Net worth calculator

[orbops]

I came across this net worth calculator in a recent Kiplinger's article on net worth.

https://www.thekickassentrepreneur.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-usa/

The percentiles seemed a bit high for net worth (which this calculator says to include your home value). What do you think of the results?

 

[pb4uski]

Seems sensible.

Only thing is whether the data is based on household or people? IOW, if a married couple have $4m NW, do they enter $4m or $2m? Makes a difference, but perhaps not a huge difference... 97.0% vs 98.5%... both very good.

 

[Al18]

Networth is always defined as a total of assets minus liabilities.

Your retirement income should be based on investable assets plus other streams of income such as Social Security benefits, pensions, etc.

 

[Jerry1]

Shows that the top 10% is around $1M. A million may not be what it used to be, but it’s still a lot more than a lot of people have. $1.2M gets you over the 5% line.

So, going back to the thread on how much it takes to retire - I think it said $1.46M. Only the top 5% get to retire comfortably? Thankfully, it’s more complicated than that.

 

[mathjak107]

I came across this net worth calculator in a recent Kiplinger's article on net worth.

https://www.thekickassentrepreneur.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-usa/

The percentiles seemed a bit high for net worth (which this calculator says to include your home value). What do you think of the results?

the problem is there are no guidelines for what to include in that figure.

i can easily add 3 million just based on what it would take to generate our income stream.

are people counting future pension values ? jewelry ? art work they have no intention of ever selling .

there is so much one can include that without guidelines it’s meaningless

 

[RunningBum]

Shows that the top 10% is around $1M. A million may not be what it used to be, but it’s still a lot more than a lot of people have. $1.2M gets you over the 5% line.

So, going back to the thread on how much it takes to retire - I think it said $1.46M. Only the top 5% get to retire comfortably? Thankfully, it’s more complicated than that.

It doesn't look like this is the percentile for just people of retirement age. A 25 year old would not be expected to have a net worth that would allow them to retire. I can't even tell if this includes 5 year olds.

https://www.thekickassentrepreneur.com/net-worth-by-age-percentile-calculator-for-usa/ asks for your age as well as net worth. $1M between ages 60-64 puts you in the 82% percentile.

 

[Time2]

It doesn't look like this is the percentile for just people of retirement age. A 25 year old would not be expected to have a net worth that would allow them to retire. I can't even tell if this includes 5 year olds.

https://www.thekickassentrepreneur.com/net-worth-by-age-percentile-calculator-for-usa/ asks for your age as well as net worth. $1M between ages 60-64 puts you in the 82% percentile.

The first calculator puts us(?) at 98.5% the second, as more mature individuals, at 86%. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Always have wondered about these online calculators, as previously stated, they need clearly defined criteria. And I don't include my home in my personal net worth statement.

 

[Jerry1]

It doesn't look like this is the percentile for just people of retirement age. A 25 year old would not be expected to have a net worth that would allow them to retire. I can't even tell if this includes 5 year olds.

https://www.thekickassentrepreneur.com/net-worth-by-age-percentile-calculator-for-usa/ asks for your age as well as net worth. $1M between ages 60-64 puts you in the 82% percentile.

Good point. Still, about 20% have enough to retire comfortably? It obviously doesn't take into account all the factors that are in play to have a comfortable life in retirement.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

Seems like a feel-good calculator to me ..... at least for a lot if us here. The one above with the addition of age ^^^^^ is more realistic I think. BUT, I will still feel good with the first one.

 

[mathjak107]

we came in at 98% using only investable assets .

meh , it still only buys a middle class life style in queens . not even manhattan

 

[freedomatlast]

To save you the time, 1 million calculates to 95%, 2 million calculates to 97.5%, 3, 4, and 5 million all calculate to 98.5%, 6, 7, 8 and 9 million all calculate to 98.7 and 10 million calculates to 99%. Due to the lack of differentiation, I stopped there.

 

[Car-Guy]

I kept getting 98.5 no matter what I counted in NW. Tried taxable, not taxable, house/property or not, etc. I had to add X$ to get it to change.

 

[disneysteve]

To save you the time, 1 million calculates to 95%, 2 million calculates to 97.5%, 3, 4, and 5 million all calculate to 98.5%, 6, 7, 8 and 9 million all calculate to 98.7 and 10 million calculates to 99%. Due to the lack of differentiation, I stopped there.

Ah, that makes sense. I just posted that we're at 98.5 with or without the house. This is why. I'll delete that post.

 

[Andre1969]

I tried it with invested assets (~$3.2M), invested assets + home equity (~$3.6M), and just for kicks even put. in $4M. All three came out the same. 98.5%.

I don't know how it rounds off, but $9,800,000 puts you at 98.7%, while $9,800,001 puts you at 99.0%. Meanwhile, $1,000,000 puts you at 95%, but $1,000,001 puts you at 96?!

I've been hearing for years now, about $1M being the threshold to get into the top 10%. But, suddenly it's the top 4-5%? Seems to me that, thanks to inflation, and rising home equity, there should be more millionaires now, not fewer.

And I don't buy for a second that, regardless of whether I'm at $3.2M, $3.6M, or $4.0M, that I'm in the top 1.5%. If you told me top 5%, I might believe it.

 

[Car-Guy]

Shows that the top 10% is around $1M. A million may not be what it used to be, but it’s still a lot more than a lot of people have. $1.2M gets you over the 5% line.

So, going back to the thread on how much it takes to retire - I think it said $1.46M. Only the top 5% get to retire comfortably? Thankfully, it’s more complicated than that.

True... If I were in my early 60's, I'm not sure I'd feel very comfortable retiring on 1.46m. (Maybe if that was all tax paid and zero debt) However, now that I'm well into my 70's, I'd be okay retiring with that but still no second homes, jets or yachts.

But as we have said around here a bazillion times, it all depends on lifestyles.

 

[Major Tom]

we came in at 98% using only investable assets .

meh , it still only buys a middle class life style in queens . not even manhattan

Being able to afford a middle-class lifestyle anywhere in NYC without having to work is, in itself, "quite something" for lack of a better way to say it. These NW calculators may be inaccurate, or simply very primitive tools, but they act as a reminder that for many people in this forum, our financial positions are not the norm. It can be easy to lose sight of that when you associate (or at least compare yourself) with people of a similar socio-economic class, as I suspect some/many of us do.

I have considerably less than you, and live in cheap and small (albeit comfortable and pleasant) digs in a HCOL area. Materially, my lifestyle is below middle-class. Yet I feel very lucky indeed to be in this position.

 

[TheWizard]

the problem is there are no guidelines for what to include in that figure.

i can easily add 3 million just based on what it would take to generate our income stream.

are people counting future pension values ? jewelry ? art work they have no intention of ever selling .

there is so much one can include that without guidelines it’s meaningless

That article is about Net Worth in 2025 (next year).
And net worth is all about liquidating your estate after you pass away, so definitely include realistic cash value estimates for all jewelry and artwork.
Only include future pension/annuity income if it has a guarantee period that hasn't yet expired.

For example, I bought a nice Husqvarna chainsaw for around $400 a few years ago. I'm guessing that would sell for $100, so I include that in my NW...

 

[Andre1969]

I don't put much stock in that $1.46M number as being anything really meaningful. From the articles I've pulled up, they just use the word "average" at best, and that word tends to get played with fast and loose. It technically means "mean," but sometimes these types of articles actually mean "median" which is a lot more useful. Still, even the median just means half of the people think they need less, half think they need more.

Plus, there's a really big disconnect between what people think they are going to need, and what they really need. Or, what they end up with. And, the younger you are, I'm convinced the less knowledgeable you are about what you're going to need for retirement. It's just too far off, you don't have enough life experience yet, and your needs and wants may end up changing.

So, picking $1.46M as the mean, or even median number people need for retirement, is somewhat akin to deciding the mean, or median size of the vehicles in this picture...

 

[sengsational]

^If you get down to including a chain saw, you also should include liabilities like paying "got-junk" to empty out your house of stuff nobody wants.

 

[TheWizard]

I don't put much stock in that $1.46M number as being anything really meaningful. From the articles I've pulled up, they just use the word "average" at best, and that word tends to get played with fast and loose. It technically means "mean," but sometimes these types of articles actually mean "median" which is a lot more useful. Still, even the median just means half of the people think they need less, half think they need more.

Plus, there's a really big disconnect between what people think they are going to need, and what they really need. Or, what they end up with. And, the younger you are, I'm convinced the less knowledgeable you are about what you're going to need for retirement. It's just too far off, you don't have enough life experience yet, and your needs and wants may end up changing.

So, picking $1.46M as the mean, or even median number people need for retirement, is somewhat akin to deciding the mean, or median size of the vehicles in this picture...

That $1.46M was from a different thread concerning Investible Assets needed to fund retirement.
This thread is about Net Worth...

 

[Andre1969]

That $1.46M was from a different thread concerning Investible Assets needed to fund retirement.
This thread is about Net Worth...

I'm not the one that brought it up, yet the lesson is the same. Whether it's NW or Investible assets, that part is irrelevant.

 

[Ultrac]

That article is about Net Worth in 2025 (next year).
And net worth is all about liquidating your estate after you pass away, so definitely include realistic cash value estimates for all jewelry and artwork.
Only include future pension/annuity income if it has a guarantee period that hasn't yet expired.

For example, I bought a nice Husqvarna chainsaw for around $400 a few years ago. I'm guessing that would sell for $100, so I include that in my NW...

I don't believe that Net Worth is equivalent to "your estate after you pass away" as it doesn't include life insurance.

Net Wealth may be ok for young people, but it is not a useful measure of wealth for older retirees who often have pensions and SS.

 

[Out-to-Lunch]

I don't put much stock in that $1.46M number as being anything really meaningful. From the articles I've pulled up, they just use the word "average" at best, and that word tends to get played with fast and loose. It technically means "mean," but sometimes these types of articles actually mean "median" which is a lot more useful. Still, even the median just means half of the people think they need less, half think they need more.

Plus, there's a really big disconnect between what people think they are going to need, and what they really need. Or, what they end up with. And, the younger you are, I'm convinced the less knowledgeable you are about what you're going to need for retirement. It's just too far off, you don't have enough life experience yet, and your needs and wants may end up changing.

So, picking $1.46M as the mean, or even median number people need for retirement, is somewhat akin to deciding the mean, or median size of the vehicles in this picture...

Plus, that Mammoth Car from Speed Racer was made from solid gold. So it also highly skews the average net worth of the vehicles in that picture!

 

[rk911]

I came across this net worth calculator in a recent Kiplinger's article on net worth.

https://www.thekickassentrepreneur.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-usa/

The percentiles seemed a bit high for net worth (which this calculator says to include your home value). What do you think of the results?

We include the value of our home and autos in our net worth. I use the tax assessors value of our home and the mid-range private seller value of our vehicles after averaging the value on NADA and KBB. I recalcualte those values every year.

 

[Finance Dave]

Seems sensible.

Only thing is whether the data is based on household or people? IOW, if a married couple have $4m NW, do they enter $4m or $2m? Makes a difference, but perhaps not a huge difference... 97.0% vs 98.5%... both very good.

One enters $3.8M and the other enters $.2M. That was a joke!

Yes, numbers seem sensible to me. Doesn't give much detail such as breakdowns by age etc.