Thank you for sharing your opinion Nick. As much as I disagree with you, I enjoy a good debate :).

The first hint as to why I don't agree is in your second sentence, "A house is an asset only if you can treat it as [a] liquid asset."

You are correct that a house is not a *liquid* asset, but that does not mean it is not an asset at all. For example, if I own a minority share in a closely held business, that is clearly an asset, even if it isn't liquid because e.g. I might need to get the majority owner's permission to sell.

This is why we have assets that are liquid and other assets that are illiquid. If you own your primary residence, it is an illiquid asset.

If I own my home and it has a lien against it (a.k.a. the mortgage), and I approach a bank to get a signature loan, that bank would be very unlikely to give me much if any credit for the home as an asset. However, this is because they can't force me to sell it to repay the signature loan, and if I did choose to sell it, the cash I free up monthly from not having to make a mortgage payment would be eaten up (and then some) by having to pay rent on an alternate housing solution.

The fact that a lender would be unlikely to count my home as an asset when considering how credit-worthy I may be does not stop it from being an asset altogether. It just means that it's not a helpful helpful *for that specific purpose*.