I actually agree, its an un-diversified, rather illiquid asset. Yet for some reason the banks, society, etc. consider it lower risk, as reflected in their interest rates than a diversified blue chip portfolio which is incredibly liquid and could be liquidated by the lender in a second (with nil cost). Yet, generally, the former is easier to leverage than the later.Why do you call this scenario stock leverage instead of real estate leverage? I about twice a year pose this question or one like it, and nobody ever answers it: Why is one house purchased in one market on one day universally regarded ( other than me I guess) as lower risk than 20 stocks accumulated over 50 or 100 transitions and a number of years?
I think the best approach is to consider real estate leverage along with every other type of leverage as an overall portfolio (very much not 'a house is a home', more 'a house is an asset') and just attempt to keep the leverage ratio, as a whole, in line.