I agreed on FI, but not RE.

FI is a good goal to set upon, so that one can escape the rat race.

RE - it sounds glamour for younger generation.

Why it sounds glamour? Because we (or majority youngster) are in rat race, need to work long hours, little time and money to pursuit personal interest due to work commitment etc.
But once you get older enough and accumulate decent wealth aka FI, then the mindset might be change completely.

It is just like 20~30 years ago, eating outside like having dinner at fast food chain, seems like luxury, sound glamour, many people/kids are happy can get a meal at there.

But 30 years later, when majority people earning power increased, then taking fast food everyday is seemed become a non-healthy life by some.

So the view can change, so does on the RE issue.

So work on FI, and forget about RE.

You can't be RE when you don't have FI. Only think on RE when the time arrived.
Personally, I think RE is a bad concept to be introduced especially to youngster. More often I see RE being used/exploited in marketing tool to lure people into something vested interest purpose only.

More effort should be on FI, how to work towards it.

A lot of time, I see FIRE being used/exploited thoroughly (like selling "dream) in MLMs, or something try to lure investors or recruitment purposes, instead talking about how to achieve FI, or proper personal financial planning.

Property or asset should be valued at market price to show the real truth and situation.

A property that bought 100k ago, now worth 1 mil.
The rental income is 10k pa.

One can "syiok sendiri" by saying, the property generate 10% return.

But in actual fact, the property only yield 1%, a bad yield.
As if sell off the property at 1 mil and put in FD at 4%, the return would be 40K pa.

Same when property bought at high price.
Bought at 1 mil, but if now worth 700k,
One should view the property net worth is 700k or instead "syiok sendiri" again say the property worth 1 mil?

Yes, those are unrealised gain or net worth until one sells it off, but unrealised worth at market price, is the real worth one is having now.
That's why in accounting, we have unrealised gain vs realised gain difference.

Same with other assets, be it stock, unit trust or whatever, a yield should be justified based on current worth, to show the actual truth situation, so that one can make good decision on it.

Yes,
Stock, reit also the same, and should be judged based on its current yield based on current price.

eg.
Bought a stock at 1.00, now is 2.00, it gives dividend 10 cents pa.
It should be viewed as 5% yield, instead 10%.

And decision to sell or buy from now on, should be based on the 5%, as it is the real yield.

As if the share price goes up to 4.00, and still gives 10 cents pa.
One may consider to sell it, as it no longer a good yielding stock, as it is only 2.5% yield, no longer a 10% yield (syiok sendiri approach)
Sell at 4.00, put in FD 4%, you get 16 cents, instead of 10 cents dividend. So FD yield is better than stock yield already.

But if one uses 10% (syiok sendiri) approach, it is masking the real situation.
A so called 10% yield return (10 cents) worst than 4% FD (16 cents)

Freelance is a good step ladder to become own boss.
Many become own boss through this way as well.

While too focus on freelance job may jeopardize one job career path (climb up the ladder within the company as employed)

No right or wrong in between, it is personal choice, as sometimes, climbing up the ladder involves a lot of office politics as well.
A lot of time, not the best or better person get promoted. I guess many get what I mean.

Not mean to encourage or discourage which way one should go.

Yes, an open mind indeed is essential in learning path in any financial planning/career.

If net worth including car, and home, then it is not good yield stick to determine FI.

It is ability to generate passive income from the gross/net worth which is more important that determine the FI.
Eg.
A lives in a house that worth 5.5 mil, but has nothing else, A net worth is 5.5 mil. But has zero passive income, A is not FI at this point, until A liquidates the house.

B lives in 500k house, and has other investment/asset worth 5 mil that generates 5% average or 250K pa passive income, B is FI.

Cash money is needed for paying daily expenses, not net worth.
Don't be surprise this cashflow management 101 that even some big corporate, listed company failed to do so.

6% consistent passive income is not a figure easy to achieve.
Also, there is no guaranteed that EPF payout will be 6% as well.

EPF shouldn't be taken into consideration for FI at the moment, as you can't touch those money until reach retirement age.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Aug 15 2018, 09:30 AM

Not aware of this, thanks for the head up.

There is no standard answer for such question " how much is enough".

I had seen how a person that earn Rm2k per month manage to raise a family.
I also had seen how a professional who earned Rm20K+ per month, needed to borrow heavy and "run away".

Some even earn billion, still live in basic way.
While some even just a few thousand, but always want to buy a 5K worth of smart phone.

It is down to the person spending habit and individual behaviour.
We can talk until cow come home, also won't have any conclusion how much is enough. Mainly because we don't know when we will die (don't need money anymore... )

There is needless when achieve FI, then must retire already.

The newly implemented AEOI under CRS, means every participant country has greater access to overseas info.

FI /= debt paid off.

FI = There is stream of passive income that can sustain your monthly/yearly expenses.

It is good to see good habit to save as much, but those saved money, you need to find a way to "grow" them, instead leaving it as "saving".

Those saving needs to fight off against inflation, and potential future commitment, like married, having family etc.

Most people life style won't stay the same forever, it changes according to ages, environment.

The key for FI, is how to grow the passive income, and grow your saved money.

You may be 26 now, and by the time you are 46, your "view" may not the same anymore, as well as when you reached 66 time.

I agreed.
That's why since beginning of this thread, I am more into FI instead of FIRE.

FI - we can have lot of discussion, brainstorming about financial issue.

RE - It is personal decision and choice, nothing much to discuss. Argue until cow come home also no use, as each individual life style preference is different.

Personally, I am not agree with medical coverage until 100.
Insurance is not free lunch, when it needs to cover until 100, then premium becomes very much higher already.
As we know COI for medical beyond 70/80 is extremely expensive, can up to 5 digit pa.

Also, at current low interest rate environment (which likely to persist for years or decade), it become a big challenge for fund to achieve good return rate like previous few years or decades to compensate the ILP rising COI.

When insurance premium of COI for ILP is much higher, means that FIRE is much difficult to achieve.

Average lifespan is about 70~80, I see no reason to cover until 100.
Somemore, beyond 80, if indeed major surgery and need to use medical insurance, sometimes our body may not able to cope with it. It can be suffering at that age.

One needs not to be debt free to be FI, quite correct.

Take a scenario, both with 1 mil net worth

A: 1 mil debt with 2 mil cash on hand.
vs
B: debt free with 1 mil cash on hand.

Technically and mathematically, they are the same.

But for A situation, most people generally may become more adventurous and take more risk in investment as having 2 mil compared to 1 mil.

Not debt free proponent A - those money instead being used to settle the loan and debt free, it is better to use the money to invest elsewhere, expand business to generate more return etc especially with low loan interest rate.

Eg.
Instead of paying back 1 mil loan debt and debt free, the 1 mil being invested into boba tea shop, bnb etc.
But due to averse economy condition, those 1 mil investment in boba and bnb may at risk while still having to service the 1 mil debt.

While in good day, for sure, A is more rewarding than B.

Conclusion
The risk exposure of A is higher than B.

But still there is no right or wrong, or which is better though.