70%

Paid off California house, worth 50% to 55% of our financial assets, but we have pensions that cover regular living expenses. s
Seems to be working well in our first year that we are both retired.
 
In NJ, home equity is 45-50% of our net worth. I didn't figure in transfer taxes and commission.

I guess knowing how much you have tied up in R.E. is good to know. I think of home equity as something we will use towards the retirement home, and the balance of the sale will go in the bank to pay expenses for x number of years.
 
I know my portfolio to the last dollar every day, but do not include the values of my houses. Only to respond to this thread, I just calculated their values to be 25% of my net worth, if I add them to the investment portfolio.

I do not count on selling either or both, and am just thinking that we might just spend all our liquid assets before croaking, then leave the houses to the kids.
 
another perspective

My house represents about 60% of my net worth. I bought my first house in 1996 in an expensive suburb of San Francisco. I put down $7500 and financed the rest. I now live in my second home in the same community and have conservatively $800k in equity. I upgraded both properties and treated them as investments. I do consider my house as part of my overall portfolio. The truth is if you invested in a good area in the Bay Area more than 10 years ago real estate was a very good investment. The bonus is/was I've got to live in a beautiful house as well.
 
Mine is a little less than 15% if I include my home's value in my net worth. I think the author must be thinking of Californians. :)
As a former Californian I wonder if you mean % of assets rather than % of net worth. Most of my neighbors had a huge mortgage liability on their personal balance sheet and little net worth.
Now that you mention it, that sounds more realistic than my former statement. I can't imagine who the article must be referring to, then.

Perhaps people like me who bought into a now-expensive area (in my case Seattle) before it got that way, and as a result are sitting on a large amount of equity. I bought my first house in 1985 for a five digit price, sold it in 1997 for nearly three times what I paid, was able to put about 50% down on the townhouse I live in now, which has also slightly better than doubled since I bought it, even taking the recent downturn into account. Between appreciation and paying down the mortgage, it's now worth about three times what I owe on it, despite the refi I used to replace my car three years ago.

I don't know what the house comes out to as a fraction of my net worth. The mortgage is my only debt, and the equity in the house is a bit less than twice what I have in my retirement accounts, so where does that leave me—about 60% of net worth in my house? I must confess I don't exactly understand how net worth fits into the E-R picture. It doesn't include my pension (or does it), without which it would be impossible for me to retire at all, never mind early! And it does include houses, which are not liquid and which many people are not willing to tap to finance their living expenses in retirement, except as a last resort if they need to move into an assisted living or similar situation.

Personally, I do consider the equity in my current house as part of my retirement resources. At retirement I plan to sell this house, use half the equity to pay in full for a house in a less expensive area, and add the other half to my portfolio. But after that, I will be among those who consider any equity the house accumulates as a "last resort" category. My retirement budget doesn't have room in it for ongoing debt like a HELOC. For me, it'll be cash (or debit card ;)) on the barrelhead from E-R on out.

I have thought of taking advantage of current low real estate prices by cashing out some of my equity and buying a retirement house now, then selling this one in a few years when prices have (I hope) recovered somewhat. But I couldn't afford the higher mortgage payments and still max out my retirement savings too, so I guess that dog won't hunt. I'm not sure I would do it even if I could make the bigger payments...I don't think it passes the "sleep at night" test.
 
I do believe that one's home should be considered part of one's portfolio. Yes, one has to live somewhere, but a home is an asset that can be sold or borrowed against to cover expenses. Realistically, if we all live to 100, how many of us will still be living in our own homes?

By selling my home after ER, I could put the proceeds into a safe investment which would cover rental costs on a self sustaining basis.

Obviously, the practical importance of this varies with where you live. If you have lived all your life in San Francisco, own your home, and are willing to move to a lower cost area in retirement, you are well set! If you are going in the opposite direction, not so much!

My own home is worth about 8% of my NW. The value of all the property I own (including residential, recreational and rental) is approximately 25% of my NW. The rental property is leveraged to the tune of 10% of NW, leaving me with a net property asset allocation of approximately 15% of NW.
 
Mine's like 30%, but I live in NYC in a fully paid off home. I don't include it in my NW calculation, although I used to include my mortgage debt in the calculation back when I had some.
 
Meadbh - you raise some good points. When I finally pull the trigger, I'll almost certainly move to a much cheaper area and net at least $1MM in the housing price differential. Still, that doesn't show up in my spreadsheets and will be considered found money when it materializes.
 
I'm somewhat surprised by the number of folks who do not account for the value of their homes(s) in their financial records and/or calculations. My home is only 5% - 6% of my total net worth, but it's recorded and included in my calculations and planning. Like other assets, it has its own set of issues regarding costs of ownership, benefits of ownership, volatility in value, long term potential for appreciation/depreciation, and so on. I have other assets of significant value I would set aside from consideration in my planning before my home.
 
I don't count the value of my home in my calculations. I suppose if I have it with the intent to sell and make a profit, I would. But instead I just look at it as a place to live in.
 
I don't count the value of my home in my calculations. I suppose if I have it with the intent to sell and make a profit, I would. But instead I just look at it as a place to live in.

Are you saying that when you calculated your retirement budget it included rent? That is, you set aside the value of your home in your calculations and therefore are including a sum to pay for rent?

If you don't include rent in your retirement budget because you own a home, you ARE counting the value of your home in your calculations. You're just using your home's value to offset an expense rather than generate income, but essentially the same thing on the other side of the ledger.

BTW, that's how I handle it, an offset to rent expense. I have the expenses of home ownership in my budget (taxes, maintenance, etc.) but not rent. This is not ignoring the value of a home, just accounting for it in another way.
 
I like to calculate our net worth on income producing assets. I don't include any of our real estate ...

I'm like kumquat in that I don't calculate the real estate.
 
I'm like kumquat in that I don't calculate the real estate.

So, you include rent as a housing expense during retirement even though you own a home? That's quite a conservative approach. But, of course, most everyone on this board is conservative in one way or another in their FIRE planning and execution.
 
I do believe that one's home should be considered part of one's portfolio.

I do too. But I think the discussion on this thread is suffering from "terminology disfunction." ;) What does it mean to be within a portfolio? And the value of what is used to calculate what?

Accounting for the value of your home in your portfolio doesn't necessarily mean taking that value and multiplying by 4% (or whatever number you use) to determine a SWR for RE. Rather, you might have your home drive a reduction in housing costs in retirement (no rent). Or you might note it as an asset of last resort that could be liquidated. Etc.

I have several assets in my portfolio that are not included in the calculation of my retirement SWR. My house. A trust I set up for my grandson with special needs. A fund for the grandkids' education. But they're all there on my portfolio spreadsheet as they are not entirely independent from one another.
 
The value of our home represents 18% of net assets. The equity in our home represents 8% of net assets.

I struggle to understand why people do not include the value of a home in a net worth calculation. At the end of the day a home is an asset, it has value and it can be sold for money - the fact that the owner lives in the home does not change any of these facts.

That said, I do not intend to rely on realising that value for the purpose of funding my retirement.
 
T
I struggle to understand why people do not include the value of a home in a net worth calculation.

I struggle to understand why people even bother to calculate their net worth. Is it a means of keeping score, to see if we are "progressing"? For the purposes of supporting future spending in retirement, the only assets worth talking about are those that produce income. From this perspective, owning a home is important if it helps one avoid expenditures (e.g. rent) or if the intent is to eventually convert the equity to cash. Otherwise, it's just a place to live and a nice place for the relatives to meet after the funeral.
 
I'm somewhat surprised by the number of folks who do not account for the value of their homes(s) in their financial records and/or calculations. My home is only 5% - 6% of my total net worth, but it's recorded and included in my calculations and planning. Like other assets, it has its own set of issues regarding costs of ownership, benefits of ownership, volatility in value, long term potential for appreciation/depreciation, and so on.

I think it depends on what your plans are with respect to the house. If you intend (hope) to stay in your home until death, it makes sense to omit its value as part of your retirement nest egg. If you intend to sell it and move to a cheaper place, it probably makes sense to consider at least some of its value as part of your retirement nest egg.


It also may come down to what one means by 'accounting for it'. Be aware of its value? sure. Have it figure into your nest egg total from which you calculate your SWR? Well, that gets more tricky and depends on your plans for the house, as I mentioned above.


I have other assets of significant value I would set aside from consideration in my planning before my home.

Just curious, like what?
 
That's pretty much my approach for omitting the value of my condo as part of the nest egg. I don't include my home for the same reason that I don't include the value of my car and don't include the value of my (misplaced somewhere) Chipper Jones rookie baseball card. I know there is value in each, but I treat my condo as my place to live in, my car as my means of transportation and my Chipper Jones baseball card as a baseball card, not as investments.

I suppose if World War III breaks out and I have to sell all my possessions to live, then I'd be thinking more of the values associated with them.
 
it makes sense to omit its value as part of your retirement nest egg.
I'm guessing you do count the value of your home. You include ownership of your home and the associated benefits when you calculate your budget for retirement. As I said above, having your home factor into reducing expenses (increasing expenses in the case of a second home or vacation home) is similar to including its value in income estimations, only working on the expense side of the ledger.
It also may come down to what one means by 'accounting for it'. Be aware of its value? sure. Have it figure into your nest egg total from which you calculate your SWR? Well, that gets more tricky and depends on your plans for the house, as I mentioned above.
As mentioned in my post above, this discussion is suffering from "terminology dysfunction" as folks are saying they don't include home value in their financial records at all but what they mean is that they don't include home value in calculating SWR, an entirely different thing.

Maurice, if you don't include the value of your home in your financial records and calculations, couldn't that be an issue in estate planning? That is, might plans be forged disregarding the house that might be inappropriate if the house is a significant slice of one's total net worth?

Just curious, like what?
See my post above where examples are given.
 
For the purposes of supporting future spending in retirement, the only assets worth talking about are those that produce income. From this perspective, owning a home is important if it helps one avoid expenditures (e.g. rent) .

My observation on this board is that it is popular to have a so-called "paid for home" when entering retirement in order to have a place to live rent free. A few prefer to plan to rent going into retirement, but it does seem like home ownership is a popular situation with the FIRE'd and FIRE'd wannabees and not something disregarded and unaccounted for.

It also seems popular to consider home value and the rent-freeing utility it provides on the expense side of the ledger rather than using home value as part of SWR calculations.

Either way, your home is part of your portfolio, your net worth, and needs to be included in budgeting and estate planning exercises.

I think most of us are saying the same thing. It's just that some are saying they don't include home value in their accounting of total assets in any regard when they mean they don't use home value in calculating SWR, a different thing entirely. :)
 
... having your home factor into reducing expenses (increasing expenses in the case of a second home or vacation home) is similar to including its value in income estimations, only working on the expense side of the ledger...

Yes, tell me about it! :)

I do consider my 1st house a necessity. Though it is a bit large for us when we become empty nesters, I have figured that it would not save us much money to sell it and to move into a smaller house. Been living in it for 22 years, we are so used to the area.

The 2nd home is another matter. Although I told myself and my wife when buying it that we should look at it as "consumption" and not as an investment, the operating and maintenance expenses still hurt a bit when we have to write a check. The money tied up in it could also have been used to [-]buy low[/-] "rebalance" into equities in the past year (not sure if I would have the guts, but just playing Monday quarterback here :blush:).

So, I do look at the houses differently from income producing assets, and each of them separately. We still love having a nice place at 7000ft to escape from the summer heat, but of course it is cheaper to stay in the city and to dial in a lower setting for the thermostat.

Perhaps in another 10 years, when housing market comes roaring back, I will brag about how I made a prescient purchase in a place desirable by retirees, but for now the 2nd home sure feels more like consumption than an investment.
 
Maurice, if you don't include the value of your home in your financial records and calculations, couldn't that be an issue in estate planning? That is, might plans be forged disregarding the house that might be inappropriate if the house is a significant slice of one's total net worth?


That's why I said it depends on what someone means by 'accounting for it'. My home as an asset is listed in my will. It is, of course, insured. But if you look at my spreadsheet that caluclulates the value of my investments (and computes various withdrawal rates), it doesn't show up. And if you were to ask me my net worth, I would give you a number off the top of my head that excludes my house.


Should I firm up my plans to move somewhere cheaper, I may start considering some of its value in my calculations.
 
Back
Top Bottom