Counting home value in net worth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. Weird people trying to redefine words for some reason.

I keep a spreadsheet with various groupings that I find useful. But way down in the bottom right is a total of all of it, and that my friends is net worth!

[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

That's what I thought reading it, but they're probably inherited.

[Anonymous]

We own 4 homes...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. Weird people trying to redefine words for some reason.

I keep a spreadsheet with various groupings that I find useful. But way down in the bottom right is a total of all of it, and that my friends is net worth!

Agreed!

However, I don't track cars, artwork, furnishing, wines, etc But in the back of my mind I know how much they could generate if sold (and for us, those are a tiny amount of total NW). But I realize they are a part of total net worth. It's not up for debate

[Anonymous]

Isn’t this post an exact repost from a year ago? Why?

[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.

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

That's what I thought reading it, but they're probably inherited.

Imagine living in a $48 M home and telling someone your NW is $10 M. LOL.

[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.

LMAO.

[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.

Some of our furnishings and artwork are indeed made of gold. But NW really should include insurance policies, no? This was my main takeaway from It’s a Wonderful Life. It worked out for George Bailey.

[Anonymous]

Some people ask about other people's net worth and retirement savings just to be nosey. They want to know if other people have equity or cash. OP seems nosey about stuff like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I know what net worth means, I don’t find it a useful metric for myself, I don’t care that my wealth includes my home equity, so I don’t bother to calculate it when I consider how much we have. It’s true that literally I am not counting my net worth, but it’s also true that the point of the thread probably isn’t the literal definition of the term. There’s nothing to debate about that.

[Anonymous]

I don't count mine but I am a not a high earner, my savings all-in sans house is $1.3m, my house could sell for about $600K and I owe $95K and I am not moving any time soon because I dream of the day I no longer have a mortgage which is just over the horizon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't count mine but I am a not a high earner, my savings all-in sans house is $1.3m, my house could sell for about $600K and I owe $95K and I am not moving any time soon because I dream of the day I no longer have a mortgage which is just over the horizon.

If you have a $1.3 million dollar house and can afford the property taxes, maintaince and utilities, you are high income and wealthy.

[Anonymous]

You count for your ego. But it really shouldn't count unless you sell it and deposit the money in your account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You count for your ego. But it really shouldn't count unless you sell it and deposit the money in your account.

Depends on why you are tracking net worth. If it is for estate planning purposes, include your home. The IRS and state tax authorities will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t count it. I need a place to live so it’s not wealth to me.

Also, your $3M townhome in NW could be worth $500K when you sell it b/c it's "worth" is its sale price. Not what you think it is or current comps say it is nor what the tax bill says. It's the sale price alone. That is the only reason. You do not know if selling your home will reap a profit until you do and you need a place to live. It's such a simple concept but some of y'all refuse to accept it.