What % of assets should be invested in your home

The only thing sadder than your pointless comment is that you actually took the time to write it. You must be a pretty busy guy. Thanks for the value added insight and the board etiquette lesson.

OP: I would also like to know the answer to your question. Also, how much of a morgage to take vs. total net worth.

I bet if you consult a personal finance-related web site you can find the answer, someone like Suze Orman has good advice about this stuff.

Found this

http://lloydsinvestment.blogspot.com/2007/06/should-high-net-worth-individual-take.html

I think this probably depends a lot on stage of life. Early in life, one could comfortably have a much higher percentage of assets invested in a home than would make sense when heading toward retirement.

umm i don't get your point superquant. This blog doesn't tell you anything you wouldn't be able to guess through common sense.

Gates' 66,000 sq. ft. mansion, if valued at $136 million is not enough? At a certain point of wealth, everything is a joke no? Are there even billion dollar homes to buy?

What might be more helpful would be: when did they buy their homes and how long have they held them?
Even then, that doesn't tell you much.

Just because 40% of average American family's assets are tied up in their homes doesn't mean it's optimal, or if it's an issue at all.

I agree with JohnDoe & aifamm, it probably depends on what stage you are in life. Some personal financial experts advise you to own your home outright, pay off your mortgage asap so you don't have to worry when you retire. By that point the market value only matters for estate planning purposes, when you sell or if you decide to take out a home equity loan.

uptowngal - for purposes of this discussion lets assume that retirement is 20 years out as I think that probably reflects a broad cross section of those on this board. Also lets restrict things to NYC real estate.

superquant, i don't think anyone can tell you that (or you should question the validity if that if they do). If you don't own a place now, imho you should be setting aside/allocating some money for your housing alone... or at least that's what I would do.

Speaking of which, I actually do think Manhattan would be a great place to retire with a doorman, cabs, lots of things in walking distance.

aifamm - understood. I guess i was looking for guidance from others that have purchased in manhattan in recent years. I've got the money set aside but having recently relocated i dont know what is 'normal'. Given the much higher price points in this city for housing it would seem intuitive that a much higher proportion of one's assets would be invested in their homes. To be specific, if somebody has $2M in liquid assets, would it be more typical to invest 1.5M in their home or 0.5M?

superquant, can you clarify why you're asking - is it because you want to know what might be considered finanicially prudent or just taking a survey to validate a decision? Two different questions.

Also, what do you mean by 'investing in a home' - purchasing a home or making improvements or both? Or the market value of your home? And does this include home decorating? I think again it all depends on your situation. Maybe there's a survey out there.

a few years ago it was easy; borrow as much as possible and use as little of your own money as possible; our place doubled and possibly tripled in value; essentially we used someone elses money (and a lot of it) for a great investment for something that we use daily and love; even if prices increase at the historical rate of around 6%, being able to write off mortgage interest to 1M is a substantial benefit; if you are one of those slick investment folks (and there are a lot of those around) you can probably make more keeping and investing your money than you are paying in order to borrow since rates are still fairly low.

my vote: borrow as much as possible up to 1M to maximize tax benefit

as a disclaimer, we are overpaying our mortgage (fixed 30 year) to end in 21 or 22 years