What's your net worth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand including your home in your net worth. We certainly don’t as we don’t ever plan on living in the streets.

Because the definition of net worth includes it. Idiot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assets minus liabilities. Include home equity. Don't include value of expected pension. And don't lie or exaggerate. No reason to. This is an anonymous forum!

I think posters should include expected pension- that makes a huge difference. As does expected inheritance, if any. I don’t have either of those, but a number of friends will receive inheritances in the millions (they don’t brag about it, but I know their parents and family situations well enough to estimate).

The question wasn't "what's your retirement plan" or "do you expect an inheritance." It's what's your net worth.

There's no difference, for example, between "expected pension" and expected Social Security. No one includes their Social Security in their net worth.

Net worth is a real financial term. It means "assets minus liabilities." Not "assets minus liabilities plus expected pension or social security."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand including your home in your net worth. We certainly don’t as we don’t ever plan on living in the streets.

It's included because it's a real asset that can be liquidated if needed/desired. As any financial planner would tell you, you don't include the equity in your home as an income stream in retirement if you plan on living in it forever -- but it's certainly an asset regardless. When you croak the house goes to your heirs. It doesn't simply disappear.

And many people don't plan on living in their current home forever. It's not "live here or on the street."

The inability of so many posters on DCUM to grasp the basic concept of net worth is astounding. I thought this was a website with largely educated and savvy participants. Sometimes I wonder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assets minus liabilities. Include home equity. Don't include value of expected pension. And don't lie or exaggerate. No reason to. This is an anonymous forum!

I think posters should include expected pension- that makes a huge difference. As does expected inheritance, if any. I don’t have either of those, but a number of friends will receive inheritances in the millions (they don’t brag about it, but I know their parents and family situations well enough to estimate).

The question wasn't "what's your retirement plan" or "do you expect an inheritance." It's what's your net worth.

There's no difference, for example, between "expected pension" and expected Social Security. No one includes their Social Security in their net worth.

Net worth is a real financial term. It means "assets minus liabilities." Not "assets minus liabilities plus expected pension or social security."

You can cash out pensions but not SS. So not exactly the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing is funnier than childless women bragging about their mediocre net worth as if it is an accomplishment.

If that was for the PP single woman -you do need to improve your reading and math skills. I grew up one child. They were on autism spectrum and now are a top student at a high ranked engineering school (ACT 36 on all sections). Comparing to the useless trust fund leach like you, they can calculate. A single woman with 4.5m falls in top 3% by NW in the US. No separate stats for women, but likely it’s close to 1%. This by definition is very rare, not “mediocre”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assets minus liabilities. Include home equity. Don't include value of expected pension. And don't lie or exaggerate. No reason to. This is an anonymous forum!

I think posters should include expected pension- that makes a huge difference. As does expected inheritance, if any. I don’t have either of those, but a number of friends will receive inheritances in the millions (they don’t brag about it, but I know their parents and family situations well enough to estimate).

The question wasn't "what's your retirement plan" or "do you expect an inheritance." It's what's your net worth.

There's no difference, for example, between "expected pension" and expected Social Security. No one includes their Social Security in their net worth.

Net worth is a real financial term. It means "assets minus liabilities." Not "assets minus liabilities plus expected pension or social security."

You can cash out pensions but not SS. So not exactly the same.

Well, you can cash up SOME pensions, but not many, and doing so has serious tax repercussions. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Here's what Motley Fool says:

In the case of pension income in retirement, or the stream of money you receive from a previous employer, your net worth would include only the portion you do not spend. If you were to save a portion of this income, it would be counted as an asset on your personal balance sheet.

On the other hand, if your pension presents as a block of money from which payments may arise, then yes, you can include the entire amount as an asset. Different pension plans have different provisions and withdrawal options, so the degree to which you include pension value as part of your net worth may differ from person to person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assets minus liabilities. Include home equity. Don't include value of expected pension. And don't lie or exaggerate. No reason to. This is an anonymous forum!

I think posters should include expected pension- that makes a huge difference. As does expected inheritance, if any. I don’t have either of those, but a number of friends will receive inheritances in the millions (they don’t brag about it, but I know their parents and family situations well enough to estimate).

Smart people don’t include inheritances in their long-term planning. The parents can have unexpected medical expenses, get estranged from their children, become widowed and marry gold-diggers, suddenly decide to leave everything to their neighbors cat……

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand including your home in your net worth. We certainly don’t as we don’t ever plan on living in the streets.

Because if it's just the 2 of you (or just you) in retirement, you don't "need" your 4500 Sq ft home anymore. You could choose to sell and downsize. It's definately part of your net worth. I could sell my places for $6M+ and easily move into a place for $1-1.5M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assets minus liabilities. Include home equity. Don't include value of expected pension. And don't lie or exaggerate. No reason to. This is an anonymous forum!

I think posters should include expected pension- that makes a huge difference. As does expected inheritance, if any. I don’t have either of those, but a number of friends will receive inheritances in the millions (they don’t brag about it, but I know their parents and family situations well enough to estimate).

Smart people don’t include inheritances in their long-term planning. The parents can have unexpected medical expenses, get estranged from their children, become widowed and marry gold-diggers, suddenly decide to leave everything to their neighbors cat……

You don't include an inheritance in your net worth until you actually get it. Because yes, things can change. But once you have the $$, it is most definately part of your net worth, no matter how you "got it"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand including your home in your net worth. We certainly don’t as we don’t ever plan on living in the streets.

It's included because it's a real asset that can be liquidated if needed/desired. As any financial planner would tell you, you don't include the equity in your home as an income stream in retirement if you plan on living in it forever -- but it's certainly an asset regardless. When you croak, the house goes to your heirs. It doesn't simply disappear.

And many people don't plan on living in their current home forever. It's not "live here or on the street."

The inability of so many posters on DCUM to grasp the basic concept of net worth is astounding. I thought this was a website with largely educated and savvy participants. Sometimes I wonder.

When to include your house in your NW is debated on many forums, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides—no need for either of you to get so worked up. I have a spreadsheet with multiple columns to see everything together (including 529 plans and home equity), or isolate investable assets like brokerage, retirement accounts, commercial real estate, private equity, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand including your home in your net worth. We certainly don’t as we don’t ever plan on living in the streets.

It's included because it's a real asset that can be liquidated if needed/desired. As any financial planner would tell you, you don't include the equity in your home as an income stream in retirement if you plan on living in it forever -- but it's certainly an asset regardless. When you croak, the house goes to your heirs. It doesn't simply disappear.

And many people don't plan on living in their current home forever. It's not "live here or on the street."

The inability of so many posters on DCUM to grasp the basic concept of net worth is astounding. I thought this was a website with largely educated and savvy participants. Sometimes I wonder.

When to include your house in your NW is debated on many forums, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides—no need for either of you to get so worked up. I have a spreadsheet with multiple columns to see everything together (including 529 plans and home equity), or isolate investable assets like brokerage, retirement accounts, commercial real estate, private equity, etc.

The official definition of NW is "assets minus liabilities". so yes, your home is included, minus the mortgage/liabiltiies


And most of us understand that yes you need to sell to access it.

[Anonymous]

Fine, if you're all going to be so weird about it, I get $45k a year in social security. I'd need the equivalent of $1.1 million in investments to generate that amount each year under the 4 percent rule.

So I will now add $1.1 million to my net worth . . . I'm even richer than I thought!

[Anonymous]

Early 50s.

I'd say around $15-16M. Depends on value of house.
Former business owner. No family money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assets minus liabilities. Include home equity. Don't include value of expected pension. And don't lie or exaggerate. No reason to. This is an anonymous forum!

I think posters should include expected pension- that makes a huge difference. As does expected inheritance, if any. I don’t have either of those, but a number of friends will receive inheritances in the millions (they don’t brag about it, but I know their parents and family situations well enough to estimate).

Smart people don’t include inheritances in their long-term planning. The parents can have unexpected medical expenses, get estranged from their children, become widowed and marry gold-diggers, suddenly decide to leave everything to their neighbors cat……

You don't include an inheritance in your net worth until you actually get it. Because yes, things can change. But once you have the $$, it is most definitely part of your net worth, no matter how you "got it"

Just remember that most inheritances go to an individual, not a couple. Decide thoughtfully about how to manage it: Keep is separated in an account associated only with that individual OR Co-mingle it with your other marital assets.