r2i forum

if you are in the US and planning to R2I or not R2I, do you count your India non-liquid/liquid assets as part of you net-worth ?? For the purpose of retirement. I guess it makes sense to count if you are R2I. So lets just assume no R2I.

Ratio US:IND. So Yes/No ?, Why and why not ??

And what % of your asset is in India vs US ??. Can you guys share ?? ( just % not actual $$ ofcourse..)

Planning to R2I in 3 years and my ratio is 30:70.

My Indian liquid assets are nearly a rounding error, so I don't count them. In fact, I rarely pay attention except to check if I'm reaching FATCA limits.

Sorry, I meant to say liquid and non-liquid..

deccanchargers;684303if you are in the US and planning to R2I or not R2I, do you count your India non-liquid/liquid assets as part of you net-worth ?? For the purpose of retirement. I guess it makes sense to count if you are R2I. So lets just assume no R2I.

Ratio US:IND. So Yes/No ?, Why and why not ??

And what % of your asset is in India vs US ??. Can you guys share ?? ( just % not actual $$ ofcourse..)

Planning to R2I in 3 years and my ratio is 30:70.

If you are planning for retirement, net worth is one of the key pieces of data. Net worth is assets minus liabilities. Indian assets ARE ASSETS and hence part of your net worth. Should you choose to ignore them that is your personal choice, but assets anywhere in the world are part of your net worth and are taken into account in a sound financial plan. Whether others count them as part of their net worth or not should not be material to you. You should do what is financially sound and not what some forum members might do.

Of course, I consider everything that has monetary value, as part of my networth. Except for my wife's gold. I have never considered it.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

Desi;684308If you are planning for retirement, net worth is one of the key pieces of data. Net worth is assets minus liabilities. Indian assets ARE ASSETS and hence part of your net worth. Should you choose to ignore them that is your personal choice, but assets anywhere in the world are part of your net worth and are taken into account in a sound financial plan. Whether others count them as part of their net worth or not should not be material to you. You should do what is financially sound and not what some forum members might do.

Same way I see people don't consider primary home as an asset when planning for retirement.

realgoogler;684315Same way I see people don't consider primary home as an asset when planning for retirement.

I consider it as part of networth. The alternative is to allocate sufficient amount for paying rent. Let's say your primary home is worth 10Crs v/s another person whose house is 1Cr. You could sell your house and downgrade to a 1Cr house. So I would consider everything that can be monetized as part of networth.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

wd40;684316I consider it as part of networth. The alternative is to allocate sufficient amount for paying rent. Let's say your primary home is worth 10Crs v/s another person whose house is 1Cr. You could sell your house and downgrade to a 1Cr house. So I would consider everything that can be monetized as part of networth.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

Even if you didn't sell the house you could rent the 10cr house and get its equivalent rent and you could rent a 1cr house in a cheaper locality as part of retirement planning.
Also paid off house does not mean you don't have any housing cost.

Its a difficult question to answer. If its an ancestral property with 18 stakeholders scattered across the globe then of course it cannot be an asset immaterial of its market value. 18 stakeholders would rather die in poverty than selling the property and distribute the benefits of stupidity of their ancestors.

Such houses are yours if you choose to live in them as nobody wants to live in those dilapidated and decrepit houses with toilet a good walk from sleeping quarters. But selling them is impossible. There are other kinds of properties that are earmarked for donation and so cannot be considered as part of the networth. Some properties have parents and aunts living in them and so it is part of the networth of the residents of the house (until they die) not of the (assumed) inheritors. Additionally, there are a lot of properties that are owned by immortals. These immortals intend to occupy them decade after their bodies are dead.

In short, if it impossible to sell the house (due to mental, physical, supernatural reasons), it cannot be considered as an asset. The house you occupy is definitely a part of your networth...it may not be an invest-able asset but asset neverthless. If you stop considering own house (or equity therein) as a part of the networth, most NRIs will look very very poor.
----------------
As far as liquid assets are concerned, only reason it cannot be included in total networth is probably because its stolen stuff or earned by foul means.
---------------
Having said that, its for an individual to decide what they want to think as owned by themselves. There are people who consider their own body as not their own.
-------------------
If I was as rich as Mukesh Ambani, my networth would have been more than Mukesh bhai. As I get two sacks of rice every year from my brother-in-law.

realgoogler;684317
Also paid off house does not mean you don't have any housing cost.

in India, it's probably not that much for independent houses ? Maybe a chowkidar/servant (or a mali), water/elec, occasional repairs, low muni taxes. Most people in India don't even have homeowner's insurance.

It's much worse in the US. My number one expense is property taxes (even more than food).