What do you include in your net worth?

[Villanelle]

I recent visit to a lawyer, to put together better wills for DH and me, got me wondering. He asked our approximate net worth.  I have a number.  But as he asked for details, I realized I wasn't including a lot of the things he did, and his number was much, much higher.  Granted, he was asking for the purposes of determining potential estate taxes and such, but I thought it was interesting. 

For example, he included the value of insurance policies.  To me, that's an easy one to dismiss, since it's not money one can tap for living expenses (unless it's a whole life policy, though I'm fuzzy at best on how that works). 

Also, I don't include our home, even though it's a rental.  I know that's weird.   It was our primary residence.  We have been and will continue to be somewhat nomadic, thanks to the military and overseas assignments.  But someday, we'll need a home again, and while we likely won't move back in to that specific house, the proceeds will likely go toward buying our home.  Whether they will cover it all, create a surplus, or fall short depends largely on where we end up, which is completely up in the air.  But I figure it's not money we'll use for our SWR (barring a reverse mortgage or other fanciness), so it doesn't count.  But maybe a stache and a net worth are not the same, though I mentally treat them as such. 

I also don't include my car (though it's worth probably $3000-$4000, so it's not like that makes a really difference!), and I don't include our Stuff (again, not a substation value, but more than the car, and it can't really be tapped for living expenses).

If all this stuff, minus the insurance, is included, our new worth is almost double the number I generally use. 

[Roboturner]

I usually consider Total Assets - Total Debts for final NW (so house-mortgage, kbb bookprice for cars etc). I don't quantify 'stuff' outside of house and car though, no life insurance policy to worry about either.

What I find more useful, and what I actually pay attention to in my daily life is liquid* assets - debts (which seems to be closer to how you calculate). *investments and cash

And yes, the difference between liquid and total NW is close to double for me as well.

[andy85]

I usually consider Total Assets - Total Debts for final NW (so house-mortgage, kbb bookprice for cars etc). I don't quantify 'stuff' outside of house and car though, no life insurance policy to worry about either.

What I find more useful, and what I actually pay attention to in my daily life is liquid* assets - debts (which seems to be closer to how you calculate). *investments and cash

And yes, the difference between liquid and total NW is close to double for me as well.

pretty much this.

I track my net worth and what i call "available funds"
available funds = cash and all retirement accounts...this will be the source of my funds in retirement
net worth is the above plus home equity and any other worthwhile valuables

[ETBen]

The attorney is looking at NetWorth if you drop dead. You're looking at it as potential cash flow balance.

[2Birds1Stone]

I count all of my investments, bank accounts, and a VERY conservative trade in/private sale value of my vehicles (which I will liquidate for slow travel once FIRE)

[big_owl]

I count cash, investments and precious metals as assets.  I don't feel comfortable counting my house as an asset even though has several 100k worth of equity.  Even when I pay it off I don't think I'll count it.  I also don't count anything like cars or motos as an asset or liability.

[MilesTeg]

I include everything that has at least a $100 resell value and is something I would be willing to part with if I needed to raise funds for something.

Furniture, electronics, musical instruments, vehicles, tools, etc.

This is obviously not an MM approved calculation, but to each his own.

[Tyson]

If someone else wants to know my net worth I include equity in the house.  If I'm looking at my own path to FI I don't include home equity.

[Seppia]

How do you NOT include your home in your net worth?
It's not productive (assuming you live in it), but it definitely is an asset that in the long run is usually a great edge against inflation.
I don't have a home, I prefer to rent, and will probably continue to do so till I approach FIRE.
Then once close to fire I will probably buy a place to
1- lower my living costs
2- extend my safety margin
But
I think you should definitely count your home in your net worth

[big_owl]

How do you NOT include your home in your net worth?
It's not productive (assuming you live in it), but it definitely is an asset that in the long run is usually a great edge against inflation.
I don't have a home, I prefer to rent, and will probably continue to do so till I approach FIRE.
Then once close to fire I will probably buy a place to
1- lower my living costs
2- extend my safety margin
But
I think you should definitely count your home in your net worth

Because if I really needed to sell it for the money then there's no guarantee that I could do so in a reasonable timeframe.  I can always sell stocks or gold...maybe at a loss...but there's no guarantee I could sell my house.  Maybe it's still an asset depending on your own personal definition, but to me it's just a place to live in.  I guess I just don't count things that have an intangible value as an asset.  At least for stocks and cash I know how much they're worth at any given time.  Plus there are a lot of liabilities with a home and extra costs as well.  I'd have to subtract my home insurance, mortgage interest, maintenance...stuff like that.  I think this horse has been beaten to death on the forum though. 

[Rural]

Cash + investments - debt.


My home's not for sale and never will be. Which is why my husband and father designed and built it for aging in place.


There's not one way to do this - some people's homes are investments with an expected cash return, even if the amount of that return is uncertain. Mine returns a reduced level of expenses, up to and including subsistence if we needed it to.

[runningthroughFIRE]

Cash + investments - debts.  I don't own a home, and my car is worth so little that I don't see much point in tracking its worth over time.  All my other posessions might add up to a tidy sum, but I don't see much point in going through the trouble of itemizing them all if I don't intend to sell them. 

The number I really pay attention to is productive assets (investments - debt).  My other assets aren't producing income, and therefore don't alter my projected FI date.  If I buy a house to live in I would keep track of it separately and reduce my $ needed accordingly, but that's on the other side of the equation.

[Northwestie]

My home's not for sale and never will be. Which is why my husband and father designed and built it for aging in place.

Not even when your and spouse are dead?  It's still an asset that will be passed on to family and is a consideration in the Inheritance Tax.

[Franklin]

Never understood the confusion that people have or the re-interpretation of a GAAP hallmark.

Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

If you re-interpret, you must re-name.

[Villanelle]

Never understood the confusion that people have or the re-interpretation of a GAAP hallmark.

Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

If you re-interpret, you must re-name.

If I sat down to think about my net worth, I did include the house.  But several times around here (the travel vs. net worth thread comes to mind), I realized I was using my "retirement assets" number as my net worth.  I suppose that's because this site is so much about retirement, so when I'm here, in this context, that's the number I think of.  Because the real estate we own is in a very high COL (and especially high housing) area, it's a hugely significant part of our net worth, but not part of our retirement assets or anything we would take into account WRT our SWR. (For people who plan on downsizing and/or moving to a cheaper areas, some % of the home value might be part of that, but how that's calculated is going to be an individual decision.)  My impression is that, like me, many people around here use the terms interchangeably, when of course they are not interchangeable. 

[FIREdancer]

If I want to make myself feel extra good, I include all checking and savings accounts, investments, my car, and house (home value - mortgage) in my net worth.

When talking FIRE, I only include the investments that I will live off of in retirement.  This number is more important to me because it is how I can calculate how close I am to FIRE.  So essentially, what is traditionally considered net worth doesn't really mean that much to me.

[runningthroughFIRE]

Never understood the confusion that people have or the re-interpretation of a GAAP hallmark.

Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

If you re-interpret, you must re-name.

We did rename.  The GAAP term is equity.

[rantk81]

I include the following:

Assets:
Bank accounts (checking and savings)
Retirement accounts (HSA, 401K, IRA)
Investment accounts (Brokerage accounts, mutual funds, value of only fully vested stock options and/or RSUs)
Spot price of any precious metals I hold
Liquidation value of real estate (both primary home value, rental properties)  I estimate what I would net after all transaction costs if I were forced to sell in a semi-distressed scenario.
I don't include any other possessions of mine as an asset.  I don't own a car, but if I did, I would probably consider counting it as an asset (very conservatively.)

Liabilities:
Mortgage balance
Credit card balance (yes, it is paid off in full every month, but mid-month there is the current period's balance.)
Deposits from tenants in my rentals
If I had any other loans (I don't, but) I would include student loan debt, personal loans, auto loans, etc.


Then it is simply Assets - Liabilities.

I would never include something like life insurance (unless it was a whole life policy, then I would consider the cashout value.  But I would never have a whole life police anyway.)

[Rural]

My home's not for sale and never will be. Which is why my husband and father designed and built it for aging in place.

Not even when your and spouse are dead?  It's still an asset that will be passed on to family and is a consideration in the Inheritance Tax.

No, then house and land go to either a land trust or straight to the adjoining national forest (no kids).

[Dancin'Dog]

The OP was referring to net worth for the purpose of writing a will.  All assets would be included in a will, so how can a home not be included?

[frugal4lyfe]

I only count

• cash in savings
• investment accounts
• real estate value
• mortgages
• ANY form of debt  **I realize i'm not counting credit cards below**
• HSA balance (I don't use it for health expenses.. pay those out of pocket)

I don't count:

• checking accounts  - aka cash for regular spending/expenses
• credit cards (I pay credit card balance every month) plus i always have more in checking/available than in credit cards so this is a net positive which I am not factoring in
• cash set aside for non-monthly expenses (ex. auto insurance, property insurance, etc)
• Car resale or KBB value
• possessions in general I don't count

[FIREdancer]

The OP was referring to net worth for the purpose of writing a will.  All assets would be included in a will, so how can a home not be included?

Yes, for legal purposes you should count everything including your home and any other properties.

In his post about net worth, MMM says not to include "depreciating consumer stuff, like your cars..." but for a will, I would include all valuable possessions like that as well.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/01/26/calculating-net-worth/

[wenchsenior]

I only count

• cash in savings
• investment accounts
• real estate value
• mortgages
• ANY form of debt  **I realize i'm not counting credit cards below**
• HSA balance (I don't use it for health expenses.. pay those out of pocket)

I don't count:

• checking accounts  - aka cash for regular spending/expenses
• credit cards (I pay credit card balance every month) plus i always have more in checking/available than in credit cards so this is a net positive which I am not factoring in
• cash set aside for non-monthly expenses (ex. auto insurance, property insurance, etc)
• Car resale or KBB value
• possessions in general I don't count

This is how I do it as well. I count anything that I could convert to cash relatively easily to live off of, which is why I count the house (could be converted through sale, reverse mortgage, equity line); but I don't count cars (which I would still need to have to actually drive around, even if was renting). I don't count our life insurance; though I would of course count it if my husband died and I collected on his policy. I don't count possessions except for houses/property, even though I could certainly sell a few things (art, firearms, etc) for some notable cash...but I intend to keep them because I actually plan to USE most of them (e.g., clothes, furniture), and it's too nit picky for me to separate out the ones I could sell in an emergency. I want a rough net worth estimate every month...I don't care about an exact figure.

Re: counting car resale value: I would only count this if I had an especially valuable 'extra' car that was rarely used or was a collector's item. I never plan to have such a car.

[mak1277]

Never understood the confusion that people have or the re-interpretation of a GAAP hallmark.

Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

If you re-interpret, you must re-name.

GAAP allows companies to set a threshold for what gets capitalized as an asset vs. expensed immediately.  I make a similar election, which is why I exclude vehicles and other "small" items from my asset total.

[Terrestrial]

I only count:
-Investment Accounts
-Retirement Accounts
-Private equity
-Cash/Bonds/Cash Equivs.
-Real estate equity (less selling commissions)


I don't count equity in cars at all (nor any other possession that one would deem depreciating or illiquid)...though i would count the debt if it applied.    Never much saw the point in counting cars, though i get the sentiment that they 'could' be sold for cash.  However, they're worth less and less every year and in my book it should never really be a significant % of your NW anyway, I think we are around 0.25% of NW in the value of our autos.  When I buy a car i just consider that cash as spent and a subsequent drop in NW, same as if i was buying toilet paper.  If I happen to recoup some later from selling it then great.

[Spork]

I track 2 numbers related to this:

Net worth:  Assets - Liabilitie
Financial net worth: BankAccts + Stock + Mutual_funds + Precious_metals

In other words: the financial net worth ignores the house, cars, tractor, etc.

I do not in any way use anything payable on death (life insurance, etc) in there.  I don't care.  Not one bit.

The overall net worth just gives me a gauge over time as to how I am doing.  Financial net worth gives me actual FIRE data I use in calculations.  And, of course, all of this is graphed and goes back almost 20 years now.  (Some of it does anyway... If I add new graphs, I don't go back and regenerate data on each date in history to regenerate historical data.)

[BTDretire]

 I'm one that doesn't count my house, Because I can't live off it without a major change. If I need to change the name I'll call it "My Net Worth"


   What I do count,

 Bank balances
 Investment real estate
 HSA account
 Stocks
 Mutual funds
 Our business inventory (at cost)
  I count assets  that I hope will generate my income when I'm not working.

[Rezdent]

I track Net Worth as Assets - liabilities

However, I'm not really all that interested in net worth.
I am very interested in the size of my stash - which only includes investments plus other income streams.  Stash doesn't include house or car or even rental property (but does include net rent income).

[Franklin]

Never understood the confusion that people have or the re-interpretation of a GAAP hallmark.

Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

If you re-interpret, you must re-name.

We did rename.  The GAAP term is equity.

Net Worth, Equity, and Book Value are interchangeable terms used in GAAP standards.  But the definition remains the same.

[Franklin]

Never understood the confusion that people have or the re-interpretation of a GAAP hallmark.

Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

If you re-interpret, you must re-name.

GAAP allows companies to set a threshold for what gets capitalized as an asset vs. expensed immediately.  I make a similar election, which is why I exclude vehicles and other "small" items from my asset total.

GAAP allows for the "valuation" of an asset to be fair and reasonable over the useable life of the asset.  So if you were to expense your vehicle you would be implying that it's useable life is one accounting year.  On the other hand, if you were to deduce that your car would depreciate 20% per year for five years and recognize your equity in the car each year as a part of your net worth, then it's fair to assume you would comply.   

[2lazy2retire]

Anyone who needs pin point accuracy on their net worth should contact a divorce lawyer :)

[Roland of Gilead]

Because if I really needed to sell it for the money then there's no guarantee that I could do so in a reasonable timeframe.  I can always sell stocks or gold...maybe at a loss...but there's no guarantee I could sell my house.  Maybe it's still an asset depending on your own personal definition, but to me it's just a place to live in.  I guess I just don't count things that have an intangible value as an asset.  At least for stocks and cash I know how much they're worth at any given time.  Plus there are a lot of liabilities with a home and extra costs as well.  I'd have to subtract my home insurance, mortgage interest, maintenance...stuff like that.  I think this horse has been beaten to death on the forum though.

You can always sell your house fast.   We listed our house buy owner for about 10% to 15% lower than the market and sold it in one day.

[big_owl]

Because if I really needed to sell it for the money then there's no guarantee that I could do so in a reasonable timeframe.  I can always sell stocks or gold...maybe at a loss...but there's no guarantee I could sell my house.  Maybe it's still an asset depending on your own personal definition, but to me it's just a place to live in.  I guess I just don't count things that have an intangible value as an asset.  At least for stocks and cash I know how much they're worth at any given time.  Plus there are a lot of liabilities with a home and extra costs as well.  I'd have to subtract my home insurance, mortgage interest, maintenance...stuff like that.  I think this horse has been beaten to death on the forum though.

You can always sell your house fast.   We listed our house buy owner for about 10% to 15% lower than the market and sold it in one day.

No you can't, that statement makes no sense.  House down the street about 400m from us has been for sale almost a year now.   Price keeps dropping but no buyers.  It's hardly as liquid as stocks or cash.  And my house is still valued at over 100k less than we bought it for 12yrs ago.  If not for my aggressive repayment schedule (often poo-poo'd in these forums) I'd probably have to come to the table with money even if I wanted to sell just at market rate! 

[Ottawa]

I don't count things in net worth that aren't available NOW.  This includes the following:

- future pension from my employer (at age 60)
This probably seems a little strange.  But, here is the logic.  When we FIRE we will be able to sustain our lifestyle indefinitely.  The addition of pension at age 60 is really just bonus.  I see it as a safety net, and the major 'bond' component of the portfolio.  i.e. because of it we are almost 100% equities.

- future government pensions including CPP from age 60 and OAS from age 65.  One can't know how much these public pensions will be reduced in the future (they most certainly will). 

[Fishindude]

Your net worth is everything that you own minus any debt.

If you own it, it has value and could be sold, then it is part of your net worth.
Technically, that could include items as small as your pots & pans, clothing, etc.

Not including your home, autos or retirement funds gives an inaccurate picture.

[Roland of Gilead]

No you can't, that statement makes no sense.  House down the street about 400m from us has been for sale almost a year now.   Price keeps dropping but no buyers.  It's hardly as liquid as stocks or cash.  And my house is still valued at over 100k less than we bought it for 12yrs ago.  If not for my aggressive repayment schedule (often poo-poo'd in these forums) I'd probably have to come to the table with money even if I wanted to sell just at market rate!

Obviously the house down the street from you is priced at or above the market.  Try selling your Apple stock for $120 right now (since that is what some people paid for it awhile back).   Guess what?  It won't sell at that price.

Recognize that you may not always get the money out of a house that you put in it and you can sell it pretty fast.

[mak1277]

Never understood the confusion that people have or the re-interpretation of a GAAP hallmark.

Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

If you re-interpret, you must re-name.

GAAP allows companies to set a threshold for what gets capitalized as an asset vs. expensed immediately.  I make a similar election, which is why I exclude vehicles and other "small" items from my asset total.

GAAP allows for the "valuation" of an asset to be fair and reasonable over the useable life of the asset.  So if you were to expense your vehicle you would be implying that it's useable life is one accounting year.  On the other hand, if you were to deduce that your car would depreciate 20% per year for five years and recognize your equity in the car each year as a part of your net worth, then it's fair to assume you would comply.

You have a threshold for capitalization.  Most companies don't capitalize/depreciate computer equipment even though it lasts longer than a year.  Most companies don't capitalize/depreciate tools even though they last more than a year.  My threshold for capitalization just happens to be very high.

[zephyr911]

Your net worth is everything that you own minus any debt.

If you own it, it has value and could be sold, then it is part of your net worth.
Technically, that could include items as small as your pots & pans, clothing, etc.

Not including your home, autos or retirement funds gives an inaccurate picture.

Strictly speaking, you are correct, and I have always used a more comprehensive NW, including not just cars, but any personal possessions that are durable and tend to hold value (e.g. guitars, a few collectibles, etc). I don't bother with furniture and clothes because I've never spent good money on them and the resale would be negligible.

Many MMM'ers exclude various assets (especially non-productive ones), primarily for the sake of the 4% rule, and you're right - we're not really talking NW at that point. My $.02: just understand what you're calculating, use an appropriate set of criteria for the purpose, and whenever possible, stay consistent so you don't confuse yourself.
(my favorite is when someone says their NW dropped because they paid off a debt, or rose because they sold a car... just... no...)

[mak1277]

for the sake of the 4% rule

These are the key words.  The only reason I have ever even thought about NW is for the sake of the 4% rule and retirement planning.  What's the purpose otherwise?

[zephyr911]

for the sake of the 4% rule

These are the key words.  The only reason I have ever even thought about NW is for the sake of the 4% rule and retirement planning.  What's the purpose otherwise?

I dunno, braggin' rights? ;)
But seriously, people do track it for other reasons. For my situation, the 4% rule is almost entirely irrelevant - I am taking a phased approach where various income streams turn on and off over time and almost none of them are related to stocks. Even though I will have probably $300K in the market when I FIRE, it's just added safety margin for me, with PT work, rents, and pensions doing the heavy lifting. NW just provides encouragement as a tangible measure of successful investing.

If you're excluding significant items for any reason, you're not tracking NW, you're tracking something else, which is why the wise often differentiate between NW and "investable NW" or just "invested assets", etc.

[desk_jockey]

Never understood the confusion that people have or the re-interpretation of a GAAP hallmark.

Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

If you re-interpret, you must re-name.

We did rename.  The GAAP term is equity.

Net Worth, Equity, and Book Value are interchangeable terms used in GAAP standards.  But the definition remains the same.

I am neither a publicly traded company nor in the process of going through an external audit.  I make no claims of GAAP compliance. So yes I can reinterpret the "net worth" measurement to something that is more meaningful to me while simultaneously not re-naming.  Just like when I listed enough, but not all, of my assets when I applied for a mortgage, I can determine my net worth conservatively without needing to estimate the garage sale value of every asset. 

[HPstache]

Checking & Savings accounts
IRAs & 401Ks
HSA
Precious Metals
Equity in House
Equity in Rental Duplex
All non-project Vehicles

[big_owl]

No you can't, that statement makes no sense.  House down the street about 400m from us has been for sale almost a year now.   Price keeps dropping but no buyers.  It's hardly as liquid as stocks or cash.  And my house is still valued at over 100k less than we bought it for 12yrs ago.  If not for my aggressive repayment schedule (often poo-poo'd in these forums) I'd probably have to come to the table with money even if I wanted to sell just at market rate!

Obviously the house down the street from you is priced at or above the market.  Try selling your Apple stock for $120 right now (since that is what some people paid for it awhile back).   Guess what?  It won't sell at that price.

Recognize that you may not always get the money out of a house that you put in it and you can sell it pretty fast.

Sure if someone sells their house for 50% of the price of their mortgage balance and brings $100k to the table then they can maybe sell it pretty fast (though not guaranteed - forgotten 2008 already?).  So how in the hell would I be getting any money I needed quickly by selling it at a loss?...which was the whole point of my reponse. 

[Villanelle]

I don't count things in net worth that aren't available NOW.  This includes the following:

- future pension from my employer (at age 60)
This probably seems a little strange.  But, here is the logic.  When we FIRE we will be able to sustain our lifestyle indefinitely.  The addition of pension at age 60 is really just bonus.  I see it as a safety net, and the major 'bond' component of the portfolio.  i.e. because of it we are almost 100% equities.

- future government pensions including CPP from age 60 and OAS from age 65.  One can't know how much these public pensions will be reduced in the future (they most certainly will).

I sometimes struggle mentally with how to deal with DH's pension, which is a massive part of our retirement plans.  He doesn't qualify yet, though it's  pretty darn secure. (Military).  Nords (I believe) suggests it kind of be valued mentally as whatever it would cost to purchase an annuity that gave that annual income. If one believe ins the 4% rule, it also makes some sense to simply value it at 25x the pay out.  That makes sense, but it seems disingenuous to add a huge number to my net worth or my 'Stache number.  So I don't really, though I do subtract out the approximate pay out from our annual expenses when look at what we need. 

Like you, are are equity heavy, though Husband isn't entirely comfortable with no bonds, so we are at 10%.  I'm hoping once he crosses the threshold where the pension is a sure thing (3 more years!), we can start letting that % slowly drop by simply not rebalancing and making all future contributions in to equities. 

[Franklin]

Never understood the confusion that people have or the re-interpretation of a GAAP hallmark.

Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

If you re-interpret, you must re-name.

We did rename.  The GAAP term is equity.

Net Worth, Equity, and Book Value are interchangeable terms used in GAAP standards.  But the definition remains the same.

I am neither a publicly traded company nor in the process of going through an external audit.  I make no claims of GAAP compliance. So yes I can reinterpret the "net worth" measurement to something that is more meaningful to me while simultaneously not re-naming.  Just like when I listed enough, but not all, of my assets when I applied for a mortgage, I can determine my net worth conservatively without needing to estimate the garage sale value of every asset.

That's all well and good.  But when your divorce lawyer, estate lawyer, bankruptcy lawyer, IRS, or any other legal entity asks you your net worth...use the GAAP definition.  You'll sound like you know what you're talking about.

[mak1277]

Never understood the confusion that people have or the re-interpretation of a GAAP hallmark.

Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

If you re-interpret, you must re-name.

We did rename.  The GAAP term is equity.

Net Worth, Equity, and Book Value are interchangeable terms used in GAAP standards.  But the definition remains the same.

I am neither a publicly traded company nor in the process of going through an external audit.  I make no claims of GAAP compliance. So yes I can reinterpret the "net worth" measurement to something that is more meaningful to me while simultaneously not re-naming.  Just like when I listed enough, but not all, of my assets when I applied for a mortgage, I can determine my net worth conservatively without needing to estimate the garage sale value of every asset.

That's all well and good.  But when your divorce lawyer, estate lawyer, bankruptcy lawyer, IRS, or any other legal entity asks you your net worth...use the GAAP definition.  You'll sound like you know what you're talking about.

IRS and GAAP are definitely not the same treatment for asset capitalization and depreciation.

[Nords]

I don't count things in net worth that aren't available NOW.  This includes the following:

- future pension from my employer (at age 60)
This probably seems a little strange.  But, here is the logic.  When we FIRE we will be able to sustain our lifestyle indefinitely.  The addition of pension at age 60 is really just bonus.  I see it as a safety net, and the major 'bond' component of the portfolio.  i.e. because of it we are almost 100% equities.

- future government pensions including CPP from age 60 and OAS from age 65.  One can't know how much these public pensions will be reduced in the future (they most certainly will).

I sometimes struggle mentally with how to deal with DH's pension, which is a massive part of our retirement plans.  He doesn't qualify yet, though it's  pretty darn secure. (Military).  Nords (I believe) suggests it kind of be valued mentally as whatever it would cost to purchase an annuity that gave that annual income. If one believe ins the 4% rule, it also makes some sense to simply value it at 25x the pay out.  That makes sense, but it seems disingenuous to add a huge number to my net worth or my 'Stache number.  So I don't really, though I do subtract out the approximate pay out from our annual expenses when look at what we need. 

Like you, are are equity heavy, though Husband isn't entirely comfortable with no bonds, so we are at 10%.  I'm hoping once he crosses the threshold where the pension is a sure thing (3 more years!), we can start letting that % slowly drop by simply not rebalancing and making all future contributions in to equities.

I don't think of a pension as part of our net worth.  (I don't count any income stream as part of our net worth.)  However I intend to be paid one for far longer than I was on active duty!

From an asset-allocation perspective, the military pension could be thought of as the equivalent of a portfolio of gold-plated I bonds.  It's a flawed analogy, but it means that the rest of your investment portfolio should be high in equities.

A military pension is also "annuity longevity insurance" against the failures of the 4% SWR-- similar to Social Security.  No matter how badly you screw up in your investment portfolio, you'll always have that bare-bones deposit every month for the rest of your life.

Nobody should join the military for the pension, and nobody should hang on for the pension.  With a savings rate of at least 40% for 20 years, it's quite possible to achieve financial independence just on investments and without any pensions at all.  But one feature of "cliff vesting" pensions is that they tend to be offered in hazardous occupations like the military, firefighters, or police.  Their experience is in demand, burnout is all too common, and retention is a constant challenge.  As long as the employee is performing satisfactorily, they're unlikely to be laid off.  That high probability of continued employment gives them a huge incentive to have an aggressive asset allocation with a high-equity portfolio.

My spouse and I tried to save at least 50% of our gross income as soon as we could.  That was tough for the first couple years after college, but we made up for it by being on sea duty with limited spending opportunities.  When we started a family we were already banking one paycheck, and we invested our savings in an asset allocation of 100% equities.  As I reached 17 years of service we realized that we were on the cusp of financial independence.  By that point I was at a command I didn't hate, where I worked with good people and had some autonomy.  The assignment officer even sent me a letter promising to leave me at that billet until I retired at 20, so the final three years were a lot more tolerable than the decade before them.

Our investment portfolio gave us a success rate of >80% (Financial Engines claimed 95%) but my pension guaranteed that we'd avoid failure.  My spouse's Reserve pension (which starts in 2022) just means that our investment portfolio only has to last for another six years instead of the rest of our lives.

Our investments have continued to grow faster than our efforts to spend the money, so we're still FI just off that portfolio.  The only assets that we count for our net worth are that investment portfolio and our real estate equity.