Tom Selleck begs to differ.

Joe

That information comes from my financial advisor. I have no reason to doubt him. His information sounds correct and logical to me. If you disagree, your choice.I was just stating the possible reason the OP did not include a personal home when determining a millionaire status. ( exactly like my financial advisor does not include it on his statements)

Maybe a better indicator would be liquid assets.

If you abide by the 4% rule your house is not included.

If he is only considering assets that will yield you a return each year would understand his reasoning just not his terminology.

I'll take that one step further. Even though I assume that most people in TV have some money, virtually no one flaunts it (like they would in Miami or Naples), which makes most everyone down-to-earth and likeable.

We have met a few who insists on how much they spend on all kinds of things in order to impress us with their wealth.

The secret to living as a millionaire on non millionaire money, is go to places where what you have, gives you millionaire lifestyle and/or value for your money.
Wife and I retired 27 years ago, and up until the Covid restrictions, never spent a winter in UK.
We overwintered in South Africa for several years where our pound was very strong against the Rand, until security became the big problem.
New Zealand was financially beneficial, and a really super place.
Especially if you like throwing yourself off cliffs and bridges with an elastic band round your leg. Believe me, Kiwis are nuts!
Traveling was the drawback that stopped us continuing there
24 hour flights soon lost their appeal.
Finally in about 1999 we discovered The Villages, and wintered there, and until Covid, the place was very good value for money.
After Covid it was crazy price time, and no longer value as far a we were concerned.
We travel in our trusty old car around Europe now when we can, and some of the old Eastern Block countries are good value, very scenic, and so rich in history.
Our retirement years have been spent as Budget Millionaires.
And we ain't done yet!

I was wondring what the formula was to arrive at a million dollars. All assets, RE, bank accounts, retirement accoun, coin collections or the like that actually have a value. cars? seems to me a million isn't a real difficult number to arrive at.

"Start living like a millionaire on your retirement budget." The Villages TV Commercial for Golf Free For Life - iSpot.tv

"Having had a hand in showbiz, Harold also understood the importance of making your guests feel like stars. “Live like a millionaire on a retirement budget” was not just a slogan used in advertisements, Harold’s actions embodied the quote."

From: Harold Schwartz: From Border Radio to The Villages

I don't know why a house wouldn't be included in one's net worth. I'd rather have $2M in IRAs, and own a $500K home, than have $2M in IRAs and have to pay rent with no equity in a home.

Now, why would that be?
While calculating how much of a draw I felt comfortable taking out my $2M IRA, I would ignore the home value if I could, but I'd still be comforted to know I had it. While I may not use the funds for day-to-day living expenses, while calculating what that draw could be, and realizing that a reasonable amount of unpredictability exists regarding end-of-life expenses, I would make some allowance for the fact that should I need assisted living, or some other medical expenses, if I needed to sell the home, I'd have some cash to meet those expenses.

Charles D. Ellis argues that the equity in one's home is akin to a bond, one of the legs of the retirement stool. If necessary in the future the home can be sold and funds used for independent or assisted living costs. Here he is on 'Wealthtrack'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrhITGB8EYU

Depends on how you invest your money. IRA's and homes I can understand the comfort. But, I also see owning a profitable business or similar takes away the need for such comforts.

Also most people who live here, bought their retirement home with the proceeds from their previous home. Which means most people here were homeowners, not renters, before they came here. So their current social security checks and pensions are enough to live off of, since they don't have mortgages to deal with.

That's the thing here - as long as you pay in full for your house in The Villages, and don't have to rely on a mortgage, your wealth isn't really all that important. Your income doesn't have to be high. You can live VERY well on $3000/month combined income with two people in the home, including social security and pensions.

I'm not sure if that is completely accurate that most people bought with the proceeds of their previous home. In the South of 44 areas it feels like more the exception than the rule. I feel confident that more than 50% of the owners in the newer areas of TV that it's not their only home. Plenty of snowbirds, snowflakes, people buying a few years before retirement, etc.