How do YOU figure your Net Worth

Azanon said:
BTW, houses thought of as consumption items is so Kioyaski. If i'm consuming it, then why 1. is it still there. 2. going up in value

It is both an asset and an expense. Assets depreciate or appreciate in value too.

A building depreciate over 40 years or so, legally speaking. Most buildings also loose tremendous value if you don't keep them up. The house is still there but you bought a new roof, new windows, redid the kitchen and bathrooms... So it is really consumption(s) over very long period of time that allows for the price of the structure not to go to $0.
Now the land itself is another thing: it is a real asset but over time land doesn' t seem to go in value faster than economic conditions.
 
perinova said:
It is both an asset and an expense. Assets depreciate or appreciate in value too.

A building depreciate over 40 years or so, legally speaking. Most buildings also loose tremendous value if you don't keep them up. The house is still there but you bought a new roof, new windows, redid the kitchen and bathrooms... So it is really consumption(s) over very long period of time that allows for the price of the structure not to go to $0.
Now the land itself is another thing: it is a real asset but over time land doesn' t seem to go in value faster than economic conditions.

I tend to view homes the way gummont economists (don't get me started) view them: It is an asset, but if you live in it, you consume the "dividends" it throws off in the form of foregone rent.
 
owning around here is trading foregone rent for the joy of 10-12,000 a year in property taxes and maintaince costs.
 
Thanks again everyone!!

Ron'Da said:
I don't need a "bigger home" to make me happy

- Ron

I feel the same, although a "smaller" house will make me much happier when I retire!!!
 
I think it's quite important to remember that the term "Net Worth" is an accounting term with a very precise definition. Clearly, forum members are choosing to use their own definitions, which are quite variable. That being the case, we can no longer do any comparative valuations of net worth on this forum.
 
Meadbh said:
I think it's quite important to remember that the term "Net Worth" is an accounting term with a very precise definition. Clearly, forum members are choosing to use their own definitions, which are quite variable. That being the case, we can no longer do any comparative valuations of net worth on this forum.

That should do it...
img_456109_0_aafb895565f516c22abb8a124e10c89f.gif
 
Meadbh said:
I think it's quite important to remember that the term "Net Worth" is an accounting term with a very precise definition. Clearly, forum members are choosing to use their own definitions, which are quite variable. That being the case, we can no longer do any comparative valuations of net worth on this forum.

Why am I such a misfit?
I am not just a nitwit.
You can't fire me I quit,
since I don't fit in.
 
Meadbh said:
I think it's quite important to remember that the term "Net Worth" is an accounting term with a very precise definition. Clearly, forum members are choosing to use their own definitions, which are quite variable. That being the case, we can no longer do any comparative valuations of net worth on this forum.

Besides "assets minus liabilities", what is the definition? And nobody seems to be able to answer these questions for me, with respect to calculating net worth:

  • What is the value of my vested non-COLA pension that I can't touch for 14 years (at reduced benefit...19 years for full benefit) that has no value if I die before then?
  • What is the value of my SS benefits due at 62 (early) or 67? (I have over 40 quarters of work, so unless laws change drastically I can expect a benefit)
  • Since my IRA and 401(k) assets have taxes and penalties due upon immediate withdrawal, taxes only due on withdrawals after 19 years from now, do I count their full value today?

Okay, the last one people may agree on, but I like the question because it helps show how your net worth is not necessarily a meaninful number to know even for today.

As seen earlier in this thread, I now sidestep the question of how to calculate net worth and instead concentrate on what one is really trying to find out. I'm thinking common questions are "how do I compare to my peers financially" and "do I have enough money to retire/buy a car/get that mail order wife/etc".
 
BigMoneyJim said:
Besides "assets minus liabilities", what is the definition? And nobody seems to be able to answer these questions for me, with respect to calculating net worth:

  • What is the value of my vested non-COLA pension that I can't touch for 14 years (at reduced benefit...19 years for full benefit) that has no value if I die before then?
  • What is the value of my SS benefits due at 62 (early) or 67? (I have over 40 quarters of work, so unless laws change drastically I can expect a benefit)
  • Since my IRA and 401(k) assets have taxes and penalties due upon immediate withdrawal, taxes only due on withdrawals after 19 years from now, do I count their full value today?

Okay, the last one people may agree on, but I like the question because it helps show how your net worth is not necessarily a meaninful number to know even for today.

As seen earlier in this thread, I now sidestep the question of how to calculate net worth and instead concentrate on what one is really trying to find out. I'm thinking common questions are "how do I compare to my peers financially" and "do I have enough money to retire/buy a car/get that mail order wife/etc".

Net worth is a snapshot of assets mnus liabilities NOW, not in the future. If you are not sure whether something is an asset or not, ask yourself: could I bequeath this to my heirs?

Let's assume your pension is a defined benefit pension. If you die tomorrow morning, your estate will get nothing. If you live another 14 years to retire and draw the pension, you will have Cash Flow, which will allow you to (a) pay your expenses and (b) hopefully save some money.....which will then add to your assets. Then, and only then, can you count those assets in your net worth.

OTOH, I have a defined contribution pension plan. Each year my employer puts a defined sum of money into a pension fund in my name. If I retired or left my job tomorrow I could draw the accumulated sum; if I died, it would form part of my estate. Therefore, that is an asset now. It just won't generate any Cash Flow after I retire.

The same principles apply to the social security benefits that you expect to receive in the future. They are not yours yet, and if you died tomorrow, your heirs could not inherit them. They are not assets at the moment.

Yes, you do include your IRA and 401K accounts. They would be in the "Registered Investments" category shown in the Canadian spreadsheet to which I previously posted a link. The Canadian equivalent of an IRA is an RRSP. The different tax treatment does not mean they should be excluded.

Your last comment is true. If your objective is to calculate something other than net worth, then by all means go ahead. Perhaps what you would like to calculate is "liquid assets", which includes all those assets that you could reasonably expect to sell within months to generate cash. Scenario building to determine whether your financial situation will enable or disable your plans is simply good managerial accounting. But comparing your custom calculations with somebody else's is comparing apples and oranges.

Hope this helps!

Disclaimer: I'm not an accountant, just an MD-MBA with a Canadian Securities Diploma.
 
Meadbh said:
Net worth is a snapshot of assets mnus liabilities NOW, not in the future. If you are not sure whether something is an asset or not, ask yourself: could I bequeath this to my heirs?

The problem with this is that you would like net worth to be an accurate measure of financial health. Perhaps this is not the correct way to use net worth, and we need to come up with a new term and new definition, but you'd like to be able to say: if this increases my net worth it is good, and if a decision decreases it then it is bad. If a healthy 50-year-old has $1M in assets, and then spends half of it to buy a life annuity that pays them $100k a year with CPI adjustments from a AAA rated company, well I think they made a pretty shrewed move, but their "net worth" would plummet! Perhaps we should start talking about our "divorce net worth." Divorce lawyers probably have a term for this, but I know they will sometimes include lump-sum value of future pension payments in a settlement.
 
Bongo, where do I get the life annuity for 500K that pays 100K a year from an AAA company? :D
 
73ss454 said:
Bongo, where do I get the life annuity for 500K that pays 100K a year from an AAA company? :D

I think a former spin-off from Enron now sells that very annuity. If you want, I'll find out the name and you can send me the money to get started. :LOL: :LOL:
 
73ss454 said:
Bongo, where do I get the life annuity for 500K that pays 100K a year from an AAA company? :D

Exactly. I wanted to make the example dramatic to avoid the whole "annuities are junk" discussion.
 
interesting loophole i guess. i think it would be catagorized the same as say a person you sold property or a business to and held the note. for a life time of payments.

to be honest, im not quite sure how id figure it and that would depend on what im trying to figure and why
 
When investment totals are small, adding home equity, cars, etc. make the numbers look bigger, which might make you feel better. As investments grow, there's less need to add those items. Regardless, it's still total assets minus total liabilities. Pretty straightforward I would think...
 
I have a blog on which I occasionally post my net worth. It's a very rough calculation:

cash + retirement accounts + value of house at purchase 3 years ago
- mortgage - car loan - student loans

We don't have any expensive jewelry or toys to complicate things.
 
I calculate two net worths. One for tracking progress over time and one for evaluating FIRE status. The first is calculated as:

checking
savings
retirement accounts
kids' college accounts
some household goods
house
car
accounts receivable

minus

mortgage
student loan
CC balances

For my FIRE status, I adjust by the NPV of my social security, my kids' college expenses and my child support payments. I value at zero a likely inheritance and future promised gifting from my parents.

2Cor521
 
I figure in stocks, retirement plans, checking, savings, and something I call "cash in house" (appraised value-mortgage+debt repayment).

Example: House currently worth 180,000. Bought it at 105000 back in 98. Have paid 39919.70 on mortgage. 180000-105000+39919.70. Cash in house=$114420.

I've come up with this on my own. Any pros or cons to how I'm doing it?

Also, while I'm asking questions (my 1st post here), what is a "DH"? It seems to refer to a spouse, significant other, etc. What do the letters stand for?
 
Keim said:
I figure in stocks, retirement plans, checking, savings, and something I call "cash in house" (appraised value-mortgage+debt repayment).

Example: House currently worth 180,000. Bought it at 105000 back in 98. Have paid 39919.70 on mortgage. 180000-105000+39919.70. Cash in house=$114420.

I've come up with this on my own. Any pros or cons to how I'm doing it?

Also, while I'm asking questions (my 1st post here), what is a "DH"? It seems to refer to a spouse, significant other, etc. What do the letters stand for?

The way you're doing it isn't typical. I would (and do) use equity (what you call "cash in house) = current market value - current mortgage balance. Your formula doesn't seem to account for any money you put down on your house.

2Cor521
 
SecondCor521 said:
The way you're doing it isn't typical. I would (and do) use equity (what you call "cash in house) = current market value - current mortgage balance. Your formula doesn't seem to account for any money you put down on your house.

2Cor521
Also if you want to be really conservative, get the 15-year average appreciation in your neighborhood, and apply that to your purchase price. Consider any difference from that number and current market value estimates to be a short-term market abberation. This is particularly useful in the superheated parts of the country.

There is a parallel here in that we count conservative market returns and not instantaneous valuations when doing our future planning. Unrealized values on paper may not be realistic for any equities.
 
In my opinion "net worth" represents a snapshot of the net value of your assets at any given point in time. It is the net proceeds you would have left if you "cashed out" all of your assets (in a non-distress sale) and paid off all your debts. Obviously, if you "cashed out" you would have to pay taxes on any gains. As for myself, I maintain a single page spreed sheet that lists all of my assets and liabilities. I have one column that calculates my "net worth" without any adjustment for taxes, and another column that calculates my "net worth" minus estimated taxes that would be due if I liquidated. The difference is presently about $120K. In my view many folks take an overly optimistic approach to calculating their net worth. Even including the value of a pension is problematic -- have you ever tried to sell one? If an asset isn't generating income, it has little value to me in calculating my net worth.
 
GMueller said:
...Even including the value of a pension is problematic -- have you ever tried to sell one? If an asset isn't generating income, it has little value to me in calculating my net worth.
I only use the present value of the pensions to compute asset allocation. I agree with your column 2 approach if you are contemplating a move overseas and for estate planning purposes.
 
Back
Top Bottom