At what net worth are you considered wealthy ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on the assets. Net worth doesn’t make you wealthy. Cash flow makes you wealthy. Cash flow is more important than net worth.

You sound like someone who lives above your means. NW always connotes wealth....not how much you earn and spend. I know plenty who earn over $500K but have little to show for it....others earn far less and have a health NW

It's your ability to generate cash flow that makes you wealthy, not your net worth.
Person 1: No debt but only $10 in their account and no source of income. Positive net worth of $10. Can't pay rent and end up on the street and homeless.
Person 2: Owe $2M to a bank. Has assets that are valued at $1.5M. Has a job making $300k a year. Negative net worth -$500k. Live a good life in a nice house.

I'm sure you would rather be Person 1 because they have a positive net worth. lol
Net worth isn't everything.

If your net worth can't generate cash flow, it means nothing.

This is an extreme example. Unless it's stolen bitcoin on an USB or a rare diamond/art that cannot be sold your Person 1 scenario is unrealistic. While I get that a $10M business may not generate as much cash as, say, a stock portfolio, the owner will still be able to extract some cashflow out of it to sustain themselves. It would be a pointless business otherwise and not something I've encountered.

This example isn’t as extreme as you think. Do you know that many poor people have no debt? Because they can’t even borrow money. They live in poor condition with very little. Their net worth is positive though but insignificant. Go in poor communities and you’ll see many.
Why are they poor? Because they can’t earn or generate enough income to even start building wealth net worth.
Nobody in these communities thinks that they are better off than the millionaires across the river who are living large and have a lower net worth because they aren’t saving.

This “net worth” theory no longer works when you are talking about people of very different social classes.

No one is talking about people with a net worth of $10. We're talking about people with a net worth of multiple millions, at which point your money is typically working for you (interest, dividends, rental income, business income, etc). With enough millions working for you, you don't need wage income to live a nice life.

The net worth itself is just a mean to generate money and cash flow. That's why generating money and cash flow is always the most important thing.

If you have $10m invested in low performing stocks or investments that don't generate enough return, your net worth is high.
If I have $5m invested in investments that consistently generate huge profits, my net worth half yours but I'm actually better off than you.

A high net worth means nothing if it can't generate income and cash flow. If you can continuously generate income and cash flow, your net worth doesn't matter much. It only matters if your goal is to leave a fortune to your heirs.

DP. Do you actually believe what you are saying or just being obtuse? Which idiot is capable of accumulating $10M do you know of that's sleeping on the streets or going hungry because his assets are not generating enough cashflow? Assume for a minute it's all in Amazon stock, no dividend - sure, but definitely you can sell a few shares to buy bread, can't you? The smart move would be maximize net worth over the long haul while generating just enough income/liquidating just enough equity to keep up your lifestyle. And NO. If you have $5M and I have $10, I'm better off than you. Twice as much. 5 times two = 10.

You would be surprised at the number of people that are squandering millions because they are inept at generating income.
Having assets doesn’t necessarily means they automatically generate income. Generating cash flow doesn’t happen magically. It’s a skillset. The most important one. It’s what enables you to grow your net worth. That’s why cash flow is always more important than et worth.
You inherit $10m and inherit $5m. You have double my net worth.
You are inept and make bad investments that only give you a 3% yearly ROI
I’m more savvy and make investments that give me a 20% yearly ROI
Your net worth is higher but sorry but I’m way better off that you.

It’s always your ability to generate cash flow that is more important.

PP here. And before you come here saying that the example above is unrealistic, know that it is happening a million time in life. People starting in life with less and surpassing those that had a higher net worth. They do this with their superior ability to generate income and cash flow, which in turn boosts their net worth. Cash flow is king.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on the assets. Net worth doesn’t make you wealthy. Cash flow makes you wealthy. Cash flow is more important than net worth.

You sound like someone who lives above your means. NW always connotes wealth....not how much you earn and spend. I know plenty who earn over $500K but have little to show for it....others earn far less and have a health NW

It's your ability to generate cash flow that makes you wealthy, not your net worth.
Person 1: No debt but only $10 in their account and no source of income. Positive net worth of $10. Can't pay rent and end up on the street and homeless.
Person 2: Owe $2M to a bank. Has assets that are valued at $1.5M. Has a job making $300k a year. Negative net worth -$500k. Live a good life in a nice house.

I'm sure you would rather be Person 1 because they have a positive net worth. lol
Net worth isn't everything.

If your net worth can't generate cash flow, it means nothing.

This is an extreme example. Unless it's stolen bitcoin on an USB or a rare diamond/art that cannot be sold your Person 1 scenario is unrealistic. While I get that a $10M business may not generate as much cash as, say, a stock portfolio, the owner will still be able to extract some cashflow out of it to sustain themselves. It would be a pointless business otherwise and not something I've encountered.

This example isn’t as extreme as you think. Do you know that many poor people have no debt? Because they can’t even borrow money. They live in poor condition with very little. Their net worth is positive though but insignificant. Go in poor communities and you’ll see many.
Why are they poor? Because they can’t earn or generate enough income to even start building wealth net worth.
Nobody in these communities thinks that they are better off than the millionaires across the river who are living large and have a lower net worth because they aren’t saving.

This “net worth” theory no longer works when you are talking about people of very different social classes.

No one is talking about people with a net worth of $10. We're talking about people with a net worth of multiple millions, at which point your money is typically working for you (interest, dividends, rental income, business income, etc). With enough millions working for you, you don't need wage income to live a nice life.

The net worth itself is just a mean to generate money and cash flow. That's why generating money and cash flow is always the most important thing.

If you have $10m invested in low performing stocks or investments that don't generate enough return, your net worth is high.
If I have $5m invested in investments that consistently generate huge profits, my net worth half yours but I'm actually better off than you.

A high net worth means nothing if it can't generate income and cash flow. If you can continuously generate income and cash flow, your net worth doesn't matter much. It only matters if your goal is to leave a fortune to your heirs.

DP. Do you actually believe what you are saying or just being obtuse? Which idiot is capable of accumulating $10M do you know of that's sleeping on the streets or going hungry because his assets are not generating enough cashflow? Assume for a minute it's all in Amazon stock, no dividend - sure, but definitely you can sell a few shares to buy bread, can't you? The smart move would be maximize net worth over the long haul while generating just enough income/liquidating just enough equity to keep up your lifestyle. And NO. If you have $5M and I have $10, I'm better off than you. Twice as much. 5 times two = 10.

You would be surprised at the number of people that are squandering millions because they are inept at generating income.
Having assets doesn’t necessarily means they automatically generate income. Generating cash flow doesn’t happen magically. It’s a skillset. The most important one. It’s what enables you to grow your net worth. That’s why cash flow is always more important than et worth.
You inherit $10m and inherit $5m. You have double my net worth.
You are inept and make bad investments that only give you a 3% yearly ROI
I’m more savvy and make investments that give me a 20% yearly ROI
Your net worth is higher but sorry but I’m way better off that you.

It’s always your ability to generate cash flow that is more important.

PP here. And before you come here saying that the example above is unrealistic, know that it is happening a million time in life. People starting in life with less and surpassing those that had a higher net worth. They do this with their superior ability to generate income and cash flow, which in turn boosts their net worth. Cash flow is king.

You've turned this into a completely different discussion - Can someone with a lower net worth generate more cash than someone with higher net worth?. That was not the point of the OP or even your your original post. $10M net worth at 3% is 300K. 99.9% of people ANYWHERE would call that person wealthy. Will the $5M person generating 20% overtake the first guy at some point? of course. He will just become MORE WEALTHY. Happens all the time. There will always be someone richer than me (more cashflow and/or more wealth than me) but that doesn't make me 'not wealthy'. It just makes the others more wealthy.

I'd change 'Cash flow is king' to 'optimal cash flow is king'. The $10M dude can afford to not aim for more than 3%. He can generate that 3% in any market condition with close to zero loss of capital/zero risk. The $5M guy generating 20% is taking on a a lot of extra risk and runs the risk of capital loss. They are both wealthy, one is more wealthy than the other and one sleeps better at night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, wealthy means being independent of a job. How much wealth you need to achieve job independence varies based on your expenses. I like a nice lifestyle, but I don’t need country clubs, golf rounds, and new luxury cars every 3 years. I’m 54 with a paid house and $200k/year of guaranteed spending money indexed to inflation. To me, I’m wealthy.

What you described is financial independence. Congrats on achieving financial independence, but it’s not the same as being wealthy.
If you live in DC, I’m sure you know that $200k is just a middle class income.

If you own your home and the kids are gone, $200k is more like $400k with a mortgage, college savings, yada, yada. If you go by the 4% rule, it takes $5 million to consistently generate that income, indexed to inflation, for 30 years. If one has $5 million of financial assets, plus a paid home in the DC area, you’re worth somewhere between $5-$7 million. That’s not middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an <100K income and >10M in assets. We live frugally, since there is no spending of capital. I suggest you bear in mind that there are as many financial situations as there are people and that initial appearances can be deceiving.

So your wealth is tied to your primary residence? No rental property?

I replied earlier. We have Apple stock. No rental properties or real estate apart from the house we live in.

And it's not family money. We invested when we were young, that's all.

Gotcha. The investment community doesn't talk about this. The role that luck or variance can have in your investment returns. IOW simply your incredible timing of buying Apple stock. (I'm not saying Apple was not a great stock to invest in). You have an unusual situation. At some point you clearly would have to take steps to diversify the risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on the assets. Net worth doesn’t make you wealthy. Cash flow makes you wealthy. Cash flow is more important than net worth.

You sound like someone who lives above your means. NW always connotes wealth....not how much you earn and spend. I know plenty who earn over $500K but have little to show for it....others earn far less and have a health NW

It's your ability to generate cash flow that makes you wealthy, not your net worth.
Person 1: No debt but only $10 in their account and no source of income. Positive net worth of $10. Can't pay rent and end up on the street and homeless.
Person 2: Owe $2M to a bank. Has assets that are valued at $1.5M. Has a job making $300k a year. Negative net worth -$500k. Live a good life in a nice house.

I'm sure you would rather be Person 1 because they have a positive net worth. lol
Net worth isn't everything.

If your net worth can't generate cash flow, it means nothing.

This is an extreme example. Unless it's stolen bitcoin on an USB or a rare diamond/art that cannot be sold your Person 1 scenario is unrealistic. While I get that a $10M business may not generate as much cash as, say, a stock portfolio, the owner will still be able to extract some cashflow out of it to sustain themselves. It would be a pointless business otherwise and not something I've encountered.

This example isn’t as extreme as you think. Do you know that many poor people have no debt? Because they can’t even borrow money. They live in poor condition with very little. Their net worth is positive though but insignificant. Go in poor communities and you’ll see many.
Why are they poor? Because they can’t earn or generate enough income to even start building wealth net worth.
Nobody in these communities thinks that they are better off than the millionaires across the river who are living large and have a lower net worth because they aren’t saving.

This “net worth” theory no longer works when you are talking about people of very different social classes.

No one is talking about people with a net worth of $10. We're talking about people with a net worth of multiple millions, at which point your money is typically working for you (interest, dividends, rental income, business income, etc). With enough millions working for you, you don't need wage income to live a nice life.

The net worth itself is just a mean to generate money and cash flow. That's why generating money and cash flow is always the most important thing.

If you have $10m invested in low performing stocks or investments that don't generate enough return, your net worth is high.
If I have $5m invested in investments that consistently generate huge profits, my net worth half yours but I'm actually better off than you.

A high net worth means nothing if it can't generate income and cash flow. If you can continuously generate income and cash flow, your net worth doesn't matter much. It only matters if your goal is to leave a fortune to your heirs.

DP. Do you actually believe what you are saying or just being obtuse? Which idiot is capable of accumulating $10M do you know of that's sleeping on the streets or going hungry because his assets are not generating enough cashflow? Assume for a minute it's all in Amazon stock, no dividend - sure, but definitely you can sell a few shares to buy bread, can't you? The smart move would be maximize net worth over the long haul while generating just enough income/liquidating just enough equity to keep up your lifestyle. And NO. If you have $5M and I have $10, I'm better off than you. Twice as much. 5 times two = 10.

You would be surprised at the number of people that are squandering millions because they are inept at generating income.
Having assets doesn’t necessarily means they automatically generate income. Generating cash flow doesn’t happen magically. It’s a skillset. The most important one. It’s what enables you to grow your net worth. That’s why cash flow is always more important than et worth.
You inherit $10m and inherit $5m. You have double my net worth.
You are inept and make bad investments that only give you a 3% yearly ROI
I’m more savvy and make investments that give me a 20% yearly ROI
Your net worth is higher but sorry but I’m way better off that you.

It’s always your ability to generate cash flow that is more important.

PP here. And before you come here saying that the example above is unrealistic, know that it is happening a million time in life. People starting in life with less and surpassing those that had a higher net worth. They do this with their superior ability to generate income and cash flow, which in turn boosts their net worth. Cash flow is king.

You've turned this into a completely different discussion - Can someone with a lower net worth generate more cash than someone with higher net worth?. That was not the point of the OP or even your your original post. $10M net worth at 3% is 300K. 99.9% of people ANYWHERE would call that person wealthy. Will the $5M person generating 20% overtake the first guy at some point? of course. He will just become MORE WEALTHY. Happens all the time. There will always be someone richer than me (more cashflow and/or more wealth than me) but that doesn't make me 'not wealthy'. It just makes the others more wealthy.

I'd change 'Cash flow is king' to 'optimal cash flow is king'. The $10M dude can afford to not aim for more than 3%. He can generate that 3% in any market condition with close to zero loss of capital/zero risk. The $5M guy generating 20% is taking on a a lot of extra risk and runs the risk of capital loss. They are both wealthy, one is more wealthy than the other and one sleeps better at night.

Interesting.......I think most posters would take the $10M and earn 3% for perpetuity vs the $5M and can invest anywhere. I know at 63 I would, but would a 25yo??

[Anonymous]

Just $1 million - totally liquid cash or stock. (not in a 401k)

if mortgage paid off. That's "rich."

"Wealthy" I think of people $10-15m+ Obviously it's not the uber wealthy, but puts you in a whole other money class for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on the assets. Net worth doesn’t make you wealthy. Cash flow makes you wealthy. Cash flow is more important than net worth.

Can’t DISagree more.

Wealth can generate cash flow, but typically cash flow if from a combination of W2 salary and investments. Most people owning a company worth $100M would be considered wealthy, even if they only get a salary of $100k and don’t sell any part of the business.

Sorry, cash flow PP is correct and you're wrong. Apart from rapid growth companies or during bubble periods, a business can generally only be worth $100M if it is generating lots of cash. Companies are valued at multiples of the cash they throw off - that's Finance 101. As the owner, you own that huge stream of incoming cash. The fact that you only take a small portion of it as salary is a tax-minimization strategy but doesn't mean you don't have great cash flow.

Cash flow trumps net worth.

Actually the business in this example has good cash flow, the owner does not. Most businesses of $100m are not sole ownership so you have other complicating factors as well to get access to that cash. A similar example was made earlier of a $30m business owner having no cash flow because his net worth is tied up in the business. Is the business owner wealthy or not, which side are you on?

Understand how wealthy stockholders get their cash. Companies write them huge loans against holdings which they get tax free and possibly with deductible interest. Without ever selling a share of stock. Bezos, Benioff etc - this is how they do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on the assets. Net worth doesn’t make you wealthy. Cash flow makes you wealthy. Cash flow is more important than net worth.

You sound like someone who lives above your means. NW always connotes wealth....not how much you earn and spend. I know plenty who earn over $500K but have little to show for it....others earn far less and have a health NW

It's your ability to generate cash flow that makes you wealthy, not your net worth.
Person 1: No debt but only $10 in their account and no source of income. Positive net worth of $10. Can't pay rent and end up on the street and homeless.
Person 2: Owe $2M to a bank. Has assets that are valued at $1.5M. Has a job making $300k a year. Negative net worth -$500k. Live a good life in a nice house.

I'm sure you would rather be Person 1 because they have a positive net worth. lol
Net worth isn't everything.

If your net worth can't generate cash flow, it means nothing.

This is an extreme example. Unless it's stolen bitcoin on an USB or a rare diamond/art that cannot be sold your Person 1 scenario is unrealistic. While I get that a $10M business may not generate as much cash as, say, a stock portfolio, the owner will still be able to extract some cashflow out of it to sustain themselves. It would be a pointless business otherwise and not something I've encountered.

This example isn’t as extreme as you think. Do you know that many poor people have no debt? Because they can’t even borrow money. They live in poor condition with very little. Their net worth is positive though but insignificant. Go in poor communities and you’ll see many.
Why are they poor? Because they can’t earn or generate enough income to even start building wealth net worth.
Nobody in these communities thinks that they are better off than the millionaires across the river who are living large and have a lower net worth because they aren’t saving.

This “net worth” theory no longer works when you are talking about people of very different social classes.

No one is talking about people with a net worth of $10. We're talking about people with a net worth of multiple millions, at which point your money is typically working for you (interest, dividends, rental income, business income, etc). With enough millions working for you, you don't need wage income to live a nice life.

The net worth itself is just a mean to generate money and cash flow. That's why generating money and cash flow is always the most important thing.

If you have $10m invested in low performing stocks or investments that don't generate enough return, your net worth is high.
If I have $5m invested in investments that consistently generate huge profits, my net worth half yours but I'm actually better off than you.

A high net worth means nothing if it can't generate income and cash flow. If you can continuously generate income and cash flow, your net worth doesn't matter much. It only matters if your goal is to leave a fortune to your heirs.

DP. Do you actually believe what you are saying or just being obtuse? Which idiot is capable of accumulating $10M do you know of that's sleeping on the streets or going hungry because his assets are not generating enough cashflow? Assume for a minute it's all in Amazon stock, no dividend - sure, but definitely you can sell a few shares to buy bread, can't you? The smart move would be maximize net worth over the long haul while generating just enough income/liquidating just enough equity to keep up your lifestyle. And NO. If you have $5M and I have $10, I'm better off than you. Twice as much. 5 times two = 10.

You would be surprised at the number of people that are squandering millions because they are inept at generating income.
Having assets doesn’t necessarily means they automatically generate income. Generating cash flow doesn’t happen magically. It’s a skillset. The most important one. It’s what enables you to grow your net worth. That’s why cash flow is always more important than et worth.
You inherit $10m and inherit $5m. You have double my net worth.
You are inept and make bad investments that only give you a 3% yearly ROI
I’m more savvy and make investments that give me a 20% yearly ROI
Your net worth is higher but sorry but I’m way better off that you.

It’s always your ability to generate cash flow that is more important.

PP here. And before you come here saying that the example above is unrealistic, know that it is happening a million time in life. People starting in life with less and surpassing those that had a higher net worth. They do this with their superior ability to generate income and cash flow, which in turn boosts their net worth. Cash flow is king.

You've turned this into a completely different discussion - Can someone with a lower net worth generate more cash than someone with higher net worth?. That was not the point of the OP or even your your original post. $10M net worth at 3% is 300K. 99.9% of people ANYWHERE would call that person wealthy. Will the $5M person generating 20% overtake the first guy at some point? of course. He will just become MORE WEALTHY. Happens all the time. There will always be someone richer than me (more cashflow and/or more wealth than me) but that doesn't make me 'not wealthy'. It just makes the others more wealthy.

I'd change 'Cash flow is king' to 'optimal cash flow is king'. The $10M dude can afford to not aim for more than 3%. He can generate that 3% in any market condition with close to zero loss of capital/zero risk. The $5M guy generating 20% is taking on a a lot of extra risk and runs the risk of capital loss. They are both wealthy, one is more wealthy than the other and one sleeps better at night.

Interesting.......I think most posters would take the $10M and earn 3% for perpetuity vs the $5M and can invest anywhere. I know at 63 I would, but would a 25yo??

They should, but won't and may or may not be better off than you when they hit 63.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:10 million

this is it. the minimum.

5 million is the new 1 million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$30M

this is the number for what is considered ultra high net worth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$30M

this is the number for what is considered ultra high net worth

$30m is the new $10m

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an <100K income and >10M in assets. We live frugally, since there is no spending of capital. I suggest you bear in mind that there are as many financial situations as there are people and that initial appearances can be deceiving.

How on earth did you achieve that level of NW? We are also sub-100K and have a NW of 2.5M. I thought we were doing pretty well lol.

Generational wealth or inheritance of real estate is my guess.

Yes, it’s the only way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would say a liquid net worth of at least 1 million outside of retirement and housing. That amount of money gives a lot of flexibility.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Zombie thread

[Anonymous]

Depends on how much of your NW is tied up in your house.