# Net worth



## axelis

After doing some reading on the forum and more recently signing up, I'm now trying to get a better idea of the demographics of the participants. I found an age range poll (which was closed) but did not find anything (unless I did not search enough) about net worth, income range and/or portfolio size (aside from thread in this section "money diaries"). Assuming not everyone want to publicly state their income, portfolio size, net worth or other private data, I thought a poll (or more) may provide an opportunity for gathering some data anonymously... so I'll start with net worth (asset - liabilities, including your primary residence for this poll, even though this can be debated)

After reading comments I created a survey which more options / better granularity: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/57BJZ5G


----------



## peterk

Preliminary results suggest you may have missed the 2-5m, 5-10m, 10m+ categories for our members of the Titanic surviving variety! (not me)... :biggrin:


----------



## Karen

I''m curious about something, and here's my chance to ask my question: When calculating net worth, do most of you count the full amount in your RRSP (or RRIF) or do you discount it by the income tax that will be payable on it , either after your death or if you take it as a lump-sum payment?


----------



## lightcycle

Karen said:


> When calculating net worth, do most of you count the full amount in your RRSP (or RRIF) or do you discount it by the income tax that will be payable on it


If you do that, then wouldn't you also have to calculate the after-tax value of any equities or real-estate you own after liquidation? And then what tax rates do you use if you are not sure what bracket you'll fall into given interest, dividend and other income for the years that you'll be drawing from the RIF? Will that tax rate even be the same as they are now when you retire?

Seems to be too many variables to be of much use. I always viewed the calculation of net worth as a tool to track progress over time, specifically the past.

Oh, and also bragging rights, like the poll above...


----------



## donald

Is this like online dating lol
I am tall dark and handsome 
I've seen people count their house(full value)even though they still carry a mortgage on half
i can do 75 push-ups how many can you do?haha


----------



## HaroldCrump

Karen said:


> I''m curious about something, and here's my chance to ask my question: When calculating net worth, do most of you count the full amount in your RRSP (or RRIF) or do you discount it by the income tax that will be payable on it , either after your death or if you take it as a lump-sum payment?


I don't track net worth, but I do track the total value of investment accounts, incl. RRSP.
I record it at par value, not discounted for future tax liability.
I suppose one could make estimates using discount rates for PV calculation, but I don't think it is necessary and I wouldn't trust its accuracy 30+ years out.

In the case of individuals (or couples) with no other registered pension income (other than CPP), it is quite possible to unwind an RRSP (or withdraw RRIF income) and pay minimal taxes.


----------



## kcowan

Looks like the poll needs more granularity. Does this mean that the poll creator has less than 1 million?


----------



## hboy43

Individual or couple based? I imagine most here including me don't think of "my" money, but "our" money when keeping track.


----------



## lightcycle

kcowan said:


> Looks like the poll needs more granularity. Does this mean that the poll creator has less than 1 million?


Truthfully, all people want to know is:

What is your net worth?

[1] Less than me
[2] More than me


----------



## Toronto.gal

^+1, and it's been asked already.
http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/17369-What-is-your-net-worth


----------



## JordoR

It's comforting to see that so many people (well the large majority) in this forum are doing well financially and making sound decisions. It's embarrassing to see that the average Canadian debt (excluding mortgages) is just under $30,000 per person.


----------



## axelis

peterk said:


> Preliminary results suggest you may have missed the 2-5m, 5-10m, 10m+ categories for our members of the Titanic surviving variety! (not me)... :biggrin:


The poll limits 10 answers (choices), and I have no idea of what the results were going to be, so I really aimed in the dark with basically random possible answers. Obviously with over 50% of responses above the $1M mark it would probably make more sense to collapse some of the $100k to $1M choices and expand the options in the 1M, 2M, 5M, 10M etc... which means probably doing another poll... which would be of interest for me, just not sure if respondents would be willing to answer (again)...


----------



## axelis

donald said:


> Is this like online dating lol
> I am tall dark and handsome
> I've seen people count their house(full value)even though they still carry a mortgage on half
> i can do 75 push-ups how many can you do?haha


Except it's anonymous so no one know who's dark, tall and handsome.

Also if you're doing asset-liabilities and count your house at say half a million, but carry a $200k mortgage, then it's still only a $300k result.


----------



## axelis

kcowan said:


> Looks like the poll needs more granularity. Does this mean that the poll creator has less than 1 million?


Agreed, should I do another poll? If you want to suggest the 10 categories that would be great (i.e how high do I go?)


----------



## axelis

hboy43 said:


> Individual or couple based? I imagine most here including me don't think of "my" money, but "our" money when keeping track.


I was thinking couple based but should have mentioned it. I always aggregate "our" money at home when looking at the big picture


----------



## axelis

Toronto.gal said:


> ^+1, and it's been asked already.
> http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/17369-What-is-your-net-worth


I have to admit I did not find that thread before posting the poll,possibly because I was looking for a poll. However (though I did not know before I posted the poll), after reading the other thread I realized that maybe this poll has some advantages over the old thread anyway:
- it's was not anonymous, but this poll is (I thought it made more sense if you're looking at aggregates)
- the net worth was not defined at all (some posters asked about it) while I tried to briefly explained it (and yes I could probably define better)
- the net worth categories were even more restrictive than mine (stopped at $1M+ initially)
- even though someone offered to plot the results (somewhere in the first few pages), it never happened (unless I skipped a page while reading, there were 15 pages of answers) and at least here we get a quick visual breakdown

Now for what I think is clearly lacking in this poll however:
- the age range that goes with it, because it's a snapshot in time and without the age range it's kinda meaningless (at least the way I was hoping to use the data)
- the net worth categories are obviously not accurate based on the answers we got thus far (need to go much higher)
- it may be interesting to also get a net worth without including the primary residence (suggested in posts of the other thread)

Bottom line, ok so it maybe a bit of a failure, but I'm still interested in the data. So I thought I'd try surveymonkey to see if we have more flexibility in the options, and here is what I came up with... still anonymous, but hopefully more detailed

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/57BJZ5G


----------



## axelis

kcowan said:


> Looks like the poll needs more granularity.


Absolutely



kcowan said:


> Does this mean that the poll creator has less than 1 million?


Maybe, maybe not... does it matter?


----------



## piano mom

Just out of curiosity, how has the oil plunging price affected everyone's networth? We don't own any oil and gas directly and we are down 5% now.


----------



## Barwelle

axelis said:


> I have to admit I did not find that thread before posting the poll,possibly because I was looking for a poll. However (though I did not know before I posted the poll), after reading the other thread I realized that maybe this poll has some advantages over the old thread anyway:
> - it's was not anonymous, but this poll is (I thought it made more sense if you're looking at aggregates)
> - the net worth was not defined at all (some posters asked about it) while I tried to briefly explained it (and yes I could probably define better)
> - the net worth categories were even more restrictive than mine (stopped at $1M+ initially)
> - even though someone offered to plot the results (somewhere in the first few pages), it never happened (unless I skipped a page while reading, there were 15 pages of answers) and at least here we get a quick visual breakdown
> 
> Now for what I think is clearly lacking in this poll however:
> - the age range that goes with it, because it's a snapshot in time and without the age range it's kinda meaningless (at least the way I was hoping to use the data)
> - the net worth categories are obviously not accurate based on the answers we got thus far (need to go much higher)
> - it may be interesting to also get a net worth without including the primary residence (suggested in posts of the other thread)
> 
> Bottom line, ok so it maybe a bit of a failure, but I'm still interested in the data. Would surveymonkey or something of that sort allow us to do another, more detailed data gathering, still anonymous, so we could have more meaningful data? Would you be interested?


The best thing I can suggest is a graph using data points, with age along the X-axis and NW along the Y axis (so no arbitrary categories.) Something like This. And also either a) two separate graphs for single people vs couples, or b) ability to colour the data points differently (i.e. red for couples and green for singles).

I don't know if there is a website that everyone could go to enter their data anonymously and then produce a graph like that, sorry. Though I would volunteer to collect that data (via pm) and produce the graph (with no names on it, of course) if there was enough interest.



donald said:


> i can do 75 push-ups how many can you do?haha


 Only if I can take a break somewhere in the middle  ....


----------



## NorthernRaven

axelis said:


> Now for what I think is clearly lacking in this poll however:
> - the age range that goes with it, because it's a snapshot in time and without the age range it's kinda meaningless (at least the way I was hoping to use the data)
> - the net worth categories are obviously not accurate based on the answers we got thus far (need to go much higher)
> - it may be interesting to also get a net worth without including the primary residence (suggested in posts of the other thread)
> 
> Bottom line, ok so it maybe a bit of a failure, but I'm still interested in the data. So I thought I'd try surveymonkey to see if we have more flexibility in the options, and here is what I came up with... still anonymous, but hopefully more detailed
> 
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/57BJZ5G


No offence, but if people are arbitrarily including (or not) major portions of their net worth in their calculation, "data" in this case is probably going to be difficult to distinguish from "noise"... 
It would be like if you polled forum members on their height, but some people could only measure from their shoulders down, and others from their ribcage, and a bunch were kids who hadn't finished growing. You'd get numbers, and they might not look implausible, but they wouldn't be measuring any particular concept of "height".

Leaving out pensions is like this - imagine two people earning the same salary over the years, making the same expenditures and investments. Person 1 has pension contributions deducted and has a smaller remaining amount to invest, while Person 2 doesn't. If you don't value the pension in some way, Person 1 is eventually going to appear to have much less "net worth" than Person 2, even if that is not the case. Age distribution is, as others have mentioned, important if you want to actually attach meaning to the results.

Statistics Canada does a periodic "Survey of Financial Security" to produce net worth and other estimates, and explicitly attempts to discover and impute the value of workplace pensions. You can go to their site and report out various interesting info from this survey, with age and geography stratifications.


----------



## peterk

Haha - From the results it seems it might be concluded that: Young go-getting financial literates in the 0-400k range are eager to participate and show off that they are now adults with money. Older, richer participants in the 400k-1M range are more cautious and eschew polls. Older, richer participants in the 1M+ ranges are also cautious, would normally eschew polls, but are overwhelmed by the desire to click that button which indicates they are among the richest in all of internet finance land! :biggrin:

Polls of this nature are perhaps closer to a psychology experiment than an accurate portrayal of the populace's net worth... Are there _really_ as many people on here with $2M+ than there are with 200K-2M? :rolleyes2:


----------



## Toronto.gal

peterk said:


> Are there _really_ as many people on here with $2M+ than there are with 200K-2M? :rolleyes2:


I was told the 1st recorded vote here, had been in the $2M category. An indication of what millionaires do in the evenings? :biggrin:


----------



## Barwelle

NorthernRaven great points.... the parameters would have to be clearly defined, and should include DB/DC pensions (even if just a rough number).



peterk said:


> Are there _really_ as many people on here with $2M+ than there are with 200K-2M? :rolleyes2:


Gotta look at the sample size... 11 out of 30 in the 2mil+ category... it's a pretty low response rate out of, what, several dozen people who actively participate plus hundreds (thousands?) of lurkers.

Even right now.... 81 members online, 1027 guests. Your point is spot on, it's not an accurate representation. Still neat to see what comes out of it, though I would want more people to respond.


----------



## Beaver101

Toronto.gal said:


> ^+1, and it's been asked already.
> http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/17369-What-is-your-net-worth


 ... +2. 

I like the honesty of the person who picked the top category (negative). :untroubled:


----------



## hystat

lightcycle said:


> Truthfully, all people want to know is:
> 
> What is your net worth?
> 
> [1] Less than me
> [2] More than me


yep, in that last one I answered G1 and not one person commented - lol


----------



## sags

Is a paid up whole life insurance policy considered as net worth ?


----------



## Beaver101

hystat said:


> yep, in that last one I answered G1 and not one person commented - lol


 ... I did .. see post #138 in that thread (and you thought you got away with it anonymously :biggrin


----------



## Beaver101

sags said:


> Is a paid up whole life insurance policy considered as net worth ?


 .. careful now, otherwise everyone wants to be your son, grandson, stepson, best cousin, etc. :cool2:


----------



## kcowan

sags said:


> Is a paid up whole life insurance policy considered as net worth ?


I did not include my $.5 million in life insurance. That would show up in DWs net worth.

I included RE at its purchase price. I figure the market can take it away just like it gave it. Plus it has to be discounted by its friction costs which are substantial.
I suppose I should include the $10 per stock holding as well. And then there are the penalties for early disposition of bonds. I did not include any taxes due on disposition (Capital Gains).

I did include both DW and I. There are so many variables that the results can only be approximate.

What do you want to learn?


----------



## uptoolate

sags said:


> Is a paid up whole life insurance policy considered as net worth ?


I include the cash value because I can have that anytime. The payout value contributes to someone else's NW.


----------



## gibor365

Wow  Didn't expect to see that almost half of participants have assets exceeding 1M  .... and what is anerage household net worth in Canada?


----------



## gibor365

> After reading comments I created a survey which more options / better granularity: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/57BJZ5G


 Couldn't see resutls there ...can you publish?


----------



## axelis

gibor said:


> Couldn't see resutls there ...can you publish?


The survey results are actually not showing up in graphic form (unless I upgrade to a premium account with surveymonkey, which I was not planning on), but last time (Saturday morning) I checked there were only 12 answers, so not a lot of data yet. The poll is now at 50+ (much more than I was hoping, which is nice - better sample size). 

It is my first time doing a survey with surveymonkey so I was not sure how well it would work on the receiving end. Looks like for the results I will have to export (manually, the auto-export is also a premium feature apparently!) into a spreadsheet and then build a graph. I'll give a few more days for more data, and then will export, and post the graph in the thread. Does that work?


----------



## NorthernRaven

axelis said:


> The survey results are actually not showing up in graphic form (unless I upgrade to a premium account with surveymonkey, which I was not planning on), but last time (Saturday morning) I checked there were only 12 answers, so not a lot of data yet. The poll is now at 50+ (much more than I was hoping, which is nice - better sample size).
> 
> It is my first time doing a survey with surveymonkey so I was not sure how well it would work on the receiving end. Looks like for the results I will have to export (manually, the auto-export is also a premium feature apparently!) into a spreadsheet and then build a graph. I'll give a few more days for more data, and then will export, and post the graph in the thread. Does that work?


I'm not a statistician (heaven forbid), but I used to work with some, and I may be forced to mock misuse of phrases like "sample size"...


----------



## gibor365

axelis said:


> The survey results are actually not showing up in graphic form (unless I upgrade to a premium account with surveymonkey, which I was not planning on), but last time (Saturday morning) I checked there were only 12 answers, so not a lot of data yet. The poll is now at 50+ (much more than I was hoping, which is nice - better sample size).
> 
> It is my first time doing a survey with surveymonkey so I was not sure how well it would work on the receiving end. Looks like for the results I will have to export (manually, the auto-export is also a premium feature apparently!) into a spreadsheet and then build a graph. I'll give a few more days for more data, and then will export, and post the graph in the thread. Does that work?


You also can publish free surveys and get pointd on tellwut.com ... on average there will be 2000 voters


----------



## OhGreatGuru

The survey question is missing the following option:
- None of Your D****d Business


----------



## axelis

NorthernRaven said:


> I may be forced to mock misuse of phrases like "sample size"...


Is this an incorrect term?


----------



## axelis

gibor said:


> You also can publish free surveys and get pointd on tellwut.com ... on average there will be 2000 voters


I really wanted to know the breakdown for CMF participants, but it would also be interesting to compare with the average Canadian too. Didn't know about tellwut, will look into it


----------



## axelis

OhGreatGuru said:


> The survey question is missing the following option:
> - None of Your D****d Business


It's anonymous anyway, but I guess if that's what someone thinks, they just won't take the survey


----------



## NorthernRaven

axelis said:


> Is this an incorrect term?


It is a correct term, but what you'll get is nothing like a proper "sample"...  A full-blown survey would take the characteristics of the CMF user base, calculate a sample size required to produce statistically significant results, possibly stratified by any important reporting category, and with an oversampling factor to account for expected non-rsponse. It would then randomly choose that many members, question them, impute responses if necessary, and report out results with that famous "accurate to plus/minus x% 19 times out of 20". Not quite Surveymonkey... 

Here you will have an inadequate sample, subject to big self-selection bias, and with people providing "net worth" to various different self-determined definitions. Not to mention the possibilities of someone deciding to sabotage it by answering multiple time, etc. I suspect one could probably fill a hat with a couple thousand slips of paper reflecting any plausible spread of age/worth numbers, pull a couple dozen, and get "results" as (im)plausible as asking for volunteer responses here. Not to rain on your parade... 

Survey data is only as good as the questions you can ask it. Here, you can probably get a fairly good answer to "_ages of self-selected CMF browsers who read this thread and then click onto the link to the survey, and fill it ou_t", and net worth for that group of people to maybe plus/minus 30-50%. It won't be anywhere near defined enough to use it as a representation of CMF members/browsers/whatever in general.

I spent too much time in bad company...


----------



## axelis

NorthernRaven said:


> It is a correct term, but what you'll get is nothing like a proper "sample"...


I now (after reading the entire comment) see what you mean, I initially thought I was using an incorrect word (English as a second language).



NorthernRaven said:


> A full-blown survey would take the characteristics of the CMF user base, calculate a sample size required to produce statistically significant results, possibly stratified by any important reporting category, and with an oversampling factor to account for expected non-rsponse. It would then randomly choose that many members, question them, impute responses if necessary, and report out results with that famous "accurate to plus/minus x% 19 times out of 20". Not quite Surveymonkey...


And I thought surveymonkey was an upgrade from the "poll" option of the forum, well... not that much I guess 



NorthernRaven said:


> I spent too much time in bad company...


Seems like it's useful though. Thanks for taking the time to write some explanations.


----------



## axelis

Results - 35 answers


----------



## Beaver101

^ Okay, my analysis of this poll tells me:

~11% of this participating group on CMF is acceptably* rich*.
28% is reasonably *rich
*13% is plain *rich*
16% is super-*rich*
27% is Ultra-*rich
*

So what did you get out of this poll or your conclusion(s)? :wink:


----------



## peterk

Sooo who's the early 30s with 3-4M? :biggrin:


----------



## Barwelle

Cool, thanks for doing that.


----------



## mrPPincer

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Okay, my analysis of this poll tells me:
> 
> ~11% of this participating group on CMF is acceptably* rich*.
> 28% is reasonably *rich
> *13% is plain *rich*
> 16% is super-*rich*
> 27% is Ultra-*rich
> *
> 
> So what did you get out of this poll or your conclusion(s)? :wink:


I accept your analysis :biggrin:
Now that I have seen it on the interwebs it is now (to me) a documented fact that I am just.plain.rich
Your conclusion is irrefutable.. after all, it *IS* a documented fact, just google it if you don't believe me :cheerful:


----------



## axelis

peterk said:


> Sooo who's the early 30s with 3-4M? :biggrin:


Don't know, I made the survey anonymous so there is no way to tell... but yeah there are a few results that definitely stand out!


----------



## kcowan

So 31 people avoided the more detailed survey (35 to 66). Too bad.


----------

