How to measure the cost/value of an Asset in the Financial Statement
I suggest that you use your own judgement on this. You can assign a reasonable percentage since it is impossible to monitor the hours using those assets. Example: 40 personal and 60 for business. It's really your call. I also suggest that you should be conservative on valuing the assets. Record the assets at it's lowest value. This is one of the most difficult scenarios in making your own financial statements. You can also use this approach, i will record the assets at its original cost then use a higher depreciation rate or double declining method of depreciation. If the assets have a depreciation rate of 20% per year (useful life of 5 years), i will make it 30%. the other 10% will add more expense and helps you not to overstate your Financial Statement. You can also use the residual value of the asset, but if you do this, you should figure out the reliable amount. I understand that this is not for tax reporting purposes. Therefore, there's no harm if you overstate your Financial statement. And even if you overstate, you can still adjust the cost of the asset. Along the way (in the middle of the year or year end), you will figure out the cost of the asset if it's over valued once the financial statement is done. Does the friend fix your electrical wiring and the engine of your car? If you need a professional advice - ask a professional. In this case - an accountant (not necessarily a CPA, but at least an experienced bookkeeper). Financial Statements (official documents, that is) must be signed by a public accountant (CPA in the US) or the principle (you). I wouldn't take chances and would definitely have an accountant do that. You need to consider the asset useful life, and the depreciation. The fact that you use it for non-business purposes may be recorded in various ways. One that comes to mind is accounting as a supplement for depreciation: You depreciate the percentage that is used for business, and record as a distribution to owner the rest (which is accounting for the personal use). This way it would also match the tax reporting (in the US, at least). Bottom line: if you're preparing an official financial statement (that you're going to submit to anyone other than yourself) - get a professional advice.
"Matt explains the study numbers in his answer, but those are the valuation of the brand, not the value of the company or how ""rich"" the company is.   Presuming that you're asking the value of the company, the usual way for a publicly traded company to be valued is by the market capitalization (1).  Market capitalization is a fairly simple measure, basically the total value of all the shares of stock in that company. You can find the market cap for any publicly traded company on any of the usual finance sites like Google Finance or Yahoo Finance. If by rich you mean the total value of assets (assets being all property, including cash, real property, equipment, and licenses) a company owns, that information is included in a publicly traded company's quarterly SEC filing and investor releases, but isn't usually listed on the popular finance sites. An example can be seen at Duke Energy's Investor Relation Site (the same information can be found for all companies on EDGAR, the SEC's search tool).  If you open the most recent 8-K (quarterly filing), and go to page 8, you can see that they have $33B+ in assets, and a high level breakdown of those. Note that the numbers are given in millions of dollars For a privately held company this information may or may not be available and you'd have to track it down if it is available. I picked Duke Energy because it's the first thing that popped into my mind.  I have no affiliation with Duke, and I don't directly own any of their stock." "This is really two questions about yield and contents. Content As others have noted, an annuity is a contractual obligation, not a portfolio contained within an investment product per se. The primary difference between whether an annuity is fixed or variable is what the issuer is guaranteeing and how much risk/reward you are sharing in. Generally speaking, the holdings of an issuer are influenced by the average ""duration"" of the payments. However, you can ascertain the assets that ""back"" that promise by looking at, for example, the holdings of a large insurance or securities firm. That is why issuers are generally rated as to their financial strength and ability to meet their obligations. A number of the market failures you mentioned were in part caused by the failure of these ratings to represent the true financial strength of the firm. Yield As to the second question of how they can offer a competitive rate, there are at least several reasons (I am assuming an immediate annuity) : 1) Return/Depletion of Principal The 7% you are being quoted is the percent of your principal that will be returned to you each year, not the rate of return being earned by the issuer. If you invest $100 in the market personally and get a 5% return, you have $105.  However, the annuity's issuer is also returning part of your principal to you each year in your payment, as they don't return your principal when you eventually die. Because of this, they can offer you more each year than they really make in the market. What makes a Ponzi scheme different is that they are also paying out your principal (usually to others), but lie to you by telling you it's still in your account. :) 2) The Time Value of Money A promise to pay you $500 tomorrow costs less than $500 today A fixed annuity promises to pay you a certain amount of money each year. This can be represented as a rate of return calculated based on how much you have to pay to get that annual payment, but it is important to remember that the first payment will be worth substantially more in real purchasing power than the last payment you get. The longer you live, the less your fixed payment is worth in real terms due to inflation! In short, the rate of return has to be discounted for inflation, it is not a ""real"" rate of return. In other words, if you give me $500 today and I promise to pay you $100 for the next 5 years, I am making money not only because I can invest the money between now and then, but also because $100 will be worth less five years from now than it is today. With annuities, if you want your payment to rise in step with inflation, you have to pay more for that (a LOT more!). These are the two main reasons - here are a few smaller ones: 3) A very long Time Horizon If the stock market or another asset class is performing well/poorly, the issuer can often afford to wait much longer to buy or sell than an individual, and can take better advantage of historical highs and lows over the long term. 4) ""Big Boy"" investing A large, financially sound issuer can afford to take risks that an individual cannot, such as in very large or illiquid assets, such as a private company (a la Warren Buffet). 5) Efficiencies of scale Institutional investors have a number of legal advantages over individuals, which I won't discuss in detail here. However, they exist. Large issuers are also often in related business (insurance, mutual funds) such that they can deal in large volumes and form an internal clearinghouse (i.e. if I want to buy Facebook and you want to sell it, they can just move the stock around without doing any trading), with the result that their costs of trading are lower than those of an individual. Hope that helps!" "This sounds like a FATCA issue.  I will attempt to explain, but please confirm with your own research, as I am not a FATCA expert. If a foreign institution has made a policy decision not to accept US customers because of the Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) obligations under FATCA, then that will of course exclude you even if you are resident outside the US.  The US government asserts the principle of universal tax jurisdiction over its citizens.  The institution may have a publicly available FATCA policy statement or otherwise be covered in a new story, so you can confirm this is what has happened.  Failing that, I would follow up and ask for clarification. You may be able to find an institution that accepts US citizens as investors.  This requires some research, maybe some legwork. Renunciation of your citizenship is the most certain way to circumvent this issue, if you are prepared to take such a drastic step.  Such a step would require thought and planning.  Note that there would be an expatriation tax (""exit tax"") that deems a disposition of all your assets (mark to market for all your assets) under IRC § 877. A less direct but far less extreme measure would be to use an intermediary, either one that has access or a foreign entity (i.e. non-US entity) that can gain access.  A Non-Financial Foreign Entity (NFFE) is itself subject to withholding rules of FATCA, so it must withhold payments to you and any other US persons.  But the investing institutions will not become FFIs by paying an NFFE; the obligation rests on the FFI. PWC Australia has a nice little writeup that explains some of the key terms and concepts of FATCA. Of course, the simplest solution is probably to use US institutions, where possible.  Non-foreign entities do not have foreign obligations under FATCA." I'd agree, inflation affects the value of the dollar you measure anything in. So, it makes your debt fade away at the same rate it eats away at dollar denominated assets. I'd suggest that one should also look at the tax effect of the debt or assets as well.  For example, my 3.5% mortgage costs me 2.625% after tax. But a 4% long term cap gain in stocks, costs me .6% in tax for a net 3.4%. It helps to put the numbers in terms of an asset. Say a bottle of wine costs 10 dollars, but the price rises to 20 dollars a year later. The price has risen 100%, and your dollars have lost value. Whereas your ten used to be worth 100% of the price of bottle of wine, they now are worth 50% of the risen price of a bottle of wine so they've lost around 50% of their value. Divide the old price by the new inflated price to measure proportionally how much the old price is of the new price. 10 divided by 20 is 1/2 or .50 or 50%. You can then subtract the old price from the new in proportional terms to find how much value you've lost. 1 minus 1/2 or 1.00 minus .50 or 100% minus 50%. "The best place to start looking is the companies ""Balance Sheet"" (B/S).  This would show you the total shares ""outstanding."" The quarterly B/S's arent audited but a good starting point.  To use in any quant method, You also need to look a growth the outstanding shares number. Company can issue shares to any employee without making a filing.  Also, YOU will NEVER know exactly the total number because of stock options that are issued to employees that are out of the money arent account for. Some companies account for these, some dont.  You should also explore the concepts of ""fully dilute"" shares and ""basis"" shares. These concepts will throw-off your calc if the company has convertible bonds." "Asset = Equity + (Income - Expense) + Liability Everything could be cancelled out in double entry accounting.  By your logic, if the owner contributes capital as asset, Equity is ""very similar"" to Asset.  You will end up cancelling everything, i.e. 0 = 0.  You do not understate liability by cancelling them with asset.  Say you have $10000 debtors and $10000 creditors. You do not say Net Debtors = $0 on the balance sheet.  You are challenging the fundamental concepts of accounting.  Certain accounts are contra accounts. For example, Accumulated Depreciation is Contra-Asset. Retained Loss and Unrealized Revaluation Loss is Contra-Equity." "My opinion: including the value of depreciating property one owns in a net worth calculation is silly - but could be interesting You don't expect your TV or laptop to gain value.  Instead, you expect them to decrease in value every year until you replace them.  Anything you expect to hold or increase in value (art, a house, etc) is a different story. If you'd like to really get anal about this, you can track your net worth like a business would track its balance sheet.  I'm not going to go into detail, but the general idea is that when you purchase an item, you debit the cost from ""cash"" and add the value paid to ""assets"" (so your net worth doesn't change when you make a purchase).   You then depreciate the value of the item under ""assets"" according to a depreciation schedule.  If you plan on replacing your laptop every three years, you might subtract 33% of the value every year.   This could be an interesting exercise (i.e. even if you make money, your net worth may decrease because of all the depreciating junk you own), but my hunch is that it wouldn't be worth the effort it requires."