"This rests on the assumption that virginity as an asset is equivalent to houses/property as an asset.

Is virginity as an asset equivalent to houses/property as an asset?
Purchasing houses/property can carry a great deal of risk. If one does so in poor judgement it could lead to financial ruin, which may be very hard to recover from. On the other hand, loss of virginity may not be as catastrophic."

"Could lead", but "may not be as catastrophic". Note that these two contrasting statements are actually equivalent.

Someone who purchases a house may suffer financial ruin. Or she may actually make a good investment. If she does so in poor judgement, financial ruin is more likely, but still just "could lead". Someone who purchases a house in poor judgement may still make a good investment not because of her own good judgment but because of blind market luck, or because the seller is well disposed and chooses to not exploit her ignorance.

And, for example, a pregnancy that does not lead to a good marriage is a quick and obvious way to a social and financial ruin, which may be very hard to recover from.

" P1 requires that men can tell whether a female is a virgin or not. Firstly, men do not have a virginity detector. Even if men knew how to inspect the hymen, they are certainly not going to do this. I consider that the only method by which a female’s sexual reliability can be assessed is not by so stark a means as a judgement about virginity/non-virginity, but by observation of behaviour. If a girl is sending obvious signals that she is “easy” and fucks around a lot or, for lack of a better word, is a “slut” then men can assess her reliability. However, a female that has had her fair share of dickings but tells not a soul (and behaves like a Mormon), will not send any signals of sexual unreliability. The whole argument requires that men can perceive a woman's sexual reliability. If they cannot, then it falls apart. Since virginity/sexual unreliability cannot (or will not) be assessed, it is not therefore guaranteed or even likely to be a serious impediment to a female’s mate value. Consequently, virginity as an asset is not equivalent to houses/property as an asset."

Virginity as such is one indicator inconvenient for a man to check. However, the sexual unreliability will be assessed, by a number of softer signs.
It is not just the girl herself who tells about her virginity loss, but also the boys in question, as well as outside witnesses who observe her movements and conduct and gossip about it (orally or in writing).
Child pornography is harmful as sign of sexual unreliability. It does not always prove virginity loss... a girl on video riding a willy seen to go in her vagina is proven not a virgin, but a girl on video sucking the willy might never have let any in her vagina. Both are signs of sexual unreliability, though. As is a photo of the girl posing in her underwear with no male in sight... just the fact that she would make a photo in her underwear is a sign of sexual unreliability.

However, a problem with this is, how precisely do you appraise the damage done to a girl´s market value by various weaker and stronger signs of sexual unreliability? Who would a prospective 14 year old boyfriend be more inclined to trust: a 14 year old girl who has previously had intercourse with 4 different 14 year old boys, or a 14 year old girl who has previously had intercourse with 1 40 year old man?