I guess it all depends upon the situation and perspective. The answer is no from an asset management industry standpoint (e.g., private bankers, discretionary and advisory brokers, etc.). The key client measure is Investable Assets, which excludes money tied-up in a primary residence. To get into a decent private bank or high end broker, you have to be a High Net Worth Individual, which is someone with > $1MM in Investable Assets.

However, I think that the IRS does consider the primary residence to be part of net worth for the purposes of estate tax calculation as well as the courts (e.g., divorce settlememts)

I agree with FormerSD.

I liked this sentence from the initial post:
It is no surprise that the couples that needed the equity in their home to qualify said yes and the rest said no.

This is addressed somewhat in the KPBS thread, when interviewing Case. Apparently, when home values rise, people spend more money. We are all aware of this on Piggington, but what I didn’t know was that when values are on their way down, spending does not diminish.

So, I guess I answered my own question in the Fashion Valley thread: people are spending because psychologically they still think they are wealthy. And to some extent they are. I mean, the worst is yet to come, no?

Your net worth is your total assets less liablities. If you have $1m in cash today you are a millionaire. However, the statement that if you buy a house tomorrow for $1m in cash, you are no longer a millionaire, seems a little ambiguous.

The flip side is, if you include a property, should you include your cars, antiques, pictures, jewelry? If you exclude your main residence, do you exclude your holiday home that you rent out and that you bought as an investment/second home. Some people buy pictures, antiques and jewelry as items that they make use of, but that can be liquidated in times of need, and hopefully at a profit.

It really boils down to who wants to know, your bank, your buddy, or the local friendly burglar.