# What is your net worth?



## investordude

Curious to know what everyone's net worth is based on their age group.

Groups are a) 25-35 b) 35-45 c) 45-55 d) 55+

1) $0 - 100,000

2) $100,000 - 200,000

3) $200,000 - 400,000

4) $400,000 - $800,000

5) $1,000,000 +


----------



## jcgd

A1


----------



## Barwelle

What letter comes before A? I guess I'm sub-A / 1... 

Would be interesting to plot this data on a graph if enough people respond.


----------



## Ihatetaxes

B6


----------



## Nemo2

D5


----------



## investordude

i will plot this in a graph if i get a good enough sample size....


----------



## Video_Frank

C5


----------



## the_apprentice

A2


----------



## JordoR

Sub-A | 2


----------



## pwm

D5


----------



## MoreMiles

I see there are lots of millionaires here, eh? This would explain why Canadian real estate is so expensive. People have lots of money to spend so a $900k house is no big deal...


----------



## Feruk

A2 going to A3 hopefully by mid year. 



MoreMiles said:


> I see there are lots of millionaires here, eh? This would explain why Canadian real estate is so expensive. People have lots of money to spend so a $900k house is no big deal...


More likely the artificially low interest rates increased the value of their house and it's propping up their net worth overall. The average Canadian is heavily indebted.


----------



## Nemo2

MoreMiles said:


> I see there are lots of millionaires here, eh? This would explain why Canadian real estate is so expensive. People have lots of money to spend so a $900k house is no big deal...


We paid $167K for our place, 4 1/2 years ago......doubt it's appreciated.


----------



## Video_Frank

MoreMiles said:


> I see there are lots of millionaires here, eh? This would explain why Canadian real estate is so expensive. People have lots of money to spend so a $900k house is no big deal...


If you go by Millionaire Next Door, most millionaires practice LBYM. I couldn't imagine owning a house worth that much money - I'd be too house poor.


----------



## Echo

A3


----------



## junkyardbottles

A4


----------



## Jon_Snow

B6... Couldn't help myself and invented another category.:tongue-new: The arrival of my wife's bonus and some market gains have allowed us to reach this net worth milestone. Pretty stoked.

It seems like all this happened really fast... the power of compounding I guess. And LBYM of course.


----------



## Butters

A2


----------



## PerfectElement

A4, soon to be B4 :upset:


----------



## GoldStone

investordude said:


> Groups are a) 25-35 b) 35-45 c) 45-55 d) 55+


35/45/55 year olds have an interesting choice.


----------



## Ethan

A3


----------



## Ihatetaxes

Jon_Snow said:


> B6... Couldn't help myself and invented another category.:tongue-new: The arrival of my wife's bonus and some market gains have allowed us to reach this net worth milestone. Pretty stoked.
> 
> It seems like all this happened really fast... the power of compounding I guess. And LBYM of course.


Beat you to it Jon (the B6)! I guess we have more in common than age and wealth. And my wife gets her bonus next Thursday. Gotta love wives and their bonuses.


----------



## donald

A4-to be fair maybe bish 4--turn 35 in may


----------



## Eder

Feruk said:


> More likely the artificially low interest rates increased the value of their house and it's propping up their net worth overall. The average Canadian is heavily indebted.


I'm homeless actually.No debts though!


----------



## savvybuck

Hey op, the problem with the statistic is that alot can happen in 10 years.

IF you are 25 with $50,000 networth and save frugally...you could be 35 with $250K networth married with kids.


----------



## Nemo2

Jon_Snow said:


> B6... Couldn't help myself and invented another category.


So 6 = $10 million?


----------



## Jon_Snow

Nemo2 said:


> So 6 = $10 million?


Sadly, no. Fifth of that.


----------



## saskstu

D 5


----------



## Calgary_Girl

Ihatetaxes said:


> Beat you to it Jon (the B6)! I guess we have more in common than age and wealth. And my wife gets her bonus next Thursday. Gotta love wives and their bonuses.


B6 as well (if we're assuming that 6 is $2 million +) :rolleyes2: No bonus here because I'm a stay-at-home mom but I make all the investment decisions and we've done pretty well....does that count? :encouragement:


----------



## Spidey

C 5


----------



## Nemo2

Jon_Snow said:


> Sadly, no. Fifth of that.


Still excellent..........so I'm changing our rating to 5.5...just to keep in sync. :wink:


----------



## Jon_Snow

Wow, CMF'ers are LOADED. I confess that half my networth is in real estate - various B.C. properties that have sky rocketed in value over the past dozen years. Our Vancouver real estate has more than doubled, gulf island recreational properties have more than tripled. If there is real estate "crash", I will be out of the "6" category pretty darn quick. :tongue-new:


----------



## Nemo2

^ Take the real estate money.....and run! :encouragement:


----------



## Jon_Snow

I would gladly sell the Vancouver condo and flee to my gulf island paradise and throw the 300k profit into the dividend portfolio... problem is my wife is still going to work in the city for at least another 5 years. She has told me firmly that she doesn't want to rent. She's letting me quit my job at 42, so I won't push it. :tongue-new:


----------



## RBull

GoldStone said:


> 35/45/55 year olds have an interesting choice.


Yeah, I thought the same thing. The same thing is true all the way through with the amounts. 

It also seems like there is a gap between the 4 and 5.


----------



## fraser

D5


----------



## steve41

Think of all the money StatsCanada could save if they followed this model! The mind boggles.


----------



## Jon_Snow

Steve41, given your West Van estate and your sprawling Gabriola Island compound, you are probably at least a D7. :biggrin:


----------



## piano mom

Sadly, we just entered category C. C5.5 (almost 6)


----------



## steve41

Jon_Snow said:


> Steve41, given your West Van estate and your sprawling Gabriola Island compound, you are probably at least a D7. :biggrin:


 Gabriola? Yeah that's the ticket.


----------



## My Own Advisor

B4, wanna be B5 in another 5 years at 45.


----------



## Jon_Snow

steve41 said:


> Gabriola? Yeah that's the ticket.


Hornby, Gabriola, same diff....


----------



## mind_business

C4


----------



## Nemo2

Jon_Snow said:


> Hornby, Gabriola, same diff....


Just like SSI..."Arguments surrounded by water"....:chuncky:


----------



## Just a Guy

What may have been more interesting is if people had posted what they think others rank is, before it was revealed...


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

What happened to $800,000 - $1,000,000?


----------



## GoldStone

Number 5s and 6s, please post your home addresses.

For science.


----------



## Jagas

B5


----------



## HomeChef

A4


----------



## underemployedactor

None of your goddamn business. 
Repeat answer for what is your religion and who do you vote for?


----------



## uptoolate

Well I'm Presbyterian by heritage but not really into organized religion and I usually vote Liberal or NDP. As far as my net worth - Fugettaboutit!


----------



## Islenska

There is just something un-Canadian about posting your net worth

So I won't but nothing against those that do and tidy figures here!


----------



## humble_pie

actor would u not say it all depends on the chef. When the yeast is right & the baking is good, it's c7 or 8. Up up & away like dara howell.

a flat or fallen cake day means b3 though. Plushenko.


----------



## Jon_Snow

In truth, I am flat broke.


----------



## heyjude

I'll let you guess.


----------



## underemployedactor

humble_pie said:


> actor would u not say it all depends on the chef. When the yeast is right & the baking is good, it's c7 or 8. Up up & away like dara howell.
> 
> a flat or fallen cake day means b3 though. Plushenko.


I suppose even on a b3 day, every cloud has a Patrick Chan lining....(smile of sad regret...)


----------



## RBull

Rusty O'Toole said:


> What happened to $800,000 - $1,000,000?


Yes, and why the overlaps on income levels and ages? Also there needs to be more categories above 1M


----------



## sags

To mean anything at all.........wouldn't there have to be a definition of what "net worth" means?

A person could actually have a "high net worth" and be "broke" at the same time.

Bankrupts are often recently "high net worth" individuals.

Donald Trump was............twice.


----------



## Nemo2

sags said:


> To mean anything at all.........wouldn't there have to be a definition of what "net worth" means?


Assets minus liabilities?


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> To mean anything at all.........wouldn't there have to be a definition of what "net worth" means?
> 
> A person could actually have a "high net worth" and be "broke" at the same time.
> 
> Bankrupts are often recently "high net worth" individuals.
> 
> Donald Trump was............twice.



Simple to me too ...Assets - liabilities = net worth


You'll have to explain how one is broke and has a high NET worth at the same time and how "bankrupts" are often recently high NET worth individuals.


----------



## Toronto.gal

underemployedactor said:


> None of your goddamn business.


What a great answer!


----------



## steve41

Jon_Snow said:


> Hornby, Gabriola, same diff....


Back at ya..... Surrey, SSI, same diff.


----------



## Canadian

sags said:


> Bankrupts are often recently "high net worth" individuals.
> 
> Donald Trump was............twice.


Bankrupt, by definition, is negative net worth (L > A). I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.


----------



## m3s

Of course a women's true age is anybody's guess really, but net worth on a money forum should be fair game?

A3 heading for A4 soon with time and money to spare. Anybody hanging out on this forum young enough can easily do the same.

Sharing can be inspiring to others!


----------



## kcowan

I think net worth should exclude all property except investment property. Vacation properties commonly drop in half during downturns, e.g. Whistler, Muskoka, SSI.


----------



## piano mom

Why not include primary residence? It is an asset and the formula is assets less liabilities. What if someone has a large mortgage on his/her home but invests heavily in stock market? What then? 

If you avoid primary residence in net worth calculation, do you also avoid its mortgage?


----------



## peterk

A1. Should be A2 by the first day of summer if all goes well!

I think the thread would get more results from an anoymous poll... but then again this A1, B2 stuff is kinda fun 

Jon_Snow I thought you were closer to 1m than 2m.. That's awesome! You _are_ going to be pulling the plug ASAP right? :biggrin: Spring is just around the corner and the warm weather and islands are beckoning!


----------



## Just a Guy

RBull said:


> Simple to me too ...Assets - liabilities = net worth
> 
> 
> You'll have to explain how one is broke and has a high NET worth at the same time and how "bankrupts" are often recently high NET worth individuals.


Well, I suppose it comes down to how liquid your assets are...you can be asset rich, and cash poor. If something comes up in your life where you need a lot of cash, it may force you into bankruptcy...because you can't cash out fast enough. It's much harder to sell an apartment block, farmland, a business, etc. than it is to sell stock. If your desperate to sell, often you don't have time to get fair market value either.

If your wondering what could trigger such a need for cash...a bank policy change where they call in or cancel your loan (happens in business), tax reassessment where they find a mistake or deny a deduction (they amount doesn't have to be a lot, but the penalties and interest can be crippling), perhaps a medical expense out of country...

So yes, even the mega rich like Donald, can easily go bankrupt...he wasn't liquid enough.


----------



## piano mom

True. I wouldn't have posted my net worth here if people knew my identity. I would never tell my own friends how much I am worth. This is supposed to be an annonymous money forum.


----------



## Jagas

I don't think there is much issue with the definition of net worth but there is certainly a lot of room for people to differ greatly in what they include and exclude in their own calculation though. Some include cars, personal property, RESPs, DC pensions, etc, while others may exclude all or some of those items. Peoples approximations of FMV for real estate and the previously mentioned items are usually going to be estimates which are subject to biases high or low as well.


----------



## RBull

Just a Guy said:


> Well, I suppose it comes down to how liquid your assets are...you can be asset rich, and cash poor. If something comes up in your life where you need a lot of cash, it may force you into bankruptcy...because you can't cash out fast enough. It's much harder to sell an apartment block, farmland, a business, etc. than it is to sell stock. If your desperate to sell, often you don't have time to get fair market value either.
> 
> If your wondering what could trigger such a need for cash...a bank policy change where they call in or cancel your loan (happens in business), tax reassessment where they find a mistake or deny a deduction (they amount doesn't have to be a lot, but the penalties and interest can be crippling), perhaps a medical expense out of country...
> 
> So yes, even the mega rich like Donald, can easily go bankrupt...he wasn't liquid enough.


 I understand all of this. The main point yet to be answered is how someone can be broke and have a high net worth *at the same time*. 

In any case referencing an extreme example of the rich and famous really isn't relevant to the question being asked here of individuals on the Canadian Money Forum. 

I think most will agree the simple commonly accepted assets minus liabilities should be the answer. What might be in question is what if any is included in assets (like present value of future DB pensions, certain insurance products, household assets etc


----------



## Just a Guy

Well, some "assets" are harder to value than others...

For example, my house may be "worth" 500k according to the government or an appraiser (the value I may use to calculate net worth) assume it's a rental house for those of you who don't want to use residential housing. In truth, however, it's only worth what I can get someone to pay me for it when I want the money. If, due to a bank policy change, I'm forced to sell it, and I get less than the mortgage on it, my "net worth" may in fact be negative...

It's even worse if your net worth is wrapped up in a business which can't easily be sold...

Net worth is technically an estimate until you're sitting in cash.

Hence the reason I calculate my liquid net worth as well as my net worth...I don't tend to care about my net worth as it's probably pretty meaningless in my opinion. I do keep an eye on my liquid net worth though...


----------



## Nemo2

RBull said:


> The main point yet to be answered is how someone can be broke and have a high net worth *at the same time*.


Perhaps the operative word in Sags' original post was 'recently'?


----------



## agent99

Nemo2 said:


> Still excellent..........so I'm changing our rating to 5.5...just to keep in sync. :wink:


Not enough categories for retirees. So, I too will invent some.

G6.5 for net worth with paid for home.


----------



## sags

One example.........

In Ontario....RRSPs, RIFs, and locked in pension funds are exempt from bankruptcy. 

A retiree could have $1,000,000 in RRSPs and an income of $20,000 or less.

High net worth and broke at the same time.


----------



## m3s




----------



## piano mom

Both my husband's DB pensions have a guaranteed 10 years payout. I can safely include these amounts, no? So far I have only included his contributions.


----------



## Sammi

A3


----------



## Nemo2

Wait up...I didn't include _our_ pensions.......oh, hold on......we don't have any......


----------



## Sammi

Are these answers individual or family?


----------



## Nemo2

Sammi said:


> Are these answers individual or family?


And how do they coordinate with one's red blood cell count?:confused2:


----------



## RBull

Nemo2 said:


> Perhaps the operative word in Sags' original post was 'recently'?


Perhaps. And perhaps you missed the line above that..."broke and high net worth".


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> One example.........
> 
> In Ontario....RRSPs, RIFs, and locked in pension funds are exempt from bankruptcy.
> 
> A retiree could have $1,000,000 in RRSPs and an income of $20,000 or less.
> 
> High net worth and broke at the same time.


Thanks for that......The question/survey was about net worth, not bankruptcy. If one had an income of 20K they wouldn't be broke. In fact if they had easily liquid assets they wouldn't be broke unless they chose to be. Most importantly being "broke" in the way you want to demonstrate wouldn't change their net worth. Your point here is far from clear.


----------



## Nemo2

RBull said:


> Perhaps. And perhaps you missed the line above that..."broke and high net worth".


No...I saw it...and my (un-uttered) response to it was that it was a non sequitur.


----------



## piano mom

Sammi said:


> Are these answers individual or family?


Including spouse.


----------



## RedRose

D 5 just me


----------



## mrbizi

C4


----------



## Addy

B3


----------



## marina628

C5


----------



## PrairieGal

C3 Single


----------



## kcowan

piano mom said:


> Why not include primary residence? It is an asset and the formula is assets less liabilities. What if someone has a large mortgage on his/her home but invests heavily in stock market? What then?
> 
> If you avoid primary residence in net worth calculation, do you also avoid its mortgage?


Yes you should exclude both. After all you are just renting the money instead of the residence. If you have a gargantuan residence that you don't need, I suppose a case can be made that a portion of it is an investment property. As long as both residents agree that it is excessive.


----------



## kcowan

agent99 said:


> Not enough categories for retirees. So, I too will invent some.
> 
> G6.5 for net worth with paid for home:
> ========================
> Groups are a) 25-35 b) 35-45 c) 45-55 d) 55-65 e) 65-75 f) 75-85 g) 85+
> 
> 1) $0 - 100,000
> 
> 2) $100,000 - 200,000
> 
> 3) $200,000 - 400,000
> 
> 4) $400,000 - $800,000
> 
> 5) $1,000,000
> 
> 6) $2,000,000
> 
> 7) $3,000,000 +


E7 but we rent our principal residence and sublet it when down south. We also count the NPV of our pensions (15 years at 4%).

PS If we owned in Vancouver, we would be house poor/still working. 
PPS I also have a remaining key man CEO insurance policy and include the cash value but not the face value. The face value will help pay income taxes.


----------



## piano mom

kcowan said:


> Yes you should exclude both. After all you are just renting the money instead of the residence. If you have a gargantuan residence that you don't need, I suppose a case can be made that a portion of it is an investment property. As long as both residents agree that it is excessive.


That is funny because my husband and I were also talking about selling our house after retirement so that we can spend six months in a foreign country every year. We would probably do what you are doing i.e. subletting it out while we are away. Our subdivision has similar houses and one has recently sold for $720k. Our house is paid for. I don't see why we shouldn't include it in our net worth since it will be sold when we retire.


----------



## Andrew

A4


----------



## hystat

G1


----------



## My Own Advisor

Interesting answers. Some folks have worked very hard in here!

Another good question might be, what is net worth excluding primary residence? I recall there was a thread on that by somebody...?

I mean, you have live somewhere but this would provide more information about invested assets and how folks are diversified (or not) away from just real estate.


----------



## uptoolate

piano mom said:


> That is funny because my husband and I were also talking about selling our house after retirement so that we can spend six months in a foreign country every year. We would probably do what you are doing i.e. subletting it out while we are away. Our subdivision has similar houses and one has recently sold for $720k. Our house is paid for. I don't see why we shouldn't include it in our net worth since it will be sold when we retire.


People may debate including house value and subtracting mortgage value but 'net worth = assets - liabilities'. The question was not about 'investable assets' so house value should be included.


----------



## wendi1

c5, c4 without the house.


----------



## kcowan

I think the important thing with your PR is to include the intentions. If you plan to downsize, then including what you can free up is fair game. But if you are like my first wife and want to hang onto the status, then exclude it. The fact is that there is no perfect way to deal with it. But necessity is the mother of invention so it is better to be hanging onto a large RE asset than not. Especially if it is paid for.

I have a friend who since retirement has bought a SFH in West Van, a 38 foot Motorhome, a summer home in Pender Harbour with a deep water pier capable of handling his 58 foot yacht, and a condo in PV. So being asset rich is fine if you have enough cash flow to sustain it all!


----------



## Ag Driver

A1 with or without house.


----------



## Jon_Snow

steve41 said:


> Back at ya..... Surrey, SSI, same diff.


Been to Saltspring Island several times.... a bit too developed and busy for my tastes. But Surrey it is not. :tongue-new:

I always include the price of my city home in my net worth, because I can always sell it and go live in the forest on one of my acreages. Actually, a part of me finds this really appealing.


----------



## MRT

Your house can be converted to cash...therefore it is an asset. There are widely accepted valuation methods and generally easy to liquidate when priced appropriately. The key is use an appropriate market value (not what an owner thinks or hopes it is worth), less the costs to liquidate in a timely manner, which would include commissions, legal fees, etc. You can even throw in costs to reno/repair, if that would be necessary to market it effectively. 

Isn't it illogical, in a conversation on 'net worth', to not differentiate between a person with a 500k home free and clear vs. a 500k home with a 400k mortgage on it? How about comparing a homeowner with 200k in equity and 50k in the bank vs. a renter with 100k in the bank? You would actually say the renter has a 'higher net worth'? To me, that is absurd. It doesn't matter what form the 'worth' takes, so long as it can be converted to cash and there is reasonable liquidity.


----------



## piano mom

+1


----------



## My Own Advisor

Yes, technically, my house value is an asset but I prefer not to look at this way since I have tons of ongoing operational costs, not to mention, another $200k until I own it. 

For me, the best asset is something that provides consistent cash flow, low overhead and modest risk. A basket of 25-30 dividend paying stocks from the U.S. and Canada come to mind.


----------



## My Own Advisor

Also, a house that can be converted, I will add, readily, is an asset.


----------



## steve41

There is a truly anal way to do this.... you have to pick a maximum (how lucky do you feel?) age, a realistic ror and inflation estimate. Say age 100, 4%, 2% and province. Now drop in everything you can quantify.... salary, pension, cpp, oas, rsp, nonreg, tfsa, loans, future windfalls, real-estate and home ...... the works.

Now run a die-broke projection, selling the real-estate and keeping the home. Note the ATI.

Next, delete all this stuff and replace it with a single big fat TFSA, keeping just the PR. Continue with the die-broke calc, iteratively changing the size of the TFSA until you come up with the same after tax income. The size of that single TFSA represents your net worth excluding principal residence.

Piece of cake.


----------



## My Own Advisor

Nice one Steve.


----------



## humble_pie

this is such a silly thread.

even women previously known to be sensible have lost their senses & started babbling out net worths.

i say net worths in the plural because there's somebody on here - not a female although he was previously thought to be sensible - who in the recent past did inform this venerable forum - in a similar thread - that he was the proud owner of $750k. Now he's back with $3 mil.

re including illiquids such as houses cars & comic book collections or else going for the steve41 formula, might it not be easier to look at tea leaves.


----------



## GoldStone

HP, you win the silver medal for not disclosing your NW.

Naturally, I win the gold.

The Ukranian judge gave you a technical deduction for not capitalizing the sentences.


----------



## piano mom

It is actually not that silly and insensible if everyone stays anonymous and use the same formula. I have always wondered how I compare to others on this forum. Now I know . It also help me understand what and why some of them have a certain view on things.


----------



## steve41

'Tacky' rather than 'silly'. Just my opinion.


----------



## humble_pie

anonymous?

:tongue-new: :tongue-new:


----------



## piano mom

Are you claiming you know who I am?


----------



## lightcycle

humble_pie said:


> this is such a silly thread.


Didn't read the first post, I thought you guys were playing Battleship...


----------



## piano mom

Haha. That was what my husband said.


----------



## humble_pie

gold i'm flying to paris next weekend to stay at my fave little place in the 5ième
some might call it shabbychic but oscar wilde lived there
you know how much i love literature

come with me?
first we have to pass by sochi so i can give that judge a piece of my mind


----------



## Plugging Along

humble_pie said:


> this is such a silly thread.
> 
> even women previously known to be sensible have lost their senses & started babbling out net worths.
> 
> i say net worths in the plural because there's somebody on here - not a female although he was previously thought to be sensible - who in the recent past did inform this venerable forum - in a similar thread - that he was the proud owner of $750k. Now he's back with $3 mil.
> 
> re including illiquids such as houses cars & comic book collections or else going for the steve41 formula, might it not be easier to look at tea leaves.


Please forgive my indiscretion. I did accidentally post in the very beginning as part of my bingo post, and then realized that my bingo number was pretty close, so I deleted it. 

I actually don't mind other people posting, I find it interesting, but like you said, it really doesn't mean much.


----------



## donald

What does it matter?
Unless you know the blogger in question how is it revealing anything @ all?(and even if you knew the blogger being personal finance blogs everything is almost disclosed any way----because it is so common to post progress numbers)
I wouldn't know if i was standing next to prob anyone here on cmf in the grocery store(vice versa)
I find other things more repulsive on line(bullying)because it would not happen like that in person(ie:a few members here treat strangers on-line like **** because of it being virtual)
This ain't like real life.....maybe i'm missing something,kinda like that wired movie i seen a preview for how some guess falls in love with a siri or something like that.


----------



## diharv

One bazillion dollars (minus the hidden lair under the volcano in the middle of the ocean) ! - Dr Evil


----------



## Synergy

piano mom said:


> Are you claiming you know who I am?


Is it really that hard to track people down? How many people on this forum would have submitted a valid email address and entered their DOB? How secure do you really think a public forum is? Truly anonymous forums don't require registration and personal information. However, even without personal information one could gain access to IP log files, etc. Not to mention those that share personally information freely. I'm no expert, but one thing I do know is that it's very difficult to be truly anonymous on the internet. Even those with virtual private networks (VPN's) can be tracked down eventually.


----------



## Canadian

Aside from questioning anonymity, one must question the honesty in such a thread :rolleyes2:.


----------



## My Own Advisor

What does it matter?

Interesting you say that donald. 

Makes me wonder how serious some folks are here.

Maybe most aren't serious at all....

If everyone here in CMF was in a grocery store, to your point, I wouldn't know nor would I care.


----------



## mind_business

I will always include our home in Net Worth, as I would have no problem selling it if I needed the money. Comparing it to a depreciating asset, like a car, is not logical ... I had to channel Spock for those wise words.


----------



## Jon_Snow

Seems like its mostly the old guard of the forum really finds these threads "silly" or "tacky". 

Steve41 has been crashing the "Money Diaries" section for years calling peoples posts "creepy". 

Then again, his full name and address are right out there on his website - perhaps this colours his view of sharing financial information online?

Whatever, the net is chock full of great personal finance blogs whose authors choose to share their financial lives with their readers. I think its great and I have learned a lot.

:rolleyes2: to the CMF crankypants.


----------



## donald

MOA,i am as serious as a heart attack when it comes to building my portf,I am self employed without bennies and I know ''almost'' zero people in real life to talk to about my own portf building,so I am tackling it on my own(about 3 yrs out of mutual)and it is a self satisfying endeavor(I will be the first to admit I am likely behind benchmark indexes but I don't care I am building a dividend porf(much like yourself,i have read your site a lot)
I am sure there is fabrication---that's what makes this wired and it is wired typing to stranger no?that do not know you?this is ''blind'' social media so it is different(at least me)
I know members can build rapport with others but that is kinda wired because like you say.....''to your point,i wouldn't know nor would I care'' I am in agreement.


----------



## Nemo2

Synergy said:


> Is it really that hard to track people down? How many people on this forum would have submitted a valid email address and entered their DOB? How secure do you really think a public forum is? Truly anonymous forums don't require registration and personal information. However, even without personal information one could gain access to IP log files, etc. Not to mention those that share personally information freely. I'm no expert, but one thing I do know is that it's very difficult to be truly anonymous on the internet. Even those with virtual private networks (VPN's) can be tracked down eventually.


Way I see it, even if people know who we are and where we live, they're not getting any of our money......there's nothing laying around the house worth taking, (certainly no cash over about $100 max, and generally not that much)....no fancy stereo, a 20 year old TV, and a 9 year old Honda Civic...so, if they point at us on the street.....who cares?


----------



## Synergy

^ Agreed "who cares". I was just pointing out a few potential factoids. Sounds like the thread is starting to turn conspiracy theory - dishonesty, strangers, ulterior motives, etc.:tongue-new:


----------



## Mookie

B5

I find it funny that there are people on this thread who are so vocal about not sharing their net worth. If you don't want to share, that's fine, but why make a fuss about it? You're obviously reading this thread because you're curious about *everyone else's* net worth. If you can't discuss your net worth on a *money* forum, where can you discuss it? I think this forum is a great place for all of us to share with and learn from each other. It's useful to gauge your own financial progress against others, but it's kind of awkward to chat about this with your work colleagues, or your friends and family. 

Also, I find it baffling that people are questioning whether or not to include your primary residence as an asset in your net worth calculation. What if I had $500K in the bank today, while renting, and then tomorrow bought a house with the money? Did my net worth just go down by $500k? What if a month later, I decide to sell that house again for $500k. Did my net worth just go back up by 500k? Ridiculous. House = Asset. Mortgage = Liability. Simple.

Regarding anonymity on this forum, you are as anonymous as the amount of information you care to share in your posts. Of course, if the RCMP or CSIS wanted to figure out who I am, they could do it pretty quick, but for the rest of us, it's not that easy. Besides, if someone did find out my name and address, you will find that all of the "5" in my "B5" is at the bank (and in my house), not under my mattress.


----------



## marina628

I see no harm in posting net worth vs age ,most anyone who bought a home in one of the big cities 25 years ago are already millionaires anyway...


----------



## doctrine

I think you'd probably get more results on a poll than a thread asking for specific details.


----------



## kcowan

MRT said:


> To me, that is absurd. It doesn't matter what form the 'worth' takes, so long as it can be converted to cash and there is reasonable liquidity.


There's the rub. We have people around Puerto Vallarta with $3 Million villas that they have been trying to unload because they were financed with US HELOCs. When an asset cannot sell, the nominal value means nothing. Fire sale prices start at 40% off and get worse from there depending on the sellers' anxiety.

(I have a feeling that many property owners are about to discover that fact over the next several years in Canada. I suspect owners in SSI and Whistler have already experienced some of this.)


----------



## MoreMiles

kcowan said:


> There's the rub. We have people around Puerto Vallarta with $3 Million villas that they have been trying to unload because they were financed with US HELOCs. When an asset cannot sell, the nominal value means nothing. Fire sale prices start at 40% off and get worse from there depending on the sellers' anxiety.
> 
> (I have a feeling that many property owners are about to discover that fact over the next several years in Canada. I suspect owners in SSI and Whistler have already experienced some of this.)


Hint... most $2-3 million dollar house owners in GTA did not buy with mortgage. They are mostly owned by rich foreigners with cash purchase. Why do they need to sell at a steep loss if mortgage rate goes up? So you are worried too much for nothing.


----------



## cheech10

Where did you get this info? Rosedale, Forest Hill, the Annex, and the other neighbourhoods with 2-3 million dollar homes in Toronto have very few foreigners, relative to the rest of the GTA.


----------



## MoreMiles

cheech10 said:


> Where did you get this info? Rosedale, Forest Hill, the Annex, and the other neighbourhoods with 2-3 million dollar homes in Toronto have very few foreigners, relative to the rest of the GTA.


And you think those houses are owned by salary workers with mortgage? 

You need to have a $300,000 annual salary to qualify for $1 million mortgage. 

So it is my opinions that all these talks about mortgage and detached house prices, are simply nonsense. Let's face it, there are lots of wealthy people ... beyond our imagination and understanding. 

With $800,000 investment immigration program, there was a huge backlog with tons of wealthy people trying to get in. So it's endless if Canada allows them.


----------



## kcowan

I never referred to the GTA. I said US HELOCs. It was the US meltdown to cause demand to evaporate almost overnight. According to one realtor here, the ownership has gone from 20000 US/5000 Cdn to 30000 US/20000 Cdn in 6 years.


----------



## MoreMiles

kcowan said:


> I never referred to the GTA. I said US HELOCs. It was the US meltdown to cause demand to evaporate almost overnight. According to one realtor here, the ownership has gone from 20000 US/5000 Cdn to 30000 US/20000 Cdn in 6 years.


So you just agreed that GTA is different. Right? That is what a lot of people don't see.


----------



## cheech10

I never suggested they were owned by salaried employees with mortgages. Many of them were bought in earlier decades when prices were much more reasonable and inherited by their children. Others are bought by business owners and professionals. The statement I question is the one that suggests foreign ownership plays a major role in the market for these properties. Other than Willowdale, these neighbourhoods in the GTA are predominantly white, and most residents have lived there for many years (my experience as a professional who lives in one of these neighbourhoods).


----------



## Beaver101

hystat said:


> G1


 ... ah, an example of the 99% ... lol. I like your answer. :biggrin:


----------



## piano mom

I hope it doesn't include his primary residence or some might say he is a G0 :stupid:


----------



## kcowan

MoreMiles said:


> So you just agreed that GTA is different. Right? That is what a lot of people don't see.


Yup it is different. But the treatment of mortgages on homes is much different in the US than in Canada. Because mortgages are automatically tax deductible there, people are more aggressive about finding other investment properties. Granted that can be done with a HELOC in Canada. But in the US you can lock in low interest rates for 30 years!

Anyone wanting to know about the bubble in Canadian Housing just needs to track Teranet.


----------



## fraser

It was 'yesterday' that I left university and entered the work force. My parents were not wealthy...no silver spoon for us. But we had very strong work ethic, and aversion to consumer debt, and a very strong emphasis on personal development/education. 

Now, when I look at our net worth I cannot believe it. I never imagined that we would have what we have. I have no doubt that there are many others like us. Our thoughts have suddenly turned from do we have enough for retirement to how to we protect it so that we can pass it down to our children for their enjoyment/retirement.

Things have changed over the year but there is no doubt that we live in a fabulous country that still holds out untold opportunity for our children. They simply need to grasp it and move forward like we did but perhaps in a different manner more in tune with the current economic situation.


----------



## Ihatetaxes

fraser said:


> It was 'yesterday' that I left university and entered the work force. My parents were not wealthy...no silver spoon for us. But we had very strong work ethic, and aversion to consumer debt, and a very strong emphasis on personal development/education.
> 
> Now, when I look at our net worth I cannot believe it. I never imagined that we would have what we have. I have no doubt that there are many others like us. Our thoughts have suddenly turned from do we have enough for retirement to how to we protect it so that we can pass it down to our children for their enjoyment/retirement.
> 
> Things have changed over the year but there is no doubt that we live in a fabulous country that still holds out untold opportunity for our children. They simply need to grasp it and move forward like we did but perhaps in a different manner more in tune with the current economic situation.


Great post Fraser!!


----------



## malarcus

I am a B1. I did not include my DB pension as I don't know if I should include the whole amount or if there is a calculation to do with it.


----------



## MRT

kcowan said:


> There's the rub. We have people around Puerto Vallarta with $3 Million villas that they have been trying to unload because they were financed with US HELOCs. When an asset cannot sell, the nominal value means nothing. Fire sale prices start at 40% off and get worse from there depending on the sellers' anxiety.
> 
> (I have a feeling that many property owners are about to discover that fact over the next several years in Canada. I suspect owners in SSI and Whistler have already experienced some of this.)


So we are getting into some rather extreme examples to try and prove our point, I see 

When an asset does not sell, its current market value has been overestimated. It does not follow that the value is nothing and ought to be excluded from net worth calculations. 

You can't use a mulit-milion dollar foreign property as a comparison to Canada's domestic real estate market for a primary residence. The market is vastly smaller for the former and will be far more volatile.

As I said, the key is a sensible valuation that is net of all costs to liquidate, and you can even include a cushion of whatever you like to account for liquidity, current market conditions, etc. If you own a 3 million dollar home, your property is FAR more sensitive to economic conditions than an average home, just as it is if you are trying to sells a Rolls Royce vs. a Ford Focus. So devise that cushion accordingly.

You simply factor in a greater discount cushion for more volatile regions. A condo in downtown Toronto probably doesn't need much of an adjustment vs. a house out West. So maybe use a 10% cushion on the Toronto condo and a 25% (or more, if you want!) for volatile areas, for example.

If you want to debate how to arrive at a reasonable estimate for a home's inclusion in net worth, that is fair game...but I still see no compelling reason to just exclude it altogether. The 3 million dollar villa could add *something* to the owner's net worth...even if you cut it in half or more.


----------



## dBII

d5


----------



## Andy Hammond

fraser said:


> It was 'yesterday' that I left university and entered the work force. My parents were not wealthy...no silver spoon for us. But we had very strong work ethic, and aversion to consumer debt, and a very strong emphasis on personal development/education.
> 
> Now, when I look at our net worth I cannot believe it. I never imagined that we would have what we have. I have no doubt that there are many others like us. Our thoughts have suddenly turned from do we have enough for retirement to how to we protect it so that we can pass it down to our children for their enjoyment/retirement.
> 
> Things have changed over the year but there is no doubt that we live in a fabulous country that still holds out untold opportunity for our children. They simply need to grasp it and move forward like we did but perhaps in a different manner more in tune with the current economic situation.


A very positive spin fraser and mirrors my situation exactly. Well done


----------



## Andy Hammond

malarcus said:


> I am a B1. I did not include my DB pension as I don't know if I should include the whole amount or if there is a calculation to do with it.


Would like to hear some thoughts on this point raised by malarcus. I tend to omit defined benefit pension value from any net worth calculations I do for clients as the net worth represents the remaining balance after all assets sold and liabilities paid off. However I do note the notional value of the DB pension (it varies depending on current interest rates). This does lead to odd situations where you have a person with their own RRSP's or defined contribution pension who has a much higher net worth if DB is excluded in any comparison. Would appreciate any thoughts


----------



## fraser

If someone asked me my net worth today I would NOT include the value of my DB pension. |That is because I am currently in receipt of it, ie it has no CV to me. If someone asked me what my net worth was prior to taking the DB, I would include the then current CV, less 30 percent for tax.

We no longer own a home. When we did, I included the house in my net worth at market value less ten percent, then less another 5 percent for cost of sale/disposition. I tend to be conservative. RRSP's? I valued these at current value less thirty percent for taxes. To me, net worth means net of taxes.

Just one person's view.


----------



## lightcycle

fraser said:


> RRSP's? I valued these at current value less thirty percent for taxes. To me, net worth means net of taxes.


Excellent!

I've always thought of net worth like a response to ransom note. If you had to liquidate everything without going into debt for fees and taxes to pay a ransom tomorrow, how much could you pay?

Strangely, the abacus seems to come up with a much smaller number for my father-in-law...


----------



## peterk

I like this battleship style poll better I think. Now into A2.


----------



## Underworld

A2


----------



## gibor365

My wife b and I'm c 5 (without house 4)


----------



## gibor365

fraser said:


> It was 'yesterday' that I left university and entered the work force. My parents were not wealthy...no silver spoon for us. But we had very strong work ethic, and aversion to consumer debt, and a very strong emphasis on personal development/education.
> 
> Now, when I look at our net worth I cannot believe it. I never imagined that we would have what we have. I have no doubt that there are many others like us. Our thoughts have suddenly turned from do we have enough for retirement to how to we protect it so that we can pass it down to our children for their enjoyment/retirement.
> 
> Things have changed over the year but there is no doubt that we live in a fabulous country that still holds out untold opportunity for our children. They simply need to grasp it and move forward like we did but perhaps in a different manner more in tune with the current economic situation.


Very good post! I also cannot believe it  considering that we left CCCP in 90's with $150 all together and without English


----------



## KLR650

Wife and i combined are A4.


----------

