Whats your net worth

Please don't mention your house/condo/apartment or wtf it as your net worth or asset as long as you haven't paid it off. When you borrow money from the bank it's still bank asset. Once you fail to pay off, the bank will posses it!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Please don't mention your house/condo/apartment or wtf it as your net worth or asset as long as you haven't paid it off. When you borrow money from the bank it's still bank asset. Once you fail to pay off, the bank will posses it!

A lot of misconception about net worth here. Net worth is actually asset minus liabilities. Let's say you have bought a condo for 1M and only pay 100K, your net worth is only 100K not 1M! Your liability is 900K. Even though your asset is 1M, but you're basically 90% borrow money from the bank. So you are not actually richer than your neighbor hawker seller who already paid of his hdb last year which cost him total 200K.

So my point here is even you have multiple condo/apartments doesn't mean you are doing better then the other. You have to mention how much is your liability as well. Furthermore as asset is increasing by the time, those who already near retirement age are well of in term of net worth as compare to those who just started to work. If your point is only to compare the asset, then it's easy to increase your asset immediately. Just borrow 10M buy seashore landed property and yacht, and you became sudden millionaire. Yet if later you can't pay and bank posses it all then you only temporary millionaire. Pointless.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Please don't mention your house/condo/apartment or wtf it as your net worth or asset as long as you haven't paid it off. When you borrow money from the bank it's still bank asset. Once you fail to pay off, the bank will posses it!

Isn't it common sense that net worth = assets - liabilities. Those who don't know are probably still schooling.

I think it is you who is not clear. Everyone here knows that net worth = assets minus liabilities. Which primary school are you now in?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

A lot of misconception about net worth here. Net worth is actually asset minus liabilities. Let's say you have bought a condo for 1M and only pay 100K, your net worth is only 100K not 1M! Your liability is 900K. Even though your asset is 1M, but you're basically 90% borrow money from the bank. So you are not actually richer than your neighbor hawker seller who already paid of his hdb last year which cost him total 200K.

So my point here is even you have multiple condo/apartments doesn't mean you are doing better then the other. You have to mention how much is your liability as well. Furthermore as asset is increasing by the time, those who already near retirement age are well of in term of net worth as compare to those who just started to work. If your point is only to compare the asset, then it's easy to increase your asset immediately. Just borrow 10M buy seashore landed property and yacht, and you became sudden millionaire. Yet if later you can't pay and bank posses it all then you only temporary millionaire. Pointless.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

A lot of misconception about net worth here. Net worth is actually asset minus liabilities. Let's say you have bought a condo for 1M and only pay 100K, your net worth is only 100K not 1M! Your liability is 900K. Even though your asset is 1M, but you're basically 90% borrow money from the bank. So you are not actually richer than your neighbor hawker seller who already paid of his hdb last year which cost him total 200K.

So my point here is even you have multiple condo/apartments doesn't mean you are doing better then the other. You have to mention how much is your liability as well. Furthermore as asset is increasing by the time, those who already near retirement age are well of in term of net worth as compare to those who just started to work. If your point is only to compare the asset, then it's easy to increase your asset immediately. Just borrow 10M buy seashore landed property and yacht, and you became sudden millionaire. Yet if later you can't pay and bank posses it all then you only temporary millionaire. Pointless.

There is no misconception, anyone who invest in multiple properties are fully aware of their financial ins and outs.

I've not met any true property investor who has not dealt with dealing with lawyers/banker, comparing interest rates, refinancing on increase valuation etc. Of course they know how much they owe the bank and how much the properties are worth. True benefits of property come from leverage of funds from low interest covered by rental income.

Most multiple property investors would have usually bought one property about 5 years ago for investment and used the increased valuation/profit to buy another property or two before the market really spiked.

For you to come and xuan multiple property owners with your "net worth = assets minus liabilities" is a freaking joke. Try drafting a concrete rental agreement or arguing with your bank about legal subsidy clawback despite fulfilling the the fixed term before you come back and talk nonsense.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Please don't mention your house/condo/apartment or wtf it as your net worth or asset as long as you haven't paid it off. When you borrow money from the bank it's still bank asset. Once you fail to pay off, the bank will posses it!

Don't know the reason for this outburst, but if you have any accounting knowledge at all, even the car you own, with its fast depreciating value is an asset. The net worth is obtained by adding up all your assets and then subtracting the loans (liabilities). Let's say your BTO is secured at $250K, but is close to its MOP, it's value would be set at close to those on the open market say at $500K. Your property asset is thus calculated as $500K. Lets say you only paid $100K, then your net worth is $500K - $150K or $$350K, and not just the $100K you paid.

The bank can only claim the $150K you owe, not the $500K BTO flat you own.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Don't know the reason for this outburst, but if you have any accounting knowledge at all, even the car you own, with its fast depreciating value is an asset. The net worth is obtained by adding up all your assets and then subtracting the loans (liabilities). Let's say your BTO is secured at $250K, but is close to its MOP, it's value would be set at close to those on the open market say at $500K. Your property asset is thus calculated as $500K. Lets say you only paid $100K, then your net worth is $500K - $150K or $$350K, and not just the $100K you paid.

The bank can only claim the $150K you owe, not the $500K BTO flat you own.

Exactly, 3 years ago we got our BTO flat at $250k and now similar flats around our flat is already selling at $500k. even if did not pay any downpayment for the flat, our net worth (equity) in the flat has gone up by $250k. that is why you should go for BTO and make lots of money after MOP. dont know why some people still say BTO are expensive. many of my older colleagues in the office make profits of $300k - $400k by flipping their BTO flat and then they upgrade to a condo by using the profits as downpayment.

Family of five, with 3 teenage kids. We own only 3 fully paid condos (one bought in 2003, one bought in 2006 and another bought in 2009). We aim to buy another one condo before we retire so that each kid can own one condo. Hoping for prices to drop, quite tired of waiting to deploy our cash savings.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Family of five, with 3 teenage kids. We own only 3 fully paid condos (one bought in 2003, one bought in 2006 and another bought in 2009). We aim to buy another one condo before we retire so that each kid can own one condo. Hoping for prices to drop, quite tired of waiting to deploy our cash savings.

Best to let them buy their own homes, otherwise you will likely end up with squabbling children as your condo apts bought at different times are not the same. Even if they have same values, they may not be of same sizes, same location, FH vs 99 yrs etc...

Learn from other cases (eg in the news lately). Better to give them cash - easier to be equitable. We are rethinking our plan to let our children have equal share of our properties when we pass on. They can choose to sell them and divide the proceeds or to agree to sell / buy over each other's share at prevailing prices.

It is sad to see families breaking up because of such things.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Best to let them buy their own homes, otherwise you will likely end up with squabbling children as your condo apts bought at different times are not the same. Even if they have same values, they may not be of same sizes, same location, FH vs 99 yrs etc...

Learn from other cases (eg in the news lately). Better to give them cash - easier to be equitable. We are rethinking our plan to let our children have equal share of our properties when we pass on. They can choose to sell them and divide the proceeds or to agree to sell / buy over each other's share at prevailing prices.

It is sad to see families breaking up because of such things.

Totally agree with you, that is why in my will, I have instructed my landed and 5 condos to be liquidated upon my demise. Then the monies will can be distributed among my 2 children and wife. So, there is no issue on who gets which condo or the landed. They should have enough to buy their own properties to their liking.