Poll: Compare value of your residence to investment portfolio

[hesperus]

With primary residence, 8%, with second home & land 13%
That's with an average cost per sq ft of $345 in our neighborhood. A lot less than San Francisco :-)
No debt.

[2017ish]

8.1%--including all 25 acres since on single "lot," and valuing property at decade-old acquisition cost (current "development" value would boost that percentage).

As for mortgage, should close refinancing next week for our 15yr retirement mortgage.

No surprise, we reside in LCOL fly-over country.

[RobbieB]

Nine percent.

[roninop]

9 %. 16 years old, no mortgage.

[FIREmenow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roninop 9 %. 16 years old, no mortgage.

Wow! You're quite young to have already paid off your mortgage!! CONGRATS!

[Totoro]

Or he lives in a cardboard box. Probably high-quality though, it's still 9%.

[kaudrey]

35% in northern VA. 10 years 'til retirement...

[racy]

11%. Would have been lower but Zillow says my house has increased in value 12% over the past year.

[bjorn2bwild]

Another renter here -
For cash flow comparison, my rent is 34% of a 'standard' 4% annual portfolio WR.

[scrabbler1]

I live on Long Island, a HCOL. But I live in a paid-off studio apartment in a co-op complex, so my home value is low, about 7% of my portfolio+apartment.

[flyingaway]

26%. This is really bad, I wish I could reduce it to 13% before my full retirement. But that would be tough.

[Bestwifeever]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R This poll is just for fun. It should make the San Franciscans and those with a big pension feel like they live in the Taj Mahal. Step 1: Add the value of your investment portfolio to the equity you have in your main home. Do not include rentals, pensions, SS, additional homes, cars/boats/planes/RV's, annuities. Step 2: Figure out the percentage of that total that your equity in your main home represents. If you do not have a main home, or if you rent, there's an option for you, too.

I can do step 1. As a great man once said, numbers is hard. 1,234,921% is probably not right.

[COcheesehead]

10.5% That's with about a 40% increase in the value of the house since we bought it in 2012.

[samclem]

Looking at results so far, it looks like home value is less than 20% of the portfolio size for a majority/large plurality of participants. And, this poll likely overstates home value as a % of assets for most respondents here because:
-- Results include people early in their careers with little savings yet. Their home values will typically dwarf the size of their portfolios.
-- It doesn't include net present value of any pensions or SS
-- Many people may downsize their homes in later years.

So, maybe an average situation would be that a home represents less than 10% of the typical net worth of a retiree here.

So--I wonder if most of us plan to continue to buy homeowner's insurance? Insurance (in general) is for catastrophic losses that we would have trouble overcoming. It's a net "loser," but even so, we buy it because the potential impact of a loss would be devastating. Sure, we probably want coverage against being sued, but do we really need to pay for insurance coverage to replace our home due to fire, flood etc if that home could be replaced without undue impact to our quality of life? Many folks here are prepared to accept a drop in their portfolio values by 10%, and the chance of a house burning down is >miniscule< compared to the likelihood of a big market downturn. Maybe we just need renter's insurance to cover our stuff and to protect against lawsuits?

[Moemg]

close to 30% , No mortgage and house is waterfront were the values are soaring .If you add in my pension it drops to 20%. I bought this house in 2001 for a bargain and it has almost doubled in value .

[COcheesehead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Looking at results so far, it looks like home value is less than 20% of the portfolio size for a majority/large plurality of participants. And, this poll likely overstates home value as a % of assets for most respondents here because: -- Results include people early in their careers with little savings yet. Their home values will typically dwarf the size of their portfolios. -- It doesn't include net present value of any pensions or SS -- Many people may downsize their homes in later years. So, maybe an average situation would be that a home represents less than 10% of the typical net worth of a retiree here. So--I wonder if most of us plan to continue to buy homeowner's insurance? Insurance (in general) is for catastrophic losses that we would have trouble overcoming. It's a net "loser," but even so, we buy it because the potential impact of a loss would be devastating. Sure, we probably want coverage against being sued, but do we really need to pay for insurance coverage to replace our home due to fire, flood etc if that home could be replaced without undue impact to our quality of life? Many folks here are prepared to accept a drop in their portfolio values by 10%, and the chance of a house burning down is >miniscule< compared to the likelihood of a big market downturn. Maybe we just need renter's insurance to cover our stuff and to protect against lawsuits?

You insure against what you can't or DO NOT want to cover. For my $800 a year, I'll continue to buy it.

[CardsFan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem So--I wonder if most of us plan to continue to buy homeowner's insurance? Insurance (in general) is for catastrophic losses that we would have trouble overcoming. It's a net "loser," but even so, we buy it because the potential impact of a loss would be devastating. Sure, we probably want coverage against being sued, but do we really need to pay for insurance coverage to replace our home due to fire, flood etc if that home could be replaced without undue impact to our quality of life? Many folks here are prepared to accept a drop in their portfolio values by 10%, and the chance of a house burning down is >miniscule< compared to the likelihood of a big market downturn. Maybe we just need renter's insurance to cover our stuff and to protect against lawsuits?

Interesting point. We live in a condo, with building (studs out) insured by the HOC, so it is included in my fees. Therefore, our portion of remaining insurance costs is low ($600/year). I think I'll keep it.

Also, replacement cost can be a LOT more than current market value.

[emerytura]

In NJ, 38%, no mortgage, side by side duplex. We live in one half and collect rent from other half.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

[Helena]

.

Do you factor what you paid for your paid-off house... or what it is worth now ??

.

[Cobra9777]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Looking at results so far, it looks like home value is less than 20% of the portfolio size for a majority/large plurality of participants. And, this poll likely overstates home value as a % of assets for most respondents here because: -- Results include people early in their careers with little savings yet. Their home values will typically dwarf the size of their portfolios. -- It doesn't include net present value of any pensions or SS -- Many people may downsize their homes in later years. So, maybe an average situation would be that a home represents less than 10% of the typical net worth of a retiree here. So--I wonder if most of us plan to continue to buy homeowner's insurance? Insurance (in general) is for catastrophic losses that we would have trouble overcoming. It's a net "loser," but even so, we buy it because the potential impact of a loss would be devastating. Sure, we probably want coverage against being sued, but do we really need to pay for insurance coverage to replace our home due to fire, flood etc if that home could be replaced without undue impact to our quality of life? Many folks here are prepared to accept a drop in their portfolio values by 10%, and the chance of a house burning down is >miniscule< compared to the likelihood of a big market downturn. Maybe we just need renter's insurance to cover our stuff and to protect against lawsuits?

Good point. I guess I never actually considered NOT carrying homeowner's insurance. In this part of Texas, hail damage is a fairly regular occurrence and tornado damage is not uncommon. This past Spring alone, I had roof claims on both rental houses, one of which had just been replaced less than a year earlier. Our main house had the roof replaced due to hail damage in 2012 at a total cost of $70K, with me paying only the deductible. The main house is quite large with a metal shingle roof, plus two smaller detached buildings with same roof material. Two years ago, we had a water leak claim that totaled $26K. We also have a pool which creates potential liability issues.

So it's not just for catastrophic loss of the entire house, which I agree would be a rare occurrence. For me, it's for catastrophic, PLUS a combination of hail/tornado risk in this area, pool liability, and all the intermediate size claims that add up over the years. Also, not sure about this, but I believe our umbrella insurance requires a certain level of home and auto coverage. Lastly, I'm currently in the 20% club. So until we downsize, a catastrophic loss would leave an awfully big dent. The premium is only 0.35% of replacement cost, so I see this as reasonable value.