For net worth, should I value physical property at my cost to replace it, or the amount I could get for selling it?
You are not asking for insurance purposes. So I'll go with this - I have two asset numbers I track. All investments, retirement accounts, etc, the kind that are valued at day's end by the market, etc. From that number I subtract the mortgage. This produces the number that I can say is my net worth with a paid in full house. The second number simply adds back the house's value, give or take.  Unless I owned art that was valued in the six figures, it seems pointless to me to add it up, except for insurance. If my wife and I died tomorrow, the kid can certainly auction our stuff off, but knowing that number holds no interest for us. When most people talk 'net worth', I don't see them adding these things up. Cars, maybe, but not even that. "You're asking for opinions here, because it's a matter of how you look at it. I'll give it a shot anyway. For insurance purposes - there's a clear answer: you insure based on how much it would cost you to replace it. For some reason, you're considering as a possibility negotiating with the insurance company about that, but I've never heard of insuring something at a ""possible sales value"" unless you're talking about a one of a kind thing, or a particularly valuable artifact: art, jewelry, etc. That it would be appraised and insured based on the appraised value. Besides, most of the stuff usually loses value once you bought it, not gains, so insuring per replacement costs makes more sense because it costs more. As to your estimations of your own net worth to yourself - its up to you. I would say that something only worth what people would pay for it. So if you have a car that you just bought brand new, replacing it would cost you $X, but you can only sell it for $X-10%, because it depreciated by at least 10% once you've driven it off the dealer's lot. So I would estimate your worth as $X-10% based on the car, not $X, because although you spent $X on it - you can never recover it if you sell it, so you can't claim to have it as your ""net worth""." "My opinion: including the value of depreciating property one owns in a net worth calculation is silly - but could be interesting You don't expect your TV or laptop to gain value.  Instead, you expect them to decrease in value every year until you replace them.  Anything you expect to hold or increase in value (art, a house, etc) is a different story. If you'd like to really get anal about this, you can track your net worth like a business would track its balance sheet.  I'm not going to go into detail, but the general idea is that when you purchase an item, you debit the cost from ""cash"" and add the value paid to ""assets"" (so your net worth doesn't change when you make a purchase).   You then depreciate the value of the item under ""assets"" according to a depreciation schedule.  If you plan on replacing your laptop every three years, you might subtract 33% of the value every year.   This could be an interesting exercise (i.e. even if you make money, your net worth may decrease because of all the depreciating junk you own), but my hunch is that it wouldn't be worth the effort it requires." "There is no objective ""should"".  You need to be clear why you're tracking these numbers, and the right answer will come out of that. I think the main reason an individual would add up their assets and net worth is to get a sense of whether they are ""making progress"" or whether they are saving enough money, or perhaps whether they are getting close to the net worth at which they can make some life change.  Obviously shares or other investment property ought to be counted in that.   Buying small-medium consumer goods like furniture or electronics may improve your life but it's not especially improving your financial position.  Accounting for them with little $20 or $200 changes every month or year is not necessarily useful. Things like cars are an intermediate case because firstly they're fairly large chunks of money and secondly they commonly are things people sell on for nontrivial amounts of money and you can reasonably estimate the value. If for instance I take $30k out of my bank account and buy a new car, how has my net worth changed?  It would be too pessimistic to say I'm $30k worse off.  If I really needed the money back, I could go and sell the car, but not for $30k.  So, a good way to represent this is an immediate 10-20% cost for off-the-lot depreciation of the car, and then another 12% every year (or 1% every month). If you're tracking lifestyle assets that you want to accumulate, I think monetary worth is not the best scale, because it's only weakly correlated with the value you get out of them.   Case in point: you probably wouldn't buy a second-hand mattress, and they have pretty limited resale value.  Financially, the value of the mattress collapses as soon as you get it home, but the lifestyle benefit of it holds up just fine for eight years or so. So if there are some major purchases (say >$1000) that you want to make, and you want to track it, what I would do is: make a list of things you want to buy in the future, and then tick them off when you either do buy them, or cross them out when you decide you actually don't want them.  Then you have something to motivate saving, and you have a chance to think it over before you make the purchase.  You can also look back on what seemed to be important to you in the past and either feel satisfied you achieved what you wanted, or you can discover more about yourself by seeing how your desires change.  You probably don't want to so much spend $50k as you want to buy a TV, a dishwasher, a trip to whereever..." "Valuation by definition is what an item is worth, not what you paid for it. Net worth should be market value for fixed assets or ""capital"" goods. I would consider this cars, real property, furniture, jewelry, appliances, tools, etc.  Everything else can be valued by liquidation value. You can use valuation guides for tax deductions as a way to guide your valuation. Insurance companies usually just pick a percentage of your home's value as a guesstimate for content value. I could see doing this as a way to guide purchase decisions for appliances, cars or the like. But if you are trying to figure out the market value of your socks and underwear, I would argue that you're doing something that's a little silly."
Well it depends on whether or not your differentiating against. If its capital stock or stock as in a share certificate in the company. If its a share in the company then in my opinion using Equity would be best as it is a form of an asset and does refer to a piece of ownership of the entity. I wouldn't consider a share of stock a service, since the service to you is say Facebook or the broker who facilitates the transaction of buying or selling FB stock. I also would not consider it a Capital Good, as the Capital Good's would be the referring to the actual capital like the servers,other computer equipments etc. I believe @Dilip addressed your question alread, I am going to focus on your second question: What are the criteria one should use for estimating the worth of the   situation? The criteria are:  I hope this helps. There are many different reasons to buy property and it's important to make a distinction between commercial and residential property. Historically owning property has been part of the American dream, for multiple reasons.  But to answer your questions, value is not based on the age of the building (however it can be in a historic district). In addition the price of something and it's value may or may not be directly related for each individual buyer/owner (because that becomes subjective). Some buildings can lose there value as time passes, but the depends on multiple factors (area, condition of the building, overall economy, etc.) so it's not that easy to give a specific answer to a general question.  Before you buy property amongst many things it's important to determine why you want to buy this property (what will be it's principal use for you). That will help you determine if you should buy an old or new property, but that pales in comparison to if the property will maintain and gain in value. Also if your looking for an investment look into REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust). These can be great. Why? Because you don't actually have to carry the mortgage. Which makes that ideal for people who want to own property but not have to deal with the everyday ins-and-outs of the responsibility of ownership....like rising cost. It's important to note that the cost of purchase and cost of ownership are two different things but invariably linked when buying anything in the material strata of our world. You can find publicly traded REITs on the major stock exchanges. Hope that helps. To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance.  The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market.  Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep?  And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties.   Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk. Have you looked at what is in that book value? Are the assets easily liquidated to get that value or could there be trouble getting the fair market value as some assets may not be as easy to sell as you may think. The Motley Fool a few weeks ago noted a book value of $10 per share. I could wonder what is behind that which could be mispriced as some things may have fallen in value that aren't in updated financials yet. Another point from that link: After suffering through the last few months of constant cries from   naysayers about the company’s impending bankruptcy, shareholders of   Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (TSX:PWT)(NYSE:PWE) can finally look toward   the future with a little optimism. Thus, I'd be inclined to double check what is on the company books. A lot of these answers are strong, but at the end of the day this question really boils down to: Do you want to own things? Duh, yes. It means you have: By this logic, you would expect aggregate stock prices to increase indefinitely.   Whether the price you pay for that ownership claim is worth it at any given point in time is a completely different question entirely. "There are basically two ways to get value out of an appreciating asset such as a home: (a) Sell it and take the profit. In the case of a home, you presumably still have to live somewhere, so unless you buy a cheaper home to replace it, this doesn't get you anywhere. If you can get another house that is just as nice and in just as nice a location -- whatever you consider ""nice"" to be -- than this sounds like a winning option. If it means moving to a less desirable home, then you are getting the cash but losing the nice home. You'll have to decide if it's worth it. (b) Use it as collateral for a loan. In this case, that means a second mortgage, home equity loan, or a home equity line of credit. But this can be dangerous. House prices are very volatile these days. If the value of the house falls, you could be stuck with debts greater than your assets. In my humble opinion, you should be very careful about doing this. Borrowing against your house to send the kids to college or pay for your spouse's life-saving operation may be reasonable. Borrowing against your house to go on a fancy vacation is almost surely a bad idea. The vacation will be over within a couple of weeks, but you could be paying off the debt for decades." The cost to you for selling is 3/8% of a years salary, this is what you won't get if you sell. Tough to calculate the what-if scenarios beyond this, since I can't quantify the risk of a price drop. Once the amount in he stock is say,10%, of a years salary, if you know a drop is coming, a sale is probably worth it, for a steep drop.  My stronger focus would be on how much of your wealth is concentrated in that one stock, Enron, and all. I think the key to intrinsic value is that if you have something with *intrinsic* value, you can derive some direct benefit from it without trading.  For example a house has intrinsic value because without trading it, you can use it to stay warm and dry, and use it to store your stuff. Money - whether it's federal currency or bitcoin - has a very low intrinsic value. What can you do with cash without trading it? Maybe make some paper art or patch a leaking boat, but a $20 bill has very little practical (intrinsic) value until you trade it for goods or services. The same with bitcoin - you can't play it like a video game or drink it if you're thirsty, all you can do is trade it for things that you can use directly. The answer to this question is very different depending on the type of item.  From a purely financial perspective you would want to answer these questions which you may not have enough information to answer: Realistically the question I prefer to ask are: When something fails there is a big difference to me between having the cash and having an insurance policy that is suppose to cover it even if they are theoretically the same value.  Some insurance policies may even be better than cash, like homeowners insurance might help take care of details like finding a contractor to fix the issue, finding temporary housing if your house burns down, etc. "You have actually asked several questions, so I think what I'll do is give you an intuition about risk-neutral pricing to get you started.  Then I think the answer to many of your questions will become clear. Physical Probability There is some probability of every event out there actually occurring, including the price of a stock going up.  That's what we call the physical probability.  It's very intuitive, but not directly useful for finding the price of something because price is not the weighted average of future outcomes.   For example, if you have a stock that is highly correlated with the market and has 50% chance of being worth $20 dollars tomorrow and a 50% chance of being worth $10, it's value today is not $15.  It will be worth less, because it's a risky stock and must earn a premium.  When you are dealing with physical probabilities, if you want to compute value you have to take the probability-weighted average of all the prices it could have tomorrow and then add in some kind of compensation for risk, which may be hard to compute. Risk-Neutral Probability Finance theory has shown that instead of computing values this way, we can embed risk-compensation into our probabilities.  That is, we can create a new set up ""probabilities"" by adjusting the probability of good market outcomes downward and increasing the probability of bad market outcomes.  This may sound crazy because these probabilities are no longer physical, but it has the desirable property that we then use this set of probabilities to price of every asset out there: all of them (equity, options, bonds, savings accounts, etc.).  We call these adjusted probabilities that risk-neutral probabilities.  When I say price I mean that you can multiply every outcome by its risk-neutral probability and discount at the risk-free rate to find its correct price.    To be clear, we have changed the probability of the market going up and down, not our probability of a particular stock moving independent of the market.  Because moves that are independent of the market do not affect prices, we don't have to adjust the probabilities of them happening in order to get risk-neutral probabilities. Anyway, the best way to think of risk-neutral probabilities is as a set of bogus probabilities that consistently give the correct price of every asset in the economy without having to add a risk premium. If we just take the risk-neutral probability-weighted average of all outcomes and discount at the risk-free rate, we get the price.  Very handy if you have them. Risk-Neutral Pricing We can't get risk-neutral probabilities from research about how likely a stock is to actually go up or down.  That would be the physical probability.  Instead, we can figure out the risk-neutral probabilities from prices. If a stock has only two possible prices tomorrow, U and D, and the risk-neutral probability of U is q, then Price = [ Uq + D(1-q) ] / e^(rt) The exponential there is just discounting by the risk-free rate.  This is the beginning of the equations you have mentioned.  The main thing to remember is that q is not the physical probability, it's the risk-neutral one.  I can't emphasize that enough.  If you have prespecified what U and D can be, then there is only one unknown in that equation: q. That means you can look at the stock price and solve for the risk neutral probability of the stock going up.   The reason this is useful is that you can same risk-neutral probability to price the associated option.  In the case of the option you don't know its price today (yet) but you do know how much money it will be worth if the stock moves up or down.  Use those values and the risk-neutral probability you computed from the stock to compute the option's price.  That's what's going on here.  To remember: the same risk-neutral probability measure prices everything out there.  That is, if you choose an asset, multiply each possibly outcome by its risk-neutral probability, and discount at the risk-free rate, you get its price.  In general we use prices of things we know to infer things about the risk-neutral probability measure in order to get prices we do not know." "An individual's net worth is the value of the person's assets minus his debt. To find your net worth, add up the value of everything that you own: your house, your cars, your bank accounts, your retirement investments, etc.  Then subtract all of your debt: mortgage, student loans, credit card debt, car loans, etc.  If you sold everything you own and paid off all your debts, you would be left with your net worth. If Bill Gates' net worth is $86 Billion, he likely does not have that much cash sitting in the bank.  Much of his net worth is in the form of assets: stocks, real estate, and other investments.  If he sold everything that he has and paid any debts, he would theoretically have the $86 Billion.  I say ""theoretically"" because in the amounts of stock that he owns, he could cause a price drop by selling it all at once." There are multiple ways of determining the value of an inherited property. If you aren't planning on selling it, then the best way would be to have a real estate agent do a comp on the property (or multiple real estate agents). There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve.  Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars. "This is fraud, the related legal code is ""11 USC 548 - Fraudulent transfers and obligations""; also see the wiki page for Fraudulent Conveyance in the United States.  Highly suggest cutting off contact with this person, and speaking with a lawyer as soon as possible to make sure you have not already broken the law."