Are you a millionaire? Yes or No? (1 Viewer)

[Eminence]

Pretty simple. Do you have 7 figures in assets?

 

[proninja]

Pretty simple. Do you have 7 figures in assets?

Not counting liabilities just for funsies?

 

[Bucky86]

Are you?

 

[cstu]

In wheat pennies.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

A million isn't much anymore. It'll barely keep the lights on in retirement.

 

[chet]

Pretty simple. Do you have 7 figures in assets?

Not as simple you make it seem. I am a millionaire but I don't have 7 figures in assets.

 

[BobbyLayne]

mil·lion·aire
ˌmilyəˈner,ˈmilyəˌner/
noun

1. a person whose assets are worth one million dollars or more.
   

A millionaire (originally and sometimes still millionnaire) is an individual whose net worth or wealth is equal to or exceeds one million units of currency.

 

[avoiding injuries]

There's also a differing of opinions about including the equity in your primary residence.

 

[BobbyLayne]

wonder what it's like to be the rainmaker

 

[fantasycurse42]

If I own 4,000 pairs of retro Jordans in a storage facility charging $500 a month, while being able to sell each pair for $300 before paying a 10% commission, and I can sell 2 pairs a day starting today, when do I have a million in assets?

 

[matuski]

NM, tmi.

 

[chet]

mil·lion·aire
ˌmilyəˈner,ˈmilyəˌner/
noun

1. a person whose assets are worth one million dollars or more.
   

A millionaire (originally and sometimes still millionnaire) is an individual whose net worth or wealth is equal to or exceeds one million units of currency.

I agree but that's not what the OP asked.

 

[mr roboto]

Pretty simple. Do you have 7 figures in assets?

Not as simple you make it seem. I am a millionaire but I don't have 7 figures in assets.

Do you have more than 7 figures in assets?

 

[joffer]

No, but I tell the chicks I am. Leads to fingerblasting.

 

[Snoopy]

Do leading zeroes count?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Yes.

 

[Van Dyman]

If I own 4,000 pairs of retro Jordans in a storage facility charging $500 a month, while being able to sell each pair for $300 before paying a 10% commission, and I can sell 2 pairs a day starting today, when do I have a million in assets?

On Cheryl's birthday.

 

[Jayrok]

Yes

 

[xulf]

Where's the pole?

Do we count credit card limits?

Do we count outstanding bets that may hit?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Can I count my inheritance?

 

[johnnycakes]

Pretty simple. Do you have 7 figures in assets?

Not as simple you make it seem. I am a millionaire but I don't have 7 figures in assets.

ok, chet, let's not split hairs about having ten figures in assets.

 

[timschochet]

Yee for MC GS Money provided we include future assets from his t shirt business.

 

[Angry Beavers]

Can I count the zeroes after the decimal point?

 

[Rayderr]

Pretty simple. Do you have 7 figures in assets?

If you count the 2 digits after the decimal point, then yes. (actually no, I would have 8 digits in that case.)

ETA: Damn you AB.

 

[Guest]

mil·lion·aire
ˌmilyəˈner,ˈmilyəˌner/
noun

1. a person whose assets are worth one million dollars or more.
   

A millionaire (originally and sometimes still millionnaire) is an individual whose net worth or wealth is equal to or exceeds one million units of currency.

Can I use Iragi Dinars as the unit of currency?

 

[mquinnjr]

No, but I tell the chicks I am. Leads to fingerblasting.

"Heyyyy! You are - not - Kevin Costner."

"I was last night."

 

[Leroy Hoard]

More like a thousandaire.

 

[sbonomo]

Why do you ask?

 

[mr roboto]

Why do you ask?

He's trolling for qualified investors for his new Ebay phone scheme.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Let's see how Chaos would get to be a millionaire.

2000 lappers at $500.00 = 1,000,000

It would take her 5.56 days or 133.33 hours to achieve this goal.

 

[sbonomo]

Why do you ask?

He's trolling for qualified investors for his new Ebay phone scheme.

 

[Eephus]

Definitely yes counting the place we live in and my 401K. But we can't afford to leave the former or withdraw the latter so I'm about as liquid as a block of cement.

 

[Dentist]

There's also a differing of opinions about including the equity in your primary residence.

Correct, Thomas Stanley (author of the Millionaire next door) would say no.

Furthermore, you allegedly can't count vehicle or property assets.

Really it's only investable dollars.

And on top of that, when you have a significant amount of 401k dollars those haven't been taxed yet so they are really worth probably 20-30% less.

Mint says I'm a millionaire, but Thomas Stanley (RIP) would say I'm probably worth about 2/3-3/4 of a million

 

[dino259]

This is footballguys, shouldn't the question be are you a billionaire?

 

[mr roboto]

I would say equity in your primary residence should be considered part of your net worth because often times it is something you can draw from at a fairly low interest-rate. And although it can you bring your family, the home is fairly easy to liquidate. It's not like money trapped in a retirement account for a long term CD.

Even 401(k) accounts can be utilized without penalty to invest in your own business.

 

[proninja]

I would say equity in your primary residence should be considered part of your net worth because often times it is something you can draw from at a fairly low interest-rate. And although it can you bring your family, the home is fairly easy to liquidate. It's not like money trapped in a retirement account for a long term CD.

Even 401(k) accounts can be utilized without penalty to invest in your own business.

It's some awkward middle ground. Sure, you can sell and get cash, but you still need to buy a place to live, and then you're exposed to a bunch of transaction costs.

 

[hagmania]

Nope!

 

[Dentist]

I would say equity in your primary residence should be considered part of your net worth because often times it is something you can draw from at a fairly low interest-rate. And although it can you bring your family, the home is fairly easy to liquidate. It's not like money trapped in a retirement account for a long term CD.

Even 401(k) accounts can be utilized without penalty to invest in your own business.

It's some awkward middle ground. Sure, you can sell and get cash, but you still need to buy a place to live, and then you're exposed to a bunch of transaction costs.

correct, it's often illiquid... ironically the nicer the house you have the less liquid it most likely is... combined with the transaction costs.. i'd say you can only count it if your alternative living option is living in somebody's basement for free.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I would say equity in your primary residence should be considered part of your net worth because often times it is something you can draw from at a fairly low interest-rate. And although it can you bring your family, the home is fairly easy to liquidate. It's not like money trapped in a retirement account for a long term CD.

Even 401(k) accounts can be utilized without penalty to invest in your own business.

It's some awkward middle ground. Sure, you can sell and get cash, but you still need to buy a place to live, and then you're exposed to a bunch of transaction costs.

correct, it's often illiquid... ironically the nicer the house you have the less liquid it most likely is... combined with the transaction costs.. i'd say you can only count it if your alternative living option is living in somebody's basement for free.

Excluding things like equity in a home makes comparisons between people useless. If I own a million dollar home with no mortgage, and you live in a rental apartment, and everything else about our finances is equal, it is stupid to say we have the same wealth.

 

[Dentist]

I would say equity in your primary residence should be considered part of your net worth because often times it is something you can draw from at a fairly low interest-rate. And although it can you bring your family, the home is fairly easy to liquidate. It's not like money trapped in a retirement account for a long term CD.

Even 401(k) accounts can be utilized without penalty to invest in your own business.

It's some awkward middle ground. Sure, you can sell and get cash, but you still need to buy a place to live, and then you're exposed to a bunch of transaction costs.

correct, it's often illiquid... ironically the nicer the house you have the less liquid it most likely is... combined with the transaction costs.. i'd say you can only count it if your alternative living option is living in somebody's basement for free.

Excluding things like equity in a home makes comparisons between people useless. If I own a million dollar home with no mortgage, and you live in a rental apartment, and everything else about our finances is equal, it is stupid to say we have the same wealth.

Given an extreme example like that I'd agree.

I think that given most everyday examples where many people have a massive mortgage and very little equity I'd say it's accurate.

The Thomas Stanley system implies that you actually want to build real wealth in hopes of having a true estate and actually being able to retire or at least be free from the hamster wheel of life.

He'll tell you that in most nice neighborhoods, the nicer the home the far more likely the people are to be -net worth due to the massive mortgage. Being in the home only implies they have a nice enough job to afford the payment, but are often always teetering on the edge of going broke if a job is lost or something due to little to no reserves because all free cash is spent keeping up appearances.

the nicer home also has higher taxes, insurance, maintenance, probably requires nicer furnishings.. and requires your entire lifestyle to be more expensive to "fit in"

But I think most people really don't value their elder selves and are fine with giving that guy the middle finger... they want to live now. And that's a choice, and I guess it's fine to make, but it usually comes at the expense of never building any true wealth through a business they own, or equities they own, etc.

 

[IC FBGCav]

I would say equity in your primary residence should be considered part of your net worth because often times it is something you can draw from at a fairly low interest-rate. And although it can you bring your family, the home is fairly easy to liquidate. It's not like money trapped in a retirement account for a long term CD.

Even 401(k) accounts can be utilized without penalty to invest in your own business.

It's some awkward middle ground. Sure, you can sell and get cash, but you still need to buy a place to live, and then you're exposed to a bunch of transaction costs.

correct, it's often illiquid... ironically the nicer the house you have the less liquid it most likely is... combined with the transaction costs.. i'd say you can only count it if your alternative living option is living in somebody's basement for free.

Excluding things like equity in a home makes comparisons between people useless. If I own a million dollar home with no mortgage, and you live in a rental apartment, and everything else about our finances is equal, it is stupid to say we have the same wealth.

Given an extreme example like that I'd agree.

I think that given most everyday examples where many people have a massive mortgage and very little equity I'd say it's accurate.

The Thomas Stanley system implies that you actually want to build real wealth in hopes of having a true estate and actually being able to retire or at least be free from the hamster wheel of life.

He'll tell you that in most nice neighborhoods, the nicer the home the far more likely the people are to be -net worth due to the massive mortgage. Being in the home only implies they have a nice enough job to afford the payment, but are often always teetering on the edge of going broke if a job is lost or something due to little to no reserves because all free cash is spent keeping up appearances.

the nicer home also has higher taxes, insurance, maintenance, probably requires nicer furnishings.. and requires your entire lifestyle to be more expensive to "fit in"

But I think most people really don't value their elder selves and are fine with giving that guy the middle finger... they want to live now. And that's a choice, and I guess it's fine to make, but it usually comes at the expense of never building any true wealth through a business they own, or equities they own, etc.

I was wondering who was living in all those new houses.

 

[Random]

I would say equity in your primary residence should be considered part of your net worth because often times it is something you can draw from at a fairly low interest-rate. And although it can you bring your family, the home is fairly easy to liquidate. It's not like money trapped in a retirement account for a long term CD.

Even 401(k) accounts can be utilized without penalty to invest in your own business.

It's some awkward middle ground. Sure, you can sell and get cash, but you still need to buy a place to live, and then you're exposed to a bunch of transaction costs.

correct, it's often illiquid... ironically the nicer the house you have the less liquid it most likely is... combined with the transaction costs.. i'd say you can only count it if your alternative living option is living in somebody's basement for free.

Excluding things like equity in a home makes comparisons between people useless. If I own a million dollar home with no mortgage, and you live in a rental apartment, and everything else about our finances is equal, it is stupid to say we have the same wealth.

Given an extreme example like that I'd agree.

I think that given most everyday examples where many people have a massive mortgage and very little equity I'd say it's accurate.

The Thomas Stanley system implies that you actually want to build real wealth in hopes of having a true estate and actually being able to retire or at least be free from the hamster wheel of life.

He'll tell you that in most nice neighborhoods, the nicer the home the far more likely the people are to be -net worth due to the massive mortgage. Being in the home only implies they have a nice enough job to afford the payment, but are often always teetering on the edge of going broke if a job is lost or something due to little to no reserves because all free cash is spent keeping up appearances.

the nicer home also has higher taxes, insurance, maintenance, probably requires nicer furnishings.. and requires your entire lifestyle to be more expensive to "fit in"

But I think most people really don't value their elder selves and are fine with giving that guy the middle finger... they want to live now. And that's a choice, and I guess it's fine to make, but it usually comes at the expense of never building any true wealth through a business they own, or equities they own, etc.

Why not just count the equity in the home? ie $500,000 house $300,000 mortgage = $200,000 equity.

 

[jomar]

of course

 

[Dentist]

http://tinyurl.com/n942lor

home and net worth.. one view

another view

http://www.financialsamurai.com/why-its-ok-to-include-your-primary-residenc-in-your-net-worth-calculation/

pick your religion i guess.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

http://tinyurl.com/n942lor

home and net worth.. one view

another view

http://www.financialsamurai.com/why-its-ok-to-include-your-primary-residenc-in-your-net-worth-calculation/

pick your religion i guess.

Yeah, the second link makes a lot more sense to me. But I think part of the discrepancy revolves around "why are you calculating your net worth?" If you're just doing it to get some general picture of your finances, I think the most accurate way is to include the equity. If you're doing it to figure out when you can retire, it probably makes sense to treat home equity as different than other assets (although treating it as zero still seems wrong to me).

 

[Random]

http://tinyurl.com/n942lor

home and net worth.. one view

another view

http://www.financialsamurai.com/why-its-ok-to-include-your-primary-residenc-in-your-net-worth-calculation/

pick your religion i guess.

Yeah, the second link makes a lot more sense to me. But I think part of the discrepancy revolves around "why are you calculating your net worth?" If you're just doing it to get some general picture of your finances, I think the most accurate way is to include the equity. If you're doing it to figure out when you can retire, it probably makes sense to treat home equity as different than other assets (although treating it as zero still seems wrong to me).

I would say if you are looking at your retirement picture, you really should be more concerned with cash flow than net worth.

Net worth is really just more of a general financial snapshot, in which case i don't understand why you wouldn't count your house. Having a paid for house could be a major financial goal for some.

 

[KCitons]

For those of us that paid off our mortgage early, instead of investing, I think you would have to include your home.

 

[chet]

For those of us that paid off our mortgage early, instead of investing, I think you would have to include your home.

Why would you want to highlight your mistakes?

 

[KCitons]

For those of us that paid off our mortgage early, instead of investing, I think you would have to include your home.

Why would you want to highlight your mistakes?

I could get a 30 year mortgage tomorrow, then my net worth would jump. But doing it just to look cool in this thread seems like a longest **** contest.

 

[chet]

For those of us that paid off our mortgage early, instead of investing, I think you would have to include your home.

Why would you want to highlight your mistakes?

I could get a 30 year mortgage tomorrow, then my net worth would jump. But doing it just to look cool in this thread seems like a longest **** contest.

I was really just kidding. As I've said before, paying off a mortgage early is a personal choice. I wouldn't do it but that's me.