You don't clear $0.7m over that span in that example, to be accurate.
No, mortgage debt is not a unique benefit. You can make very highly leveraged bets on stocks if you wish. It's less fashionable to borrow to buy stocks, perhaps, but it can be done if you insist. [However, it's very fashionable among institutional investors and private equity investors. Those "Shark Tank" programs celebrate as much.]
The interest rate on stock margin debt specifically is generally a bit higher (2.88% versus about 2% in Singapore currently), but again that's just looking at one input number, not the full financial picture. Realistic, complete accounting is always important.
I'm just pointing out that the "real estate über alles" philosophy is downright nutty. I don't believe any investment class ought to be your only, or nearly only, vehicle. I believe you should strive for at least reasonable diversification across asset classes and geographies.
Yes, back in 198X or whenever. Let's suppose that was 1985. Had he taken $30K and put it into the U.S. S&P 500 and reinvested dividends, on a gross pre-tax basis he'd have $900K, not $300K.(*) So he's two thirds poorer today, right? (And with an ever diminishing 66 years remaining on the leasehold, assuming he grabbed his keys in 1985.)
Aren't "headline" numbers fun?
A monkey can grow nominal "headline" money. A fixed deposit will do that. That's not at all impressive, and nobody who knows anything about investing is impressed. Cut out the nonsense.
(*) The $900K number isn't accurate and honest either, because it doesn't include some costs. But it's actually much more honest than "Oh, look at that 10X valuation!" boasting and bragging that impresses nobody, at least not anybody who understands this stuff more than superficially.
Can you live in US S&P stock or not?
