That seems to be how it works out if you count the individual's federal bond holdings as a asset, but don't count the taxes that will have to be levied to pay them back as a liability. You get an artificially inflated picture of private net worth.
That's part of the problem (just figured it all out) but we're talking about 'net-worth', it's total assets that someone or some group has minus the total debts of that same 'one' or 'group'. The topic here is the total net worth of all private individuals in the U.S., which right now happens to be $97T in assets minus $14T in debts = $83T which is an all time high only because the $'s are worth less and the the number of individuals is also at an all time high.
We decided to include the national debt in the private net worth. If we do that then it's no longer 'private' but rather 'private plus 'national government', and if we've decided to talk about a total net worth for some kind of "private-individual-plus-federal-gov't combo" then we're supposed to be subtracting private plus national debts from the private plus national assets.
In other words, if you say that I personally owe $40K --my share of the national debt-- then I get to have my share of the national assets too. I get to have 4 acres of federal land (I'm picking the federal building in Manhattan plus 3 plus acres of oil fields in Alaska) along with my 900 oz. of gold from Fort Knox and...
Bottom line here is the reason most business and economist types don't mix national debt into private net worth is because you have to cross through Fantasyland to get there.