You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

MartinB comments on I want to save myself - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: DanArmak 20 May 2011 10:27AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (61)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MartinB 09 July 2011 09:55:43AM 0 points [-]

No. With decent assent management you can oversee the time delay to access each of the items you own. Cash is good, but not all the reserve needs to be in cash. In a country with a good capital market you can borrow against your house. In severe case where you are unable to acquire income for month that is a decent thing to do. I find it strange to just ignore the biggest asset one owns completely.

Of course this only makes sense if the house/appartment is actually paid for. If you still have a mortgage on it then the house is worth about (house - mortgage - transaction costs) for your reserve.

Comment author: gjm 09 July 2011 08:56:20PM 1 point [-]

Yes, since you can borrow with your house as collateral its emergency value (so to speak) isn't zero, but it also doesn't equal its sale value. So the right thing would be something between "net worth" and "net worth not counting primary residence". (Other illiquid assets also need treating specially, for the same reasons.)