Counting home value in net worth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Puzzling that people think only assets that throw off income can be included in one's net worth.

What about gold bars, high value artwork, etc.?

When people ask about our NW, we only include our non-earmarked liquid assets. This is the truly meaningful amount and omits anything that provides utility or is set aside for a future expense: functional NW as opposed to technical NW.

In this functional NW number, we exclude our home, cars, personal property, 529 plans, retirement accounts, and HSAs. In our experience, the more affluent people all do the same thing. It is the upper middle class and below that tends to inflate their NW estimates using any means available to keep up with the Joneses.

We’re in our early 40s and have a functional NW – by our practical definition – of about $10M. If we include ALL ASSETS and ALL LIABILITIES, our technical NW is closer to $300M.

This post is so funny I had to read it to DH . . . he made me read it to him twice.

[Anonymous]

You count the equity that you have in your home as a part of your net worth.

If you own a house worth 900k and you still owe 200k then you have 700k equity and 200k debt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Puzzling that people think only assets that throw off income can be included in one's net worth.

What about gold bars, high value artwork, etc.?

When people ask about our NW, we only include our non-earmarked liquid assets. This is the truly meaningful amount and omits anything that provides utility or is set aside for a future expense: functional NW as opposed to technical NW.

In this functional NW number, we exclude our home, cars, personal property, 529 plans, retirement accounts, and HSAs. In our experience, the more affluent people all do the same thing. It is the upper middle class and below that tends to inflate their NW estimates using any means available to keep up with the Joneses.

We’re in our early 40s and have a functional NW – by our practical definition – of about $10M. If we include ALL ASSETS and ALL LIABILITIES, our technical NW is closer to $300M.

I sincerely hope that you are joking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Puzzling that people think only assets that throw off income can be included in one's net worth.

What about gold bars, high value artwork, etc.?

When people ask about our NW, we only include our non-earmarked liquid assets. This is the truly meaningful amount and omits anything that provides utility or is set aside for a future expense: functional NW as opposed to technical NW.

In this functional NW number, we exclude our home, cars, personal property, 529 plans, retirement accounts, and HSAs. In our experience, the more affluent people all do the same thing. It is the upper middle class and below that tends to inflate their NW estimates using any means available to keep up with the Joneses.

We’re in our early 40s and have a functional NW – by our practical definition – of about $10M. If we include ALL ASSETS and ALL LIABILITIES, our technical NW is closer to $300M.

This post is so funny I had to read it to DH . . . he made me read it to him twice.

Why so funny?

For our functional NW, we have $10M in checking, HYSA, taxable brokerage, and other liquid funds.

For our technical NW, we have an extra $290M distributed as follows:
- HSAs: $1M
- 529 Plans: $2M
- Cars: $3M
- Primary Home: $48M
- Home Furnishings and Art: $16M
- Retirement Accounts: $40M
- Term Life Insurance Policies: $50M
- Home and PP Insurance: $70M
- AD&D Insurance: $60M

If we suddenly passed away and had to pass everything on to charity or our kids, we technically have a NW of $300M. This is why we don’t include all these extras in our functional NW. Inflated NW is a silly number that you can only realize when you’re homeless and dead. Oh well, to each their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Puzzling that people think only assets that throw off income can be included in one's net worth.

What about gold bars, high value artwork, etc.?

When people ask about our NW, we only include our non-earmarked liquid assets. This is the truly meaningful amount and omits anything that provides utility or is set aside for a future expense: functional NW as opposed to technical NW.

In this functional NW number, we exclude our home, cars, personal property, 529 plans, retirement accounts, and HSAs. In our experience, the more affluent people all do the same thing. It is the upper middle class and below that tends to inflate their NW estimates using any means available to keep up with the Joneses.

We’re in our early 40s and have a functional NW – by our practical definition – of about $10M. If we include ALL ASSETS and ALL LIABILITIES, our technical NW is closer to $300M.

This post is so funny I had to read it to DH . . . he made me read it to him twice.

Why so funny?

For our functional NW, we have $10M in checking, HYSA, taxable brokerage, and other liquid funds.

For our technical NW, we have an extra $290M distributed as follows:
- HSAs: $1M
- 529 Plans: $2M
- Cars: $3M
- Primary Home: $48M
- Home Furnishings and Art: $16M
- Retirement Accounts: $40M
- Term Life Insurance Policies: $50M
- Home and PP Insurance: $70M
- AD&D Insurance: $60M

If we suddenly passed away and had to pass everything on to charity or our kids, we technically have a NW of $300M. This is why we don’t include all these extras in our functional NW. Inflated NW is a silly number that you can only realize when you’re homeless and dead. Oh well, to each their own.

Oh man 180 million of insurance as your "net worth." This thread is gold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Puzzling that people think only assets that throw off income can be included in one's net worth.

What about gold bars, high value artwork, etc.?

When people ask about our NW, we only include our non-earmarked liquid assets. This is the truly meaningful amount and omits anything that provides utility or is set aside for a future expense: functional NW as opposed to technical NW.

In this functional NW number, we exclude our home, cars, personal property, 529 plans, retirement accounts, and HSAs. In our experience, the more affluent people all do the same thing. It is the upper middle class and below that tends to inflate their NW estimates using any means available to keep up with the Joneses.

We’re in our early 40s and have a functional NW – by our practical definition – of about $10M. If we include ALL ASSETS and ALL LIABILITIES, our technical NW is closer to $300M.

This post is so funny I had to read it to DH . . . he made me read it to him twice.

Why so funny?

For our functional NW, we have $10M in checking, HYSA, taxable brokerage, and other liquid funds.

For our technical NW, we have an extra $290M distributed as follows:
- HSAs: $1M
- 529 Plans: $2M
- Cars: $3M
- Primary Home: $48M
- Home Furnishings and Art: $16M
- Retirement Accounts: $40M
- Term Life Insurance Policies: $50M
- Home and PP Insurance: $70M
- AD&D Insurance: $60M

If we suddenly passed away and had to pass everything on to charity or our kids, we technically have a NW of $300M. This is why we don’t include all these extras in our functional NW. Inflated NW is a silly number that you can only realize when you’re homeless and dead. Oh well, to each their own.

Oh man 180 million of insurance as your "net worth." This thread is gold.

I know! PP keeps on giving. I'm looking forward to reading part two to DH tonight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Puzzling that people think only assets that throw off income can be included in one's net worth.

What about gold bars, high value artwork, etc.?

When people ask about our NW, we only include our non-earmarked liquid assets. This is the truly meaningful amount and omits anything that provides utility or is set aside for a future expense: functional NW as opposed to technical NW.

In this functional NW number, we exclude our home, cars, personal property, 529 plans, retirement accounts, and HSAs. In our experience, the more affluent people all do the same thing. It is the upper middle class and below that tends to inflate their NW estimates using any means available to keep up with the Joneses.

We’re in our early 40s and have a functional NW – by our practical definition – of about $10M. If we include ALL ASSETS and ALL LIABILITIES, our technical NW is closer to $300M.

This post is so funny I had to read it to DH . . . he made me read it to him twice.

Why so funny?

For our functional NW, we have $10M in checking, HYSA, taxable brokerage, and other liquid funds.

For our technical NW, we have an extra $290M distributed as follows:
- HSAs: $1M
- 529 Plans: $2M
- Cars: $3M
- Primary Home: $48M
- Home Furnishings and Art: $16M
- Retirement Accounts: $40M
- Term Life Insurance Policies: $50M
- Home and PP Insurance: $70M
- AD&D Insurance: $60M

If we suddenly passed away and had to pass everything on to charity or our kids, we technically have a NW of $300M. This is why we don’t include all these extras in our functional NW. Inflated NW is a silly number that you can only realize when you’re homeless and dead. Oh well, to each their own.

Oh man 180 million of insurance as your "net worth." This thread is gold.

I know! PP keeps on giving. I'm looking forward to reading part two to DH tonight.

I would also like to know the 16 million breakdown between art and "home furnishings"

[Anonymous]

Counting equity in one's home is how it's done. I've never heard of counting term life insurance, and cars I thought were only included if significant resell value: luxury on scale of Ferrari and collector's, same with jewelry, art...

DH and I just go over the numbers of our NW for our own sake to get a full picture of where we currently stand every quarter. I've never had anyone ask, and if they asked I would not share, so I have no idea how that could be a "vanity" number.

[Anonymous]

I don't count home equity in our net worth, though obviously the definition of net worth would include all assets. I also don't count our kids' 529s. Or, for that matter, the $30,000 or so in our bank accounts. I really only count our investments, both taxable and non-taxable.

We don't plan to move somewhere lower-cost when we retire, so if we don't want to have to sell our home later, why count it as an asset that we can use in retirement? Obviously, if we had to, we could, but since "net worth" isn't actually a metric that matters for anything, I don't care about making sure that mine is valued as highly as it could be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't count home equity in our net worth, though obviously the definition of net worth would include all assets. I also don't count our kids' 529s. Or, for that matter, the $30,000 or so in our bank accounts. I really only count our investments, both taxable and non-taxable.

We don't plan to move somewhere lower-cost when we retire, so if we don't want to have to sell our home later, why count it as an asset that we can use in retirement? Obviously, if we had to, we could, but since "net worth" isn't actually a metric that matters for anything, I don't care about making sure that mine is valued as highly as it could be.

What you’re saying is you don’t calculate your net worth. JFC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't count home equity in our net worth, though obviously the definition of net worth would include all assets. I also don't count our kids' 529s. Or, for that matter, the $30,000 or so in our bank accounts. I really only count our investments, both taxable and non-taxable.

We don't plan to move somewhere lower-cost when we retire, so if we don't want to have to sell our home later, why count it as an asset that we can use in retirement? Obviously, if we had to, we could, but since "net worth" isn't actually a metric that matters for anything, I don't care about making sure that mine is valued as highly as it could be.

What you’re saying is you don’t calculate your net worth. JFC.

Sure, that’s fine too. Who cares what my net worth is if it includes assets I don’t plan to rely on for retirement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Puzzling that people think only assets that throw off income can be included in one's net worth.

What about gold bars, high value artwork, etc.?

When people ask about our NW, we only include our non-earmarked liquid assets. This is the truly meaningful amount and omits anything that provides utility or is set aside for a future expense: functional NW as opposed to technical NW.

In this functional NW number, we exclude our home, cars, personal property, 529 plans, retirement accounts, and HSAs. In our experience, the more affluent people all do the same thing. It is the upper middle class and below that tends to inflate their NW estimates using any means available to keep up with the Joneses.

We’re in our early 40s and have a functional NW – by our practical definition – of about $10M. If we include ALL ASSETS and ALL LIABILITIES, our technical NW is closer to $300M.

This post is so funny I had to read it to DH . . . he made me read it to him twice.

Why so funny?

For our functional NW, we have $10M in checking, HYSA, taxable brokerage, and other liquid funds.

For our technical NW, we have an extra $290M distributed as follows:
- HSAs: $1M
- 529 Plans: $2M
- Cars: $3M
- Primary Home: $48M
- Home Furnishings and Art: $16M
- Retirement Accounts: $40M
- Term Life Insurance Policies: $50M
- Home and PP Insurance: $70M
- AD&D Insurance: $60M

If we suddenly passed away and had to pass everything on to charity or our kids, we technically have a NW of $300M. This is why we don’t include all these extras in our functional NW. Inflated NW is a silly number that you can only realize when you’re homeless and dead. Oh well, to each their own.

Oh man 180 million of insurance as your "net worth." This thread is gold.

I know! PP keeps on giving. I'm looking forward to reading part two to DH tonight.

But also...who buys 50m of term life? At that level, you self insure. The broker must love them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Puzzling that people think only assets that throw off income can be included in one's net worth.

What about gold bars, high value artwork, etc.?

When people ask about our NW, we only include our non-earmarked liquid assets. This is the truly meaningful amount and omits anything that provides utility or is set aside for a future expense: functional NW as opposed to technical NW.

In this functional NW number, we exclude our home, cars, personal property, 529 plans, retirement accounts, and HSAs. In our experience, the more affluent people all do the same thing. It is the upper middle class and below that tends to inflate their NW estimates using any means available to keep up with the Joneses.

We’re in our early 40s and have a functional NW – by our practical definition – of about $10M. If we include ALL ASSETS and ALL LIABILITIES, our technical NW is closer to $300M.

This post is so funny I had to read it to DH . . . he made me read it to him twice.

Why so funny?

For our functional NW, we have $10M in checking, HYSA, taxable brokerage, and other liquid funds.

For our technical NW, we have an extra $290M distributed as follows:
- HSAs: $1M
- 529 Plans: $2M
- Cars: $3M
- Primary Home: $48M
- Home Furnishings and Art: $16M
- Retirement Accounts: $40M
- Term Life Insurance Policies: $50M
- Home and PP Insurance: $70M
- AD&D Insurance: $60M

If we suddenly passed away and had to pass everything on to charity or our kids, we technically have a NW of $300M. This is why we don’t include all these extras in our functional NW. Inflated NW is a silly number that you can only realize when you’re homeless and dead. Oh well, to each their own.

Obviously a joke since it’s impossible to have that much in retirement accounts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Puzzling that people think only assets that throw off income can be included in one's net worth.

What about gold bars, high value artwork, etc.?

When people ask about our NW, we only include our non-earmarked liquid assets. This is the truly meaningful amount and omits anything that provides utility or is set aside for a future expense: functional NW as opposed to technical NW.

In this functional NW number, we exclude our home, cars, personal property, 529 plans, retirement accounts, and HSAs. In our experience, the more affluent people all do the same thing. It is the upper middle class and below that tends to inflate their NW estimates using any means available to keep up with the Joneses.

We’re in our early 40s and have a functional NW – by our practical definition – of about $10M. If we include ALL ASSETS and ALL LIABILITIES, our technical NW is closer to $300M.

This post is so funny I had to read it to DH . . . he made me read it to him twice.

Why so funny?

For our functional NW, we have $10M in checking, HYSA, taxable brokerage, and other liquid funds.

For our technical NW, we have an extra $290M distributed as follows:
- HSAs: $1M
- 529 Plans: $2M
- Cars: $3M
- Primary Home: $48M
- Home Furnishings and Art: $16M
- Retirement Accounts: $40M
- Term Life Insurance Policies: $50M
- Home and PP Insurance: $70M
- AD&D Insurance: $60M

If we suddenly passed away and had to pass everything on to charity or our kids, we technically have a NW of $300M. This is why we don’t include all these extras in our functional NW. Inflated NW is a silly number that you can only realize when you’re homeless and dead. Oh well, to each their own.

Obviously a joke since it’s impossible to have that much in retirement accounts

Doesn't Thiel have some $5 billion in his Roth? It is possible to have quite a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't count home equity in our net worth, though obviously the definition of net worth would include all assets. I also don't count our kids' 529s. Or, for that matter, the $30,000 or so in our bank accounts. I really only count our investments, both taxable and non-taxable.

We don't plan to move somewhere lower-cost when we retire, so if we don't want to have to sell our home later, why count it as an asset that we can use in retirement? Obviously, if we had to, we could, but since "net worth" isn't actually a metric that matters for anything, I don't care about making sure that mine is valued as highly as it could be.

What you’re saying is you don’t calculate your net worth. JFC.

Sure, that’s fine too. Who cares what my net worth is if it includes assets I don’t plan to rely on for retirement?

I don’t care what your net worth is and I also don’t care what your retirement plans are.

But “net worth” actually has a meaning.

This thread is bonkers.