YTD 2025 Networth tracking thread

[revhappy]

Maybe easier to define portfolio in terms of multiples of annual expenses.
Someone who owns their primany residence, their expenses are lower than someone who rents.

So this helps vast majority of people who own their primary residence.
People like @DevilPlate who have multiple investment properties would naturally be keen in valuing their investment properties to calculate portfolio valuation. But others dont have to do so.

In my case I am renting and my annual expense estimated for this year is 90k.
My portfolio is 18X my annual expenses.

This also helps for FIRE aspirants, 1st goal is to hit 25X.

 

[DevilPlate]

Maybe easier to define portfolio in terms of multiples of annual expenses.
Someone who owns their primany residence, their expenses are lower than someone who rents.

So this helps vast majority of people who own their primary residence.
People like @DevilPlate who have multiple investment properties would naturally be keen in valuing their investment properties to calculate portfolio valuation. But others dont have to do so.

In my case I am renting and my annual expense estimated for this year is 90k.
My portfolio is 18X my annual expenses.

This also helps for FIRE aspirants, 1st goal is to hit 25X.

yes some angmo YTubers talk about annual expenses divide by 4% SWR which is 25X

 

[d5dude]

Read posts 2337, 2338, 2340. No one is going to define "easily" "short period" for you precisely to your satisfaction. Even total networth is subjective (has the person included only significant assets like CPF and housing? How about magic and dragon ball cards, 2nd hand value of comics, furniture, tables and chairs not included how? What is meaningful and significant? Need to define? It's a never ending rabbit hole). No one is redefining or disputing Networth definition. But some pple like to declare liquid networth and find it more meaningful to themselves and apparently a fair number of pple find it more meaningful as well. And maybe some just don't want to let pple know they are living in a 40m GCB. Of course one can ask if he is interested to know the person's total networth. But one should not gaslight saying pple are confusing or dunno networth definition blah blah..

Total networth is not really hard to define, its just hard to know with 100% precision so we have to estimate e.g value of property or numismatic collections. Its up to the individual to decide if he wants to include his $1000 (estimated) numismatic collection as part of his 5m networth, but high value items like primary residence should absolutely be included. Bear in mind property is usually highly levered, so it can not only increase one's networth, it can also cut the other way, its possible to own a very expensive property and still have negative total networth.

There is pretty much only one definition of total networth, I have no issue with people looking at financial networth or liquid networth, but those things are not total networth.

 

[d5dude]

For simplicity, keep tracking of liquid net worth is sufficient as there is a daily market valuation that everyone is subjected to.

Many things dun trade on an exchange, for example private equity doesnt trade on an exchange, but that doesnt mean its not "liquid". Liquid networth is just very subjective, most people have a different definition for it.

 

[yslvlys]

There is pretty much only one definition of total networth, I have no issue with people looking at financial networth or liquid networth, but those things are not total networth.

I don't think anyone here or at least in last few pages is saying liquid networth is equal to total networth.

 

[d5dude]

I don't think anyone here or at least in last few pages is saying liquid networth is equal to total networth.

Maybe not here, but I have seen people trying to define total networth their own way on other threads, which is objectively incorrect.

 

[highsulphur]

I don't think anyone here or at least in last few pages is saying liquid networth is equal to total networth.

exactly

For me, I have been clear to state it is "net worth excluding home" when I am calculating returns on those assets for the purpose of determining if it is sufficient to cover my expenses for retirement without a downgrade in residential property. I even include my CPF into those assets since I can monetise or utilise it when I hit 55.

 

[yslvlys]

Total networth is not really hard to define, its just hard to know with 100% precision so we have to estimate e.g value of property or numismatic collections.

Whether it is precise definition but imprecise value or imprecise definition and value, my point is total networth can also be highly subjective (eg. Donald Trump used to inflate his networth with things like worth of his brand and frequently disagree with how Forbes value his networth). It seems absurd some pple can accept the subjectiveness of total networth but is anal about the subjectiveness of liquid networth, even when it is clarified what it includes.
There is a saying revenue is vanity, profit is sanity, cash is reality / King.
Going with similar train of thought, I feel total networth is vanity as well in many cases. So I feel liquid networth can be more meaningful as well, as long as one qualifies what it includes. If not, can always still ask poster to clarify. But not ask poster to just use total networth or gaslight pple saying they don't understand total networth etc.

 

[little pupsky]

It’s seriously bewildering why a concept like “financial net worth” seems so hard to grasp. And yes, we know what “net worth” or “total net worth” means, thank you very much.

Why can’t people appreciate applying a context-specific constraint to the concept of total net worth to better evaluate the financial viability of FIREing without having to sell or downgrade the primary residence, just as an example.

It almost feels as though those who resist the concept of financial net worth are so concentrated in their property allocation that when they look at their “financial net worth”, it looks like sh1t. So to salve their ego, go all out to deny the concept and accuse others of not getting what net worth means.

 

[d5dude]

Whether it is precise definition but imprecise value or imprecise definition and value, my point is total networth can also be highly subjective (eg. Donald Trump used to inflate his networth with things like worth of his brand and frequently disagree with how Forbes value his networth). It seems absurd some pple can accept the subjectiveness of total networth but is anal about the subjectiveness of liquid networth, even when it is clarified what it includes.

You are trying to come up with a different definition for total networth, that is what I was talking about.

Total networth is NOT subjective, you are conflating value thats hard to estimate with whether something should be included at all. Also intangibles only matter for businesses, there is no such thing as intangible networth for individuals, unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of including stuff like social capital (impossible to quantify in monetary terms), we are talking about individual tangible networth here, and that is 100% well defined, its not subjective at all.

 

[d5dude]

It’s seriously bewildering why a concept like “financial net worth” seems so hard to grasp. And yes, we know what “net worth” or “total net worth” means, thank you very much.

Why can’t people appreciate applying a context-specific constraint to the concept of total net worth to better evaluate the financial viability of FIREing without having to sell or downgrade the primary residence, just as an example.

It almost feels as though those who resist the concept of financial net worth are so concentrated in their property allocation that when they look at their “financial net worth”, it looks like sh1t. So to salve their ego, go all out to deny the concept and accuse others of not getting what net worth means.

I think thats not the issue. The problem is with the title of the thread, it doesnt say financial networth or liquid networth, it says networth, which many presume to be total networth. So you have people like d9lives who are not happy with people talking about something else.

I have no issue since liquid networth is just a subset of total networth, totally on-topic.

 

[highsulphur]

I think thats not the issue. The problem is with the title of the thread, it doesnt say financial networth or liquid networth, it says networth, which many presume to be total networth. So you have people like d9lives who are not happy with people talking about something else.

I have no issue since liquid networth is just a subset of total networth, totally on-topic.

i don't think just because of the title of the thread we should exclude any discussion of any subset of net worth

 

[yslvlys]

You are trying to come up with a different definition for total networth, that is what I was talking about.

Total networth is NOT subjective, you are conflating value thats hard to estimate with whether something should be included at all. Also intangibles only matter for businesses, there is no such thing as intangible networth for individuals, unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of including stuff like social capital (impossible to quantify in monetary terms), we are talking about individual tangible networth here, and that is 100% well defined, its not subjective at all.

No I did not come up with with a different definition of total networth. Where is my new definition for total networth?
As I said, my point is total networth can be subjective. You are trying to be more nuanced here. OK if it makes you happy. Total networth value can be subjective is this OK for you. Why pple can be comfortable with subjective total networth value but so anal about subjective liquid networth definition. It's a bit subjective but really not rocket science really. Clarifying questions can be asked, just like questions can be asked to clarify total networth.

 

[d5dude]

i don't think just because of the title of the thread we should exclude any discussion of any subset of net worth

Neither do I?

 

[highsulphur]

I have "assets" which I don't count toward my net worth regardless of any definition. I collect whisky and the amount can be substantial - a few months of salary. I don't include it because it is a hobby for me but in the true sense of total net worth, I probably should include it? Same can be said for watches

 

[d9_lives]

You are trying to come up with a different definition for total networth, that is what I was talking about.

Total networth is NOT subjective, you are conflating value thats hard to estimate with whether something should be included at all. Also intangibles only matter for businesses, there is no such thing as intangible networth for individuals, unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of including stuff like social capital (impossible to quantify in monetary terms), we are talking about individual tangible networth here, and that is 100% well defined, its not subjective at all.

You summed it so well.

 

[d5dude]

No I did not come up with with a different definition of total networth. Where is my new definition for total networth.

As I said, my point is total networth can be subjective. You are trying to be more nuanced here. OK if it makes you happy. Total networth value can be subjective is this OK for you. Why pple can be comfortable with subjective total networth value but so anal about subjective liquid networth definition. It's a bit subjective but really not rocket science really. Clarifying questions can be asked, just like questions can be asked to clarify total networth.

Subjective = more than 1 definition of total networth, which is just plain wrong.

Total networth is simply the value of all your assets - liabilities, and no it doesnt include intangibles like perceived brand name or social capital. 3 - 1 = 2, its simple math, there is no grey here.

 

[little pupsky]

I think thats not the issue. The problem is with the title of the thread, it doesnt say financial networth or liquid networth, it says networth, which many presume to be total networth. So you have people like d9lives who are not happy with people talking about something else.

I have no issue since liquid networth is just a subset of total networth, totally on-topic.

Yup, you likely hit the nail on the head. And also differing views on what/how to include the less ‘traditional’ assets in total net worth calculations.

 

[d5dude]

I have "assets" which I don't count toward my net worth regardless of any definition. I collect whisky and the amount can be substantial - a few months of salary. I don't include it because it is a hobby for me but in the true sense of total net worth, I probably should include it? Same can be said for watches

Technically they ought to be part of your total networth if you can sell them for money. Whether they add a substantial amount of value to your total networth is another matter, for example a billionaire with a 20k watch collection is going to ignore the value of his watch collection, but that doesnt mean his networth shouldnt include the value of his watch collection.

 

[yslvlys]

Subjective = more than 1 definition of total networth, which is just plain wrong.

Total networth is simply the value of all your assets - liabilities, and no it doesnt include intangibles like perceived brand name or social capital. 3 - 1 = 2, its simple math, there is no grey here.

As I said, you are trying to be more nuanced here. Not sure if you are pretending not to understand or not to see what I wrote. So I will try to explain my point fully here again. When I say total networth can be subjective, I am referring to both it's definition and value. Even if the definition is clear, the valuation can be subjective, thus I say total networth can be subjective (not saying definition only is subjective, pls stop explaining the definition to me again). So why pple can be comfortable with subjective total networth (value), but anal about liquid networth definition. Hope this is clear.
Again pls stop explaining what is total networth to me.