70%

[WhoDaresWins]

My house if about 5 percent of my net worth.

 

[ejman]

Interesting that a lot of responders seem to cluster around 15% of NW. Maybe an interesting correlation FI/ER = no more than 15% or so of NW devoted to main residence?

 

[donheff]

Makes a big difference where you live. I would guess my house (fully paid off) is about 20-25% of my net worth. Houses are expensive here in DC.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

Our house is a decent chunk of our networth. We have a house in California vacation land. Plan on selling in retirement and move to someplace cheaper. DW works with quite a few people who are RN's from other states and even out of country. Many plan to move back after they are done working.

 

[REWahoo]

I'm another in the ~15% category...

 

[WhoDaresWins]

Makes a big difference where you live. I would guess my house (fully paid off) is about 20-25% of my net worth. Houses are expensive here in DC.

Very true. I have friends in NoVA and my house would easily sell there for 3 or 4 times what I paid here in western PA when I bought it new 5.5 years ago. Location, location, location.

 

[beowulf]

Very true. I have friends in NoVA and my house would easily sell there for 3 or 4 times what I paid here in western PA when I bought it new 5.5 years ago. Location, location, location.

Yeah, but our property taxes are probably 3 to 4 times what yours are and I doubt we get a lot more for them.

We are also in the 15% range. We have lived in the same house for 27 years and it has appreciated over 400%. Things were a LOT cheaper in 1982, though our first mortgage interest rate at the time was 14%.

 

[unclemick]

2% (counting equity only) and I'd rather rent and get it down even lower.

heh heh heh - I'm a member of the 30 yr mortgage camp, not the the paid off house group. .

Note - pre Katrina I was ballpark 15% in New Orleans give or take a couple percent.

 

[RunningBum]

Not sure of my current home value but I'd guess it's around 30-35% of my NW including the home. I had planned on about 15-20% when I built, but it wound up costing more than I planned, and increased in value as the rest of my NW went down. At one point it was probably 50%.

 

[Ronstar]

Our house and condo are about 30% of our net worth. I don't consider their value as part of our retirement nest egg. I do plan on downsizing and then selling real estate if I make it past mid 80's

 

[cardude]

Also about 15%; wish it was about 1/2 that.

Don't include house in NW, or what I figure my SWR on.

 

[freebird5825]

My paid for home is maybe 15% of my net worth.
Hard to tell because I'm out in the boondocks, albeit in a very desirable area (crime very low) compared to other locales. If I decided to sell, it would go quickly as an older but very affordable starter home for young couples who aren't afraid of a little snow. I keep it well maintained.

 

[mickeyd]

I'm out in the boondocks, albeit in a very desirable area (crime very low) compared to other locales

.

Confirms my belief that dirt, rocks, and trees will generally not commit any crimes.

 

[freebird5825]

.

Confirms my belief that dirt, rocks, and trees will generally not commit any crimes.

Oh, there are some local folks who live outside the law and society in general.
But nowhere near me TG.
It's the coydogs I fear the most...Hooooooooooowwwwwwwllllllll
[end of threadjack ]

 

[Finance Dave]

The issue is not that most of us don't have enough house, but rather MOST OTHER people don't have enough investments. If you own a $70,000 house and $30,000 in stocks, then you've hit the 70% they mention...and sadly I think this is where many Americans are.

 

[kumquat]

I like to calculate our net worth on income producing assets. I don't include any of our real estate which includes our home, a condo in another city and some farm land (which actually produces a bit of income).

If you add all three, they might be 15% of our "paper" investments. 70% would scare the sh*t out of me, unless I was living in a $100 million property in the south of France.

 

[Walt34]

For us it is probably 40% of nw, but we also have a DB pension, the full value of which won't be known until we're both dead. And if we had to we could downsize considerably, covert half of the value of the house into cash, and still own a home outright.

Location is everything. One could own a modest home in a high-dollar area and trade that for six of the same in WV or PA. When we were looking at homes in WV we were stunned at the differences in price from the DC area. And the WV panhandle is still not the cheapest place in the country to live.

 

[tuixiu]

We're with the 20-25% gang.

 

[Koolau]

The issue is not that most of us don't have enough house, but rather MOST OTHER people don't have enough investments. If you own a $70,000 house and $30,000 in stocks, then you've hit the 70% they mention...and sadly I think this is where many Americans are.

I think Dave's point demonstrates how we (most members of this board) "get it" when it comes to retirement. The article referenced suggests using home equity for retirement needs while the bulk of us don't even consider HE in our net worth calcs. If we consider HE at all, it's more typically our "back up" to our back ups.

I recall a friend saying she was almost ready to retire. She had her home paid off and $60K in the bank. I must have looked shocked 'cause she quickly asked me if I "...didn't think that was enough". After a cough and stammer, I suggested that she would probably need to use her home equity to live on with her "plan". Full disclosure - her husband did expect a small pension and they would receive some SS.

FWIW I moved into one of my retirement assets (a condo formerly used as a rental) so my own calculated NW actually went down, since I don't count HE in NW calc. Even then, HE is less than 25% of all assets.

 

[colawman]

My home is about 10 percent NW.
Cabin 10 percent NW.
Rental Properties about 13 percent NW.

That is about my comfort level when it comes to balancing my NW: 30 percent Real Estate.

 

[growing_older]

Wow. Does this mean all you California people who live in $1 million dollar houses but have net worth only 15% in housing are sitting on $5 million dollar portfolios.

I'm not seeing a lot of usefulness in this calculation. Unless someone plans to spend down their house somehow or sell it in retirement, they will only be living on their portfolio (and pensions, etc). I generally do not include my house in my net worth calculations except as a footnote to know that if I get desperate enough to downsize I could get at some of the equity. Otherwise, I plan to live there.

Does anyone know why the original article thought this was an interesting calculation?

 

[W2R]

Wow. Does this mean all you California people who live in $1 million dollar houses but have net worth only 15% in housing are sitting on $5 million dollar portfolios.

Originally I thought that too, but after reading some posts I am thinking that many Californians probably have mortgaged a substantial percentage of the value of their homes and then the value of their homes dropped.

So, a Californian might have a $1 million dollar home, but with only $150,000 equity.

Add that to an $850,000 portfolio for a net worth of $1 million, and the home would represent 15% of net worth.

 

[colawman]

I took the article as meaning the majority of the population have a disproportionate (dangerous) percentage of their NW in their homes. Not a good thing as the past few years have seen a depreciation in home values. I think the article is more frightening for those who fall into the 70 percent category while living in Las Vegas and Florida. Just my thought.

Wow. Does this mean all you California people who live in $1 million dollar houses but have net worth only 15% in housing are sitting on $5 million dollar portfolios.

I'm not seeing a lot of usefulness in this calculation. Unless someone plans to spend down their house somehow or sell it in retirement, they will only be living on their portfolio (and pensions, etc). I generally do not include my house in my net worth calculations except as a footnote to know that if I get desperate enough to downsize I could get at some of the equity. Otherwise, I plan to live there.

Does anyone know why the original article thought this was an interesting calculation?

 

[mickeyd]

I recall speaking to a local educator who was bemoaning her inability to retire because she had no 403b, IRA or other savings, but could tell me all about the fab places in Europe that she had visited in the last 15 years or so. She was also concerned that her pension would not pay for as much of the mortgage on her new home as she had thought it would when it was purchased a few years ago.

Since she was not paying for SS, she will not be eligible for SS benefits.

I could not bring myself to tell her that you can only spend a dollar once and many folks choose to save it, invest it, then spend it at a later date along with the growth that it has generated while others spend it now and hope for the best in the future.

 

[molly]

We are at 11% of total NW - if my guesstimate about current market value is correct? In awhile - we will sell and move to another state. I expect that we will look for something in the same price range.