrate capital, know-how, and organization on those parts of the value chain where they have the greatest leverage: better scalability, higher turnover rates, lower capital commitment, lower risk, or strategic advantages.

A project developer, for example, does not primarily earn money by holding individual assets for decades, but through development, preparation, and sale.

A trader earns from turning over goods, not from long-term use. A manufacturer sells machines even though the buyer generates profits with them that the manufacturer does not realize.

This is not a contradiction, but the fundamental principle of B-to-B relationships.

Value creation is distributed along a chain

If the argument were correct, no buyer would ever be allowed to make a profit with a purchased product — because the seller would have “made it themselves.” Reality shows the opposite: value creation is distributed along a chain, and each part earns from its specific contribution.

The “Then they would do it themselves” argument implicitly assumes that there is only one optimal way to deploy capital. In reality, however, the following differ:

• Risk profiles
• Liquidity requirements
• Equity ratios
• Scaling logics
• Regulatory frameworks
• Strategic objectives

What is unattractive or suboptimal for the provider can be highly attractive for the buyer — and vice versa.

As an MRI customer, you are part of the value chain

Our customers take over part of the value chain.

We identify locations, calculate, develop, pool capital, manage risks, and bring an investment into an investable form. That is how we earn money.

Our customers then take over another, equally legitimate part: long-term holding, management, financing, optimization. Of course, it must be profitable for them. That is precisely why they invest.

The idea that a seller may only sell if the buyer can no longer earn anything is economically simply wrong. Markets based on division of labor function precisely because multiple stages along the chain create value — and each earns from it.

The fact that our customers can make a profit is not a contradiction to our business model. It is its logical continuation.