62strat said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

62strat said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

Only the equity in the house is an asset. The rest isn't owned by you, it's owned by the bank.

---

This is worded weird., or wrong.

The house is an asset. The loan is a liability.
The difference, which could be negative, is part of your overall net worth.

---

I was wording in the framework of the post I was replying to -

---

I don't care what 'framework' you were wording to, your words are simply wrong and confusing.

'The rest isn't owned by you'?? The rest of what? The rest of 'equity'?
That makes zero sense. Equity is not implied to be positive. It's simply the difference, plus or minus.

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

62strat said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

62strat said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

Only the equity in the house is an asset. The rest isn't owned by you, it's owned by the bank.

---

This is worded weird., or wrong.

The house is an asset. The loan is a liability.
The difference, which could be negative, is part of your overall net worth.

---

I was wording in the framework of the post I was replying to -

---

I don't care what 'framework' you were wording to, your words are simply wrong and confusing.

'The rest isn't owned by you'?? The rest of what? The rest of 'equity'?
That makes zero sense. Equity is not implied to be positive. It's simply the difference, plus or minus.

---

If you couldn't grasp that in the context of the conversation (about millionaire status and home ownership) that "equity in one's home" referred to positive equity then I can't help you my friend.

---

techno-ag said:

---

This (the last few pages or so of discussion) is why in The Millionaire Next Door they defined a millionaire as having at least $1 million in liquid assets (ie cash or something easily monetized) and not real estate. It is a never ending source of debate.

---

I bleed maroon said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

This (the last few pages or so of discussion) is why in The Millionaire Next Door they defined a millionaire as having at least $1 million in liquid assets (ie cash or something easily monetized) and not real estate. It is a never ending source of debate.

---

I don't think that's right at all. I haven't read the book in many years, but they use some multiplier of income to get to future net worth. I'm sure they don't define current net worth as excluding real estate, or they're idiots. They certainly can create their own financial analysis tool which excludes it from their retirement formulas, or have a "liquid net worth" measure, but it just ain't net worth. This is actually a black and white issue, and not debatable.

---

techno-ag said:

---

I bleed maroon said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

This (the last few pages or so of discussion) is why in The Millionaire Next Door they defined a millionaire as having at least $1 million in liquid assets (ie cash or something easily monetized) and not real estate. It is a never ending source of debate.

---

I don't think that's right at all. I haven't read the book in many years, but they use some multiplier of income to get to future net worth. I'm sure they don't define current net worth as excluding real estate, or they're idiots. They certainly can create their own financial analysis tool which excludes it from their retirement formulas, or have a "liquid net worth" measure, but it just ain't net worth. This is actually a black and white issue, and not debatable.

---

For their own metrics they can define things however they want. In fact in social science it's common to define terms at the start of a paper or book so there is no misunderstandings.

---

Ghost of Bisbee said:

---

If it looks like a woman and talks like a woman, it's probably a woma…

well, maybe 50 years ago you'd have reasonable confidence but can never be too sure these days

Say speaking of net worth, do y'all include your wife in your net worth calculation?

---

62strat said:

---

Ghost of Bisbee said:

---

If it looks like a woman and talks like a woman, it's probably a woma…

well, maybe 50 years ago you'd have reasonable confidence but can never be too sure these days

Say speaking of net worth, do y'all include your wife in your net worth calculation?

---

Yes, I include her assets of course. But also her liabilities.

---

62strat said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I don't include that in MY net worth calculation. I am under arrest from the Net Worth police?

---

If someone sued you 'for all that you're worth', they'd certainly want to know about it. Or if you declared bankruptcy, or, maybe a more realistic example, your spouse divorces you. It would be fraud to 'conveniently' leave out this land in your asset column.

It's doesn't matter how many hypothetical examples you come up with, the definition doesn't change. Your net worth includes that land, plain and simple. Doesn't matter what you prefer to do.

---

62strat said:

---

Ghost of Bisbee said:

---

If it looks like a woman and talks like a woman, it's probably a woma…

well, maybe 50 years ago you'd have reasonable confidence but can never be too sure these days

Say speaking of net worth, do y'all include your wife in your net worth calculation?

---

Yes, I include her assets of course. But also her liabilities.

---

LMC said:

---

so even when you sell the property, you still have either future rental payments each month or buying another property which has also gone up in value.

---

harge57 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

the problem with people calling themselves a "millionaire" because they own a home with a bit of equity

is that you can't buy a sandwich with a house.

and everyone has to live SOMEWHERE

so even when you sell the property, you still have either future rental payments each month or buying another property which has also gone up in value.

which is why most financial retirement planners prefer millionaires with liquid wealth (cash, CDs, stocks, bonds, 401K, Roth IRA, crypto, commodities etc)

---

Some of those examples are less liquid than your home equity.

---

62strat said:

---

harge57 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

the problem with people calling themselves a "millionaire" because they own a home with a bit of equity

is that you can't buy a sandwich with a house.

and everyone has to live SOMEWHERE

so even when you sell the property, you still have either future rental payments each month or buying another property which has also gone up in value.

which is why most financial retirement planners prefer millionaires with liquid wealth (cash, CDs, stocks, bonds, 401K, Roth IRA, crypto, commodities etc)

---

Some of those examples are less liquid than your home equity.

---

and who even says you have to sell a home to access the equity?

You can literally pull out equity and invest it in the stock market if you wanted.

---

techno-ag said:

---

62strat said:

---

harge57 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

the problem with people calling themselves a "millionaire" because they own a home with a bit of equity

is that you can't buy a sandwich with a house.

and everyone has to live SOMEWHERE

so even when you sell the property, you still have either future rental payments each month or buying another property which has also gone up in value.

which is why most financial retirement planners prefer millionaires with liquid wealth (cash, CDs, stocks, bonds, 401K, Roth IRA, crypto, commodities etc)

---

Some of those examples are less liquid than your home equity.

---

and who even says you have to sell a home to access the equity?

You can literally pull out equity and invest it in the stock market if you wanted.

---

You still have to pay it back, though. Or risk losing the house.

---

LMCane said:

---

the problem with people calling themselves a "millionaire" because they own a home with a bit of equity

is that you can't buy a sandwich with a house.

and everyone has to live SOMEWHERE

so even when you sell the property, you still have either future rental payments each month or buying another property which has also gone up in value.

which is why most financial retirement planners prefer millionaires with liquid wealth (cash, CDs, stocks, bonds, 401K, Roth IRA, crypto, commodities etc)

---

QBCade said:

---

Agree. So, to get this back on track, what's everyone's number now with a huge stock run up

---