Poll: Compare value of your residence to investment portfolio

[Taxman59]

Net equity 6.21% Gross value 9.09%
With Annuity : Net 5.3% Gross 7.8%


We always chose to stay in our "Starter Home", knowing that it would be too small for a few years, then get to be the right size for our retirement. Also, we both hate moving!!

 

[RobLJ]

A scooch below 18%.

 

[tulak]

28%. High COL area.

This is an interesting way to think about how much value you have in your primary residence. It's easy enough to increase or lower the percentage by the size of mortgage.

If you end up in an area where real estate has been going up a lot on value, maybe it's better to take some equity out of your house and add it to the portfolio?

But I suspect most would prefer to sell the house and move to a lower COL area. That's has the same result without increasing debt.

 

[samclem]

samclem - I think the poll was asking for home equity - not home value. So those youngsters with small portfolios and expensive houses - also have small equity, most likely.

I have a very bad habit of voting before I read the instructions so maybe I missed something....I only used the EQUITY I have in the home so value does not come into play.

"Opps"--you guys are right. The poll asks for "equity" not 'value."

 

[YVRRocketSurgery]

But nobody has selected >50% yet. There's room at the top!

I think I was the 2nd person to select >50%.

We bought our home in the 90's. Mortgage has been paid off.
To calculate home value (since we should have full equity of the value of our home), I estimated based on the government's price assessment of our house for property tax purposes at the start of the year and what our neighbours just listed their home for. The realtor indicated they sold a comparable home a few blocks over for a similar price. Our house is newer and larger than house for sale so I figure its value is comparable. If so, the value of our house has increased about 3.6x. That's how ridiculous the housing market has been in Vancouver over the last two decades.

The growth of our investment portfolio has done well but hasn't kept up with the rampant increases in home valuations in Vancouver.

 

[jazz4cash]

Isn't your equity the current value of the house, minus your mortgage balance?

I'm one of those Californians with a high percentage of my NW tied up in the family home: 39.7%. I'll be glad when that number drops, since it'll mean that our investment balances are growing!

Yes


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Meadbh]

I think I was the 2nd person to select >50%.

We bought our home in the 90's. Mortgage has been paid off.
To calculate home value (since we should have full equity of the value of our home), I estimated based on the government's price assessment of our house for property tax purposes at the start of the year and what our neighbours just listed their home for. The realtor indicated they sold a comparable home a few blocks over for a similar price. Our house is newer and larger than house for sale so I figure its value is comparable. If so, the value of our house has increased about 3.6x. That's how ridiculous the housing market has been in Vancouver over the last two decades.

The growth of our investment portfolio has done well but hasn't kept up with the rampant increases in home valuations in Vancouver.

Actually, I would have expected the value of your Vancouver home to increase by a bigger multiple over ~20 years. I owned a home in Winnipeg for 20 years and sold it for 3.08 X my purchase price. Five years on, it has recently been on the market for 60% more than that (I don't know the 2016 sale price). Granted, both I and the new owners had done some renovations. And the numbers are an order of magnitude smaller than in Vancouver.

 

[Cobra9777]

But surely that is all included in the price you re being charged for the policy, and the insurance company is charging enough above that to make a profit. Unless we know more than the insurance companies about our particular risk, then we must admit we are paying more to them then they are likely to pay to us...

In the aggregate, I'm quite sure what you are saying is correct. But my recent claims have far exceeded premiums. The 5 claims I described earlier totaled $111K. Premiums for all 3 houses are $3K/yr. That's 37 years, but my recent experience is probably abnormal. I was just pointing out that, at 0.35% of replacement cost, home insurance can be a good value even without a catastrophic loss. More importantly, I'm in the 20% club currently and that's more than I'm willing to put at risk.

But your basic point is a good one... why buy homeowner's insurance if the house is less than 10% of net worth and risk of catastrophic loss is miniscule? Definitely worth considering after we downsize.

...But can't a renter get umbrella coverage?

I believe the answer is yes, if you have a renter's policy. But perhaps the more relevant question is: can a homeowner get an umbrella policy without an underlying homeowner's policy? I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect it's probably no.

 

[RobbieB]

I pay about a third of a percent for my HO insurance too. I also have an umbrella.

There is no way I would consider dropping either.

 

[ABQ2015]

32%

Home has appreciated about 4% a year over last 20 years. Medium COL area.

 

[Marita40]

13%. I never thought about this before and it took me an embarrassing long time to figure out (English major here). New to me house with about 75% equity in it with goal to pay off over the next few years before retirement.
I don't think there's any "right" percentage here, correct? It depends on a lot of factors.

 

[W2R]

13%. I never thought about this before and it took me an embarrassing long time to figure out (English major here). New to me house with about 75% equity in it with goal to pay off over the next few years before retirement.
I don't think there's any "right" percentage here, correct? It depends on a lot of factors.

Correct! The poll is just for fun (it's not a scientific poll), and the answers are affected by many factors.

 

[Fermion]

I live in a van down by the river (no, really) so where is my option?

Edit: oh the last one, nevermind.

 

[Lucantes]

28% and no mortgage.
We have seen a significant increase in our possible home value from when we purchased it in early 2013 (nearly 43% increase over our cash purchase price based upon several recent unsolicited verbal inquiries through our property manager?), would only be 22% if based upon what we paid for it. Of course since we have no plans on selling it I imagine it really doesn't matter!
Does it make any difference on what the % is? Does this tell me something that I should be paying attention to?
If I included our pending lump-sum pension in the calculation then it would be 23%

 

[bmcgonig]

55℅ Bay Area..more house than I need. Planning on downsizing at some stage but probably won't get below 35℅ as I'll stay somewhere in the Bay Area.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[FireBug]

This poll made me smile as I'm one of those San Franciscans (well almost). Born and raised in The City, but now live just outside. With respect to the poll I am at about 40%. Housing prices are insane here but as I have only lived in one area all my life, I have no comparisons.

I've always liked this site as it provides perspective as to other areas of the country. I can readily understand how someone might be able to live comfortably on 30k a year, yet out here that may be difficult. But for those of us born and raised in the area its a common cost of living. Sticker shock for all others....which I understand.

 

[mamadogmamacat]

15% if I choose to believe what the county says it is worth. 19.5% if I believe what Zillow tells me. No mortgage. Actual "real to me value" is that I enjoy the home, the lot, mos of the neighbors, convenient location relative to places i like to spend my time at.....less of course the costs of taxes, ins , maintenance, and so on.....in a way its like stocks you have not sold yet, they go up and they go down.....you mostly don't care until/unless something occurs to affect your life and you have to sell...and I suppose the ephemera (somewhat) value items i mentioned are akin to dividends.


Thanks for the poll.....got me thinking anyway

 

[FireBug]

This poll made me smile as I'm one of those San Franciscans (well almost). Born and raised in The City, but now live just outside. With respect to the poll I am at about 40%. Housing prices are insane here but as I have only lived in one area all my life, I have no comparisons.

I've always liked this site as it provides perspective as to other areas of the country. I can readily understand how someone might be able to live comfortably on 30k a year, yet out here that may be difficult. But for those of us born and raised in the area its a common cost of living. Sticker shock for all others....which I understand.

LOL...I get to quote myself! Pls be seated as this is where you will want to be when I tell you that I just went to an open house this past Sunday. Asking price $679,000 for a total tear down. A rusted Buick Riviera in the backyard, windows practically falling out, held in with screws and caulk. Wires in the garage going god knows where. Well, I guess its better than living in London or Tokyo.

 

[FIREd]

Currently renting in San Francisco. If I purchased this apartment outright, my ratio would be about 50%.

Moving soon to the south. The ratio will be 6% for a house owned outright.

 

[ElizabethT]

13% in coastal California, but NOT the Bay Area, which really is in a class by itself here. No mortgage, and not an asset we count in any real sense, in that we have to live somewhere. And not in a van!

We are giving significant thought to buying up to a smaller, but more expensive, home closer to the ocean, so our ratio may go up in the next couple of years. (We'd pay the difference in cash).

 

[target2019]

Between 20-25% is the calculation for our situation in NJ.

 

[panacea]

17.4% with 7 years or more to FIRE. The number at FIRE should be somewhere around 12%. I love these fun polls!

 

[eytonxav]

16%, we downsized to cut maintenance and tax, but still purchased a modestly expensive home.

 

[Danmar]

Correct! The poll is just for fun (it's not a scientific poll), and the answers are affected by many factors.

Agree, but being an analytical guy, I always try to learn something from a poll.

Looking just at retirees (because this eliminates the person who is understandably initially highly levered into the housing market), I think the main question is "How much of your resources do you want to use in your personal use real estate?" This is a question I ask myself frequently.

Obviously, different people have different comfort levels. Is it possible to be "house poor" in retirement even with a fully paid off house? As an example, at some point a person in Vancouver with a $3 million house and a retirement portfolio of say $2million probably decides to move to a lower cost location and up his portfolio by a factor of 2x. Correspondingly, a person with only 5% of his portfolio tied up in his personal use real estate, might decide to splurge a little more on their "Dream Home" a la W2R.

So, having said that, it does look like a %'age of say 10- 20% seems to be the norm? Although certainly different people have different views and many people like where they are living and can't be bothered to move

 

[athena53]

5.6%