U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-26-2015, 02:50 PM
 
18,788 posts, read 13,534,175 times
Reputation: 14152

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pragmaticus View Post
You are NOT extreme outlier. The 70th percentile is 128K. So, roughly 30 of people make more than you to not be an extreme outlier . You are doing great though!
The poster you are quoting is under 35 as detailed in what you quoted so the 70th percentile in that group is 33.4k
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-26-2015, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Moscow
2,085 posts, read 3,056,047 times
Reputation: 2555
You should read post 51...


Quote:
Originally Posted by synchronicity View Post
No they do not "OWN" the property! They have a SECURITY INTEREST in the property! Please, look it up. There's this thing called "google" that might help you. Another poster has already mentioned this very fact to you.

But you know what? it doesn't matter whether or not YOU agree with me. What matters is that, for the NUMBERS REFERENCED IN THE ARTICLE, which is what we're discussing, the US CENSUS BUREAU agrees with my definition (otherwise known as "the definition that everyone else who has any knowledge of such things uses) and DISAGREES with you.

So, you can say that both I AND the Census Bureau are wrong. Then you should write your own article with your own (adjusted) numbers (assuming there was enough data out there to allow you to adjust the numbers to fit your rather interesting definition of net worth).

Seriously, this is interesting. Everybody else posting on this thread has pointed out that you're mistaken, and you keep doubling down on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2015, 02:51 PM
 
18,788 posts, read 13,534,175 times
Reputation: 14152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keim View Post
Yeah, in hindsight I shouldve been clearer on that... Uproar has been entertaining.
I agree it's been entertaining for those of us who know what net worth is and are good at math
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2015, 02:53 PM
 
Location: SoCal desert
8,093 posts, read 13,201,802 times
Reputation: 14870
From the web link that started this whole thread, it looks like Keim doesn't even agree with Motley Fool ...

"How to calculate your net worth
In essence, net worth is calculated by taking everything you own (stuff, cars, houses, investment portfolios, etc.) and subtracting out everything you owe (college loans, mortgages, credit card debt, etc.). For the purposes of this article, we won't be including pension plans, the cash value of life insurance policies, or the value of household furniture or jewelry in our calculations.

Take a minute and think about everything you own and owe. The things you own are called assets and go on one side of the sheet. The things you owe are called liabilities and go on the other. Take a second and think about your assets and liabilities. Write them down. Use this sheet [opens a PDF] if you need to.

If you're confused about the car you've borrowed for or your house that has a mortgage, put the fair value of those things in the "Assets" category, and the amount you still owe in the "Liabilities" category."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2015, 02:54 PM
 
2,303 posts, read 2,252,093 times
Reputation: 3832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keim View Post
You should read post 51...
And you should read post #54... because #51 is wrong for the reasons I explained.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2015, 02:58 PM
 
2,710 posts, read 4,391,652 times
Reputation: 2312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006 View Post
The 70th percentile is ~34k for those <35. You are looking at 35-44.
Didn't see you are UNDER 35! Great job! Then you are very extreme. I would bet a mean + 3 standard deviation you would be. That's what could be called extreme outlier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2015, 02:59 PM
 
4,538 posts, read 4,716,460 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeo123 View Post
And you should read post #54... because #51 is wrong for the reasons I explained.
According to post 51 the only thing that should figure into your net worth is cash. Even investing in equities carries with it an inherent risk that the value per share will go down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2015, 03:03 PM
 
2,710 posts, read 4,391,652 times
Reputation: 2312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006 View Post
According to post 51 the only thing that should figure into your net worth is cash. Even investing in equities carries with it an inherent risk that the value per share will go down.
Risk has nothing to do with net worth.

the bank you put cash in may go down......the one insured it may go down too..... but those are outside of the calculation.

Net worth is based on a snap shot of what you have at a given time, if you liquidate everything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2015, 03:04 PM
 
4,538 posts, read 4,716,460 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pragmaticus View Post
Risk has nothing to do with net worth.

the bank you put cash in may go down......the one insured it may go down too..... but those are outside of the calculation.

Net worth is based on a snap shot of what you have at a given time, if you liquidate everything.
I know, I was utilizing Keim's logic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2015, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Southlake. Don't judge me.
2,834 posts, read 3,747,835 times
Reputation: 3665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keim View Post
You should read post 51...
But you still have a net worth of 40K, which is what the discussion is about. You can argue that the nature of 40K net worth with a leveraged asset is different than 40K with an unleveraged asset. In fact, I've had similar discussions to that in regards to the Sharpe Ratio. But that's a discussion of RISK, not a discussion of "Net Worth".

Your post #29 started with the rather abrupt position that "Math must work differently in your world vs mine." You then proceeded to define assets and liabilities in ways that are factually incorrect using the terminology referenced in the article and, quite frankly, by accountants, finance professionals, and pretty much the entire financial world (well, there may be someone somewhere who defines it differently, I suppose).

If you want to say that you've shifted from liquid assets to illiquid, that's fine (I buy a house with 200K cash). If you want to say you've shifted from stable assets to volatile, that's fine (I take my 200K cash and buy, say, OTM options that are due to expire tomorrow). All of these are reasonable discussions. Or one can say that asset X has certain carrying costs that asset Y does not (The Overdog touched on this with maintenance expenses on a house compared to cash sitting in the bank). Or that an asset is a rapidly depreciating one (I spend 50K on an expensive car that will likely be worth half that in 3 years).

These are all interesting discussions about how not all "net worths" are alike even if the amounts are identical. As you might guess from the above, I have some vague familiarity with that concept. It MAY be that the TMF writer was trying to express a variant on one of the above with the "taking on a mortgage" comment.

However, the Net Worth does, in fact remain unchanged. My "math" is NOT incorrect in that regard. Your definitions are flat out incorrect. Your assertion that "the bank owns 4/5ths of the house" is false but is a common mistake/assertion made by people who, quite frankly, are not very financially astute. It may be made as a throwaway comment in a casual conversation, but on a thread discussing net worth and personal finance where we are getting into a degree of detail, it's wrong and you're going to be called on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:19 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top