argue with real estate people who make it sound like generating an annual return of 20% is "easy" and therefore everyone should put their money into real estate instead of stocks.

(1) Saying you don't own anything except a piece of paper when you hold stock is simply not true. You have claim to the assets (including its real estate), cashflows, etc. of the company. It's like saying a title or deed is just a piece of paper.

(2) You can use leverage to buy equities. It's generally frowned upon because it's more risky if things go south. But the math is the same whether you use leverage to buy equities or real estate - you just need your annual return to outpace the interest on your debt. It's risky with stocks and it's risky with real estate.

(3) Why are you ignoring the cost of your debt in your example? 6% appreciation is great, but if your debt is 6% then you've gained nothing (ignoring other cashflows in the form of rent, which I'm assuming is really where you can make the biggest bang for your buck).

(4) Investing in real estate is capital intensive. If I have an extra $10k laying around it won't get me very far in real estate.

(5) It's harder to diversify with real estate (see #4). I'm sure you are well-diversified because your portfolio is so large, but people starting out are putting a large chunk of their nest egg into 1 or 2 properties. I would never put all my money in one company's stock, but you're essentially doing that with real estate. Granted, higher risk can = higher reward, but most of us aren't willing to go "all-in" on one asset.

The people who are good with real estate have definitely done better than the stock market over the years. But I'm not convinced it's the better investment for people like me who don't have the time, interest, or capital to go all-in on real estate.