I thought that calculating one's net worth would be pretty simple. Add up the value of your assets and subtract your liabilities (debts) to arrive at your net worth. Having looked through a few blogs, however, I see that the definition is neither simple nor consistent. I've seen one guy who has listed over $50k in automobiles and the value of jewelry as "assets". On the other hand, I was recently reading a book (Getting Loaded by Peter Bielagus) where in calculating net worth, the author deliberately excludes things such as cars and other depreciable assets from the calculation.
I agree with the latter formula. I don't include what I would call non-financial assets as part of my net worth. I wouldn't consider stamp and coin collections, or jewelry to be financial assets. The reality is that while these items do have value, it is not as if I would be willing to sell any of them, or that I would rely on them for income. Similarly, I don't consider my primary residence an asset for the purpose of calculating net worth. In fact, I've seen a few questionnaires (that brokerage houses use to determine the suitability of certain investments) that specifically ask for net worth excluding one's primary residence.
Getting back to the question of net worth, I suppose that if one would exclude the value of their home from the calculation, then one could also exclude their primary mortgage (but not their second mortgage since that is not usually used to finance the house, but other consumer items instead) from their liabilities. Why do people try to inflate their net worth by including miscellaneous non-financial assets? My guess is that is like the game people play with inflating their resumes when applying for a job. You may be able to fool other people into thinking that your net worth is more than it is, but just be certain you aren't just fooling yourself.