Net worth and retirement accounts are vastly different.Want to never retire, aim to have a million dollar net worth.
Falls into the legacy asset category.I don't. Expensive house is nice, but it costs more to maintain, insure, is taxed higher, and as mentioned you can't spend it. You need a place to live, but beyond that its a non productive asset.
A home, especially free and clear, is a hedge against future rent or mortgage costs. It is a solid investment, especially around here.I don't. Expensive house is nice, but it costs more to maintain, insure, is taxed higher, and as mentioned you can't spend it. You need a place to live, but beyond that its a non productive asset.
I’m sure glad that I have a condo that is fully paid for, and no other debt. It has allowed me to retire early (two years ago at 53) and the monthly costs of living there are very cheap. IMO owning your own place is one of the best investments you can make, as long as you don’t get in over your head.A home, especially free and clear, is a hedge against future rent or mortgage costs. It is a solid investment, especially around here.
I did al the upgrades, including the solar energy project, while I was working.
If everything went south, I could live on my Social Security payments and a little more.
Having a home free and clear is a key component of minimizing recurring costs. I live dirt cheap. I could also easily sell it for a substantial gain and move somewhere else and bank the net proceeds. A solid investment, in my case.
There is also I smaty move; marry up. I did! Ha!
Yes. But I can say the same about mine that is likely worth 1/10th of yours. Although yours produces electricity which is cool.A home, especially free and clear, is a hedge against future rent or mortgage costs. It is a solid investment, especially around here.
I did al the upgrades, including the solar energy project, while I was working.
If everything went south, I could live on my Social Security payments and a little more.
Having a home free and clear is a key component of minimizing recurring costs. I live dirt cheap. I could also easily sell it for a substantial gain and move somewhere else and bank the net proceeds. A solid investment, in my case.
There is also I smaty move; marry up. I did! Ha!
"If you have more than $1 million saved in retirement accounts, you are in the top 3% of retirees.
Most people would be thrilled with a net investment portfolio of $1 million.
And we were talking portfolio, not net worth.
Well, the point of contention was this post:I'd like to point out the in the above quote it stipulated in retirement accounts, which means it has to be in a 401K, IRA, etc. Due to limitations on what you can put into a retirement account, yeah it's kind of difficult / takes a long time to get to that 1M mark. For comparison purposes, it's much easier to get past that 1M mark in a non-retirement account where you can put in as much money as you can spare into it. Somehow this always happens where people start taking about a subset of investment portfolios that is in retirement accounts which presumably is (if you are reading this thread) your non retirement accounts exceed the value of your retirement accounts. Plus people tend to have multiple small retirement accounts (because of switching employers) which pulls the averages down.
So the discussion was “investment account” - which got twisted, just a bit, into “retirement account”.Being a millionaire in your investment account is mediocre.
Perhaps for a primary residence but for a vacation or secondary home, it's clearly part of one's net worth.Yes. But I can say the same about mine that is likely worth 1/10th of yours. Although yours produces electricity which is cool.
I am not anti home ownership - just the opposite. But as an investment standpoint, people that consider their house value part of their net worth are fooling themselves, unless there prepared to sell the asset and take the profit.
Yes. But I can say the same about mine that is likely worth 1/10th of yours. Although yours produces electricity which is cool.
I am not anti home ownership - just the opposite. But as an investment standpoint, people that consider their house value part of their net worth are fooling themselves, unless there prepared to sell the asset and take the profit.
If your willing to sell it, sure. Friend of mine has 4 rentals - in addition to his own home. Clearly investments.Perhaps for a primary residence but for a vacation or secondary home, it's clearly part of one's net worth.
I am glad it worked out. Most wouldn't be willing to arbitrage their family home. I would not.I have told my story before but my ex wife and I bought a brand new house, pre construction, in 2016 for 1.1 million and moved into it in 2018. In 2021 we sold it for 1.8 million. We specifically bought the house as an investment (we lived in it too) because we knew the new home prices in Oakville were priced way below the market value of the other established neighborhoods nearby and that in 3-4 years it would be worth closer to 2 million. So in this (albeit rare) case, it was an incredibly good investment for us (which allowed both of us to retire early)
Interesting point; I would take it one step further. People bash CA and Silicon Valley for a number of reasons, housing cost being one of them. Well, there is unbound opportunity here. I am a beneficiary of that opportunity. Where else in the world can you squander so many years and still have a chance?Yes. But I can say the same about mine that is likely worth 1/10th of yours. Although yours produces electricity which is cool.
I am not anti home ownership - just the opposite. But as an investment standpoint, people that consider their house value part of their net worth are fooling themselves, unless there prepared to sell the asset and take the profit.
I’m not trying to compare to anyone, which is why being in the 96 percentile ahead of all the people that don’t save (or just 6% to get the match) doesn’t mean I’m where I need to be. If folks want to pat themselves on the back and be complacent for being in the 96 percentile, rather than doing the math and seeing if it’s sufficient for their goals, that’s on them.Well, the point of contention was this post:
So the discussion was “investment account” - which got twisted, just a bit, into “retirement account”.
But I was talking portfolio - which would include both.
And the point of contention - a millionaire (equal to, or greater than, a million) in your investment account is mediocre.
I still disagree with that point. It’s statistically untrue. It’s philosophically untrue. It’s an opening shot in an internet measuring contest. A way to say “mine is bigger than yours”.
Then, I think we can agree that a million or more is insufficient for you. In that case, for you, “mediocre”.I’m not trying to compare to anyone, which is why being in the 96 percentile ahead of all the people that don’t save (or just 6% to get the match) doesn’t mean I’m where I need to be. If folks want to pat themselves on the back and be complacent for being in the 96 percentile, rather than doing the math and seeing if it’s sufficient for their goals, that’s on them.
See, I’ve taken my position exactly because I’m not interested in a measuring contest.
The banking lobby kills any attempt of making finance required.Broken record time... The answer is teaching personal finance starting in grade school. Will it everyone lsten? Nope. But give kids a fighting chance. That's my opinion.
Boil it down to one concept: short term vs long term.