You only mentioned the leveraging effects, which is why I added that in.

If you are talking access before preservation age, I agree. But several of those factors still play into the decision since you have the option to use NAB Equity Builder to leverage a diversified portfolio, which means:

1. Retaining access to your capital outside super
2. No 5% buying costs (meaning an immediate boost, plus future compounding)
3. No 1-2% p.a. ongoing fees
4. Shares have historically had a higher total return (I think about 1%)
5. Ability to sell down in small pieces in retirement to reduce capital gains tax

Arguments against include:

• You can't get as much leverage (but with all of the above, you don't need as much leverage, which also means lower risk)
• Higher interest rates (although it is tax-deductible but nevertheless higher)

Overall, I don't think property is as amazing as people think it is. It definitely has a major advantage in terms of being able to leverage up to silly amounts, but that's a double-edged sword, and you lose a ton of the extra returns in the purchasing costs, ongoing costs, selling costs, and the lower return of the asset class as a whole. If someone particularly doesn't want to own property (or can't), super and leveraging a diversified portfolio outside super are reasonable alternatives.