Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can cash out MANY but some you can’t. Tax issue is irrelevant because this thread is not about maximizing tax benefits. Try “what” again?

Ok, fine, so by your logic it makes sense to include the value of a cashed out pension when you plan to cash it out. But otherwise it doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8M in late 30s including home equity -- $7M invested w/o home equity. 600K HHI and I am the only earner at the moment while DH starts a new company.

This is super impressive for the age and $600K HHI. What was your HHI before SH stopped earning? Does this include inheritances?

Thanks. DH has always been an underpaid startup tech guy so our stable HHI never exceeded $700K even when were both working. There was one year when he had a larger equity sale (between $1-2M total after tax). His peers in big tech have done mostly better financially with way less risk and better WLB, so we don't consider this a significant exit, we're hoping for the next company!

Regardless, this plus my consistent mid six figures legal job helped us get to $3M invested by 2021, and the rest has been mostly the work of the markets, which has been up nearly 100% since then -- more when slightly weighted for tech stocks like us.

Other factors -- we graduated with no student debt (thanks parents) and delayed having kids until recently due to factors beyond our control, which allowed us to stay in our small condo for a long time and live below our means even while enjoying a luxurious DINK lifestyle with frequent travel and eating out. We're also a one car household with a walkable city lifestyle.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can cash out MANY but some you can’t. Tax issue is irrelevant because this thread is not about maximizing tax benefits. Try “what” again?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these responses is a bit depressing, unless (1) people exaggerate or (2) only the well-off ones post.

These are couples posting. If you divide it by 2, not that impressive. I’m a single woman with $4.5m NW at age 47. Not US born, started saving and investing at age 27. HHI 350k and I don’t feel rich at all . I think for couples in their 40s $10m+ would be a decent NW but anything under is just average professionals with good financial acumen.

For how long have you been making the $350k by yourself?

I have 1.6 million at 43, and I think that's pretty good. However, I lived a fun life when I was younger (traveled, took jobs I was interested in, moved to new cities by myself, etc.) and made less than 6 figures for most of my career. Now I make $135k.

Since early 30s (first salary was around 100K in my mid 20s, just before financial crisis). I also have a rental business on a side so my total income fluctuated between low 300K to mid 400K in the last 5 years

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!

$9.5M; 60/55; Does not include home equity. Unless you live in a downsizeable home (i.e. live in a $5 mil house when you could get by in a 1.5 mil home) pointless to include, despite what all the "that's what the definition says" pedantic idiots say.

Most people can/could "downsize" if they truly needed to. Also, when you are 75-80+, you might prefer to rent rather than have to deal with maintenance/repairs/shoveling snow/etc. And even in expensive areas, you can rent a 1 bedroom place for ~$2-3K/month. When you factor in taxes/repairs/maintenance/etc, it most often is more expensive to own than rent. If you are out of money, then you downsize and live more affordably.

To that point, we have millions tied up in home equity, and we're not going to die in this house, as it has multiple levels and is a pain to maintain, so ignoring it would be bad planning.

Yup!!! You must have a plan for where you can live once mobility becomes an issue. Maintaining a home is a pain, unless you can afford to outsource it all, it's nicer to live in a condo/TH where maintenance is someone else's responsibility

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!

$9.5M; 60/55; Does not include home equity. Unless you live in a downsizeable home (i.e. live in a $5 mil house when you could get by in a 1.5 mil home) pointless to include, despite what all the "that's what the definition says" pedantic idiots say.

Most people can/could "downsize" if they truly needed to. Also, when you are 75-80+, you might prefer to rent rather than have to deal with maintenance/repairs/shoveling snow/etc. And even in expensive areas, you can rent a 1 bedroom place for ~$2-3K/month. When you factor in taxes/repairs/maintenance/etc, it most often is more expensive to own than rent. If you are out of money, then you downsize and live more affordably.

To that point, we have millions tied up in home equity, and we're not going to die in this house, as it has multiple levels and is a pain to maintain, so ignoring it would be bad planning.

Anonymous wrote:People who insist that home equity should be included in their net worth are just trying to inflate their numbers.

Insane. There is literally a definition of net worth you can look up.

In your mind, someone who owns a 10 million dollar home outright should be considered to have an equal net worth who owns a 1 million dollar home?

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!

$9.5M; 60/55; Does not include home equity. Unless you live in a downsizeable home (i.e. live in a $5 mil house when you could get by in a 1.5 mil home) pointless to include, despite what all the "that's what the definition says" pedantic idiots say.

Most people can/could "downsize" if they truly needed to. Also, when you are 75-80+, you might prefer to rent rather than have to deal with maintenance/repairs/shoveling snow/etc. And even in expensive areas, you can rent a 1 bedroom place for ~$2-3K/month. When you factor in taxes/repairs/maintenance/etc, it most often is more expensive to own than rent. If you are out of money, then you downsize and live more affordably.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these responses is a bit depressing, unless (1) people exaggerate or (2) only the well-off ones post.

These are couples posting. If you divide it by 2, not that impressive. I’m a single woman with $4.5m NW at age 47. Not US born, started saving and investing at age 27. HHI 350k and I don’t feel rich at all . I think for couples in their 40s $10m+ would be a decent NW but anything under is just average professionals with good financial acumen.

For how long have you been making the $350k by yourself?

I have 1.6 million at 43, and I think that's pretty good. However, I lived a fun life when I was younger (traveled, took jobs I was interested in, moved to new cities by myself, etc.) and made less than 6 figures for most of my career. Now I make $135k.

Anonymous wrote:People who insist that home equity should be included in their net worth are just trying to inflate their numbers.

Not true. It's the standard.

People who insist that home equity should be included in their net worth are just trying to inflate their numbers.

Anonymous wrote:Of course your pension is included. It has a cash equivalent value.

So does my social security. So I'm $1.1 million richer than I thought.

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!

$9.5M; 60/55; Does not include home equity. Unless you live in a downsizeable home (i.e. live in a $5 mil house when you could get by in a 1.5 mil home) pointless to include, despite what all the "that's what the definition says" pedantic idiots say.

Of course your pension is included. It has a cash equivalent value.

Anonymous wrote: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!

But SS is not a guarantee! it can/could change at any time. But having $1.1M in the bank is a guarantee, it's yours and you can invest it how you see fit.

However, I do agree while SS is not part of your networth, you can estimate you will get $45K/year to use to fund your retirement. Most normal people plan on that (or some portion---I personally don't expect to get the full amount when I turn 67 in 10+ years).