YTD 2026 Networth tracking thread

[laokorkor]

Wealth in stocks is not money. I'm not the one saying this. Ray Dalio is.

Just because you have $1M in stocks, does not mean you have $1M worth of money.

You have to sell the stock first to get cash before you can spend it.

When you really want to sell, everyone could be selling at the same time.
Price drops, the actual money you get could be much LESS.



So your net worth measured by current stock holdings, is not really accurate. It assumes you can SELL IT ALL instantaneously at the last transacted price.

Ray does have a point, your net portfolio value is not your wealth!

That's because people measure net asset value using the current market prices and prices of many asset classes have high volatility.

To have a more balance view of your portfolio, you need a more balance view of your assets - such as valuing it as the net present value of all estimated future cash flow (dividends, rentals, interests, etc). In this aspect, assets such as tech, growth, small-cap stocks are indeed lacking and cannot be confirmed as your wealth.

Another way of viewing wealth is to view the intrinsic value of your assets (collaterals for bonds, book values for stocks, net cash value for insurance, etc). In this aspect, assets such as crypto are also lacking.

 

[limster]

Wealth in stocks is not money. I'm not the one saying this. Ray Dalio is.

Just because you have $1M in stocks, does not mean you have $1M worth of money.

You have to sell the stock first to get cash before you can spend it.

When you really want to sell, everyone could be selling at the same time.
Price drops, the actual money you get could be much LESS.

This is basically what Jim Rogers, the commodities perma-bull always says whenever CNBC drags him out to talk about some commodities super cycle. Commodities have a fixed supply, and if your money supply grows and grows, the amount of commodities that can be bought with your money is finite so prices have to increase. (similar for 'real stuff' that you buy with money, at least in the short term, there is a finite amount)

They haven't been interviewing him lately I guess his credibility went down because his claimed commodities supercycle never materalised.... though recent events, and gold movements, a broken clock is always right twice a day....

 

[laokorkor]

Commodities have a fixed supply, and if your money supply grows and grows, the amount of commodities that can be bought with your money is finite so prices have to increase. (similar for 'real stuff' that you buy with money, at least in the short term, there is a finite amount)

I never hear what Jim Rogers says, but commodities do not have a fixed supply!

Take oil for example (the most highly traded commondity), if real prices go up, oil producing nations will pump more oil from existing wells. They will explode more, dig deeper, go deep sea floor. They will refine oil that is previously expensive to refine.

People will pioneer innovative ways to conserve oil such as EVs.

There're also competitor renewable energy such as solar, wind, dam, etc.

 

[Euqorab]

Wealth in stocks is not money. I'm not the one saying this. Ray Dalio is.

Just because you have $1M in stocks, does not mean you have $1M worth of money.

You have to sell the stock first to get cash before you can spend it.

When you really want to sell, everyone could be selling at the same time.
Price drops, the actual money you get could be much LESS.



So your net worth measured by current stock holdings, is not really accurate. It assumes you can SELL IT ALL instantaneously at the last transacted price.

So his definition of wealth is cash or cash-like assets

It’s a good reminder for me especially when I head to retirement years and I don’t want to be asset rich and cash poor and having to rely on NSFs to clean my house (even retired banker also wrote to ST many years ago lol)…

 

[Euqorab]

Stocks are definitely easier to liquidate than most other assets

When in a down turn paper loss also hard to swallow

I had to look elsewhere for cashflow when I needed for my needs many years back

 

[limster]

I never hear what Jim Rogers says, but commodities do not have a fixed supply!

Take oil for example (the most highly traded commondity), if real prices go up, oil producing nations will pump more oil from existing wells. They will explode more, dig deeper, go deep sea floor. They will refine oil that is previously expensive to refine.

People will pioneer innovative ways to conserve oil such as EVs.

There're also competitor renewable energy such as solar, wind, dam, etc.

CNCB and other financial media often mention "Peak Oil" theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

I think electrical substitutes are a big game changer, but a commodities bull will then say "Rare earths!" and other metals needed to make batteries.

I would add the same argument about pumping more oil, digging deeper also applies to gold... but that hasn't prevented gold from increasing in the short term.... some may also say the same for DRAM ...

 

[highsulphur]

When in a down turn paper loss also hard to swallow

I had to look elsewhere for cashflow when I needed for my needs many years back

Thats where emergency cash reserve comes in

Unless you are talking about a decade of global equity downturn

 

[yslvlys]

Hang on tight as everyone's predicting a crash. I'm looking to buy more slowly.

 

[laokorkor]

I would add the same argument about pumping more oil, digging deeper also applies to gold... but that hasn't prevented gold from increasing in the short term.... some may also say the same for DRAM ...

There's a limit to how high gold prices can go as mining gold is profitable at gold's current market price.

Gold investors really have to be careful about the yellow metal - while it's some use cases such as industrial and jewelry ornaments, its main utility is its perceived stored value. As such, I think the intrinsic value is psychological.

If this psychological ballast is bursted, central banks and investors will just dump it in the open market with catastrophic results.

The current bull seems to be the results of dedollarisation, US/CN rivalry, and regional wars in Ukraine and Iran.

 

[stanlawj]

There's a limit to how high gold prices can go as mining gold is profitable at gold's current market price.

It is the limit to the rate-of-change (ROC) of price of gold, not limit to the price.

i.e. rate of rise is limited.

Gold actually has a fixed (or narrow range of) value relative to other commodities.

It is the quantity of currency issued that determines its price (in USD$, SGD$, JPY etc).
Since there is no limit to how much central bankers can issue their own national currencies, there is no upper limit to the price of gold.

But there is a limit to the rate of currency being issued for social order. Which determines the rate of rise in gold price.

 

[stanlawj]

Stocks are definitely easier to liquidate than most other assets

how about CPF and SRS?

I think follow bankers' SOP:

• CPF is assigned zero value to net worth. Because it is gated by the government, cannot be seized by the bank. You can be declared bankrupt even if you have $1M CPF.
• Stocks as collateral for bank loans (Lombard lending) is assigned a discount. i.e. can only borrow a fraction of its value (eg. 50%) That is the true net worth based on stocks.

 

[laokorkor]

• CPF is assigned zero value to net worth. Because it is gated by the government, cannot be seized by the bank. You can be declared bankrupt even if you have $1M CPF.

I've opposite view of this. CPF should be assigned 100% to net worth. If you declare bankrupt, by law the court cannot seize your $1M CPF.

• Stocks as collateral for bank loans is assigned a discount. i.e. can only borrow a fraction of its value (eg. 50%) That is the true net worth based on stocks.

This I agree. My brokerage is Phillip Securities. Certain stocks are marginable at 30%, 50%, 70%, 80%, some are not marginable. I think brokerage margin rates are a good affirmation of the quality of your portfolio. I don't margin.

 

[d5dude]

So your net worth measured by current stock holdings, is not really accurate. It assumes you can SELL IT ALL instantaneously at the last transacted price.

Its accurate unless you are talking about penny stocks or some illiquid low float stock. I dun think anyone here owns enough stock to move the share price when we sell, certainly nobody here owns enough index funds to move indices like ACWI or SPX by even 0.1%.

 

[d5dude]

haha... in this forum, stocks, bonds, unit trust and investment property (not own-stay) are included in net worth. That's where the problem is, because everyone assumes to be able to liquidate them 100% instantaneously at current valuation.

Its a reasonable assumption for most publicly traded assets.

Ray Dalio is making an entirely different point, he thinks the "wealth effect" is misleading because everyone cant possibly sell at the current price without crashing the market, but this is just truism, its not some profoundly deep statement.

 

[d5dude]

Ray does have a point, your net portfolio value is not your wealth!

That's because people measure net asset value using the current market prices and prices of many asset classes have high volatility.

To have a more balance view of your portfolio, you need a more balance view of your assets - such as valuing it as the net present value of all estimated future cash flow (dividends, rentals, interests, etc). In this aspect, assets such as tech, growth, small-cap stocks are indeed lacking and cannot be confirmed as your wealth.

Another way of viewing wealth is to view the intrinsic value of your assets (collaterals for bonds, book values for stocks, net cash value for insurance, etc). In this aspect, assets such as crypto are also lacking.

Valuation is irrelevant. The networth is real if you can cash out, its fake if you cant.

 

[stanlawj]

Its accurate unless you are talking about penny stocks or some illiquid low float stock. I dun think anyone here owns enough stock to move the share price when we sell, certainly nobody here owns enough index funds to move indices like ACWI or SPX by even 0.1%.

The problem is when you actually need to sell it.
Do you actually know when you need to sell? Of course not, because you don't know the future what conditions that force you to sell.

That's why bankers don't even extend full loan based on 100% stock value.

 

[stanlawj]

I've opposite view of this. CPF should be assigned 100% to net worth. If you declare bankrupt, by law the court cannot seize your $1M CPF.

I know you can buy property with CPF and do all kinds of things to cash it out by buying property and renting property to collect income.

That's financial engineering of CPF. But the key point is that: this needs a lot of CPF, and if you don't have enough, you can't do this financial engineering. There are too many restrictions. So CPF should be treated separately from net worth, like pension, it's not part of net worth, but a benefit for old age.

 

[d5dude]

The problem is when you actually need to sell it.
Do you actually know when you need to sell? Of course not, because you don't know the future what conditions that force you to sell.

That's why bankers don't even extend full loan based on 100% stock value.

Obviously nobody knows what’s going to happen in the future, the stock you are holding could fall 80% tomorrow due to uncovering of fraud. But that’s not what I was talking about, I’m talking about here and now. Current market price is a good indicator for current net worth, nobody here should have any trouble liquidating his assets. There are no billionaires with 50% of their assets tied up in some private company on MM.

No pledged asset is worth 100% due to market fluctuations, it has nothing to do with liquidity (which is what Ray Dalio was talking about).

 

[limster]

At age 50, can treat CPF like a 5 year fixed deposit and part of networth. though everyone has their own view on what is net worth, up to each person what he or she counts

 

[stanlawj]

Obviously nobody knows what’s going to happen in the future, the stock you are holding could fall 80% tomorrow due to uncovering of fraud. But that’s not what I was talking about, I’m talking about here and now. Current market price is a good indicator for current net worth, nobody here should have any trouble liquidating his assets. There are no billionaires with 50% of their assets tied up in some private company on MM.

No pledged asset is worth 100% due to market fluctuations, it has nothing to do with liquidity (which is what Ray Dalio was talking about).

There are assumptions in equating net worth to the stock's last transacted price.
Of course, I will still use it like everyone else, but I'm just highlighting the assumptions in this methodology.
Diversification is one of the solution to minimise this liquidity problem (finding enough motivated buyers).