Haha… then maybe you’d want to retire fully before Feb 4, and officially start managing your own money — that way you can immediately maximize returns for yourself. In other words, 100% of your effort goes straight into your own pocket.

Think about it… if you’re still working for others, whatever you maximize benefits your boss first, and only part of it flows back to you. But if it’s your own money, the full credit goes to you.

Don't waste the bazi luck...

Hehe.

Ramjade did mention that not all his trades are profitable as he did say he kena exercised before. Rare but still kena.
mtm will definitely swing; it’s just that he views his strategy as long-term profitable.

your friend's portfolio is performing great... looks like he didn’t cut exposure in April and managed to ride the big rally all the way till now.

eh eh...cannot cannot... don’t encourage the likes of RamJade to go fire... how are business owners supposed to score cheap labour?
Whenever someone succeed, spin tonnes of negative narratives to shame them. It’s never the firm’s fault, it’s always the employee too stupid. lol

Everything you said is fair and reasonable… but that doesn’t make his venting wrong either. His experience is his experience, and that’s valid to him.

Honestly, there must be a ton of reasons why the median salary in Malaysia is still around RM3K in 2025. I’ve been baffled about it myself. Water flows via the path of least resistance, rite?
Ramjade found something that works and stuck with it, and that’s the smart way to go.

When you compare 5K active income against passive income that’s 2–3x bigger, obviously passive is easier. But the real question is: would it be easier/more realistic to push active income from RM5K to RM15K, or continue improving on passive?

Anyway, this is a FIRE thread. His journey is an inspiring one in this context, and kudos to him for sharing it openly.
If he’d asked about career paths in a career thread, my advice would’ve been more career-focused

This post has been edited by Wedchar2912: Sep 22 2025, 10:26 PM

Governments like MY and SG keep pushing up retirement age. Officially to deal with longer lifespans and pension gaps. But let’s be real: the result is obvious. Older workers cling to their jobs longer, reducing opportunities for younger cohorts to rise, and boom… graduate unemployment/ underemployment everywhere.

It’s kind of funny. Everyone talks about wanting innovation and opportunities for the youth, but the system is literally designed to keep the old guard parked in their chairs. And guess what, the older crowd is usually the most resistant to change. Since govs are supposed to represent the people, I guess that means people and businesses like it this way? Lol.

The real problem is mindset. Folks in their 40s, 50s, 60s still think of work like it’s the 19th or 20th century: trade time for wages, hang on for dear life, waiting for retirement. That might have worked when lifespans were shorter, but now? Totally outdated. These days, it’s about rethinking "work": gig economy, side hustles, FIRE, passive income, whatever gets you out of the hamster wheel.

And seriously… if one don’t know what to do with life by 40, what makes he think he will figure it out at 70 when the brain’s much slower and less flexible?

This is the gaslight most of us buy into. That the private sector is "merit-based". Work hard, climb up, and you’ll be rewarded. But once you’ve been around long enough and rise to senior levels, you realize it’s not that simple.

Simple example: just look at the board of directors. The cohort basically explains itself.

At the end of the day, it is favoring one group while kicking the can down the road… let someone else (probably the next gov) deal with the fallout. Haha.

you'll get there.... don't worry...

but I still think you can losen the strings a bit and spend extra 1K rm per month... enjoy the resource gathering journey a bit....

12K rm today compounded at 10% is only like RM30K by 2035… and when you FIRE in 2035, that 30K rm future value is basically pocket change.

Directors are not supposed to be all owners. Owners are shareholders.... Or to be more descriptive, major shareholders are what many usually consider are owners.

Like most things in life, the norm is taken as the standard. Just cos got a few exceptions do not mean the norm is false.

I am curious... if you can share... your ex-boss's salary is how much? and if he has a mba (local or overseas or local-twinning type)...

i also a bit curious, but he has been uncomfortable to share.... hence no point asking...

guestimate? reason I ask is cos if say with an MBA the new cap is 30K rm pm, then u can consider getting an MBA...

but if your boss, whom you said have an MBA, is only getting paid 10K rm pm, then .....

well said... very well said... !

Life giveth us 90 diamonds: the early 20 blur, the last 20 uncertain, but the middle shine brightest if we use them wisely.

Eh, calculate like that also can ah? Then I can also say my shares are giving me 25% dividend yield every year — tax-free somemore, unlike property rentals. No wonder I could FIRE so young… just by mixing book value with market value.

Jokes aside, if that finance influencer (no idea who this “ASSI” is…) wants to be fair, he/she should qualify the calculation. Otherwise, it gives the misleading impression that 25% p.a. yield applies on today’s market value.

I get what you mean. I also do those "internal calculations" for myself. But when communicating with others, it’s clearer to use current dividend over current market value. That’s the convention fund managers follow too, otherwise it gives the wrong impression.

For example, I still hold some Malaysian equities. If I calculate yield based on my book cost, it comes to around 15% pa. However, quoting that figure in discussion makes no sense, because no one today can replicate that portfolio at current prices.

Influencers sometimes throw around numbers like "15% yield portfolio" for clickbait. The problem is, viewers then assume such yields are achievable if they buy in today, which is misleading.

Honestly, the first one needs balls of steel actually.... somehow very difficult to execute...
like what some traders I know used to say.... harden your balls first... then execute. YOLO... lol
(just joking... anyone reading... pls think for yourself first)

why not cheer for market to crash or rally.... both works for me...

hahaha... fearless! lack of fear... or ignorance... same same but diff...

dang... u have like 10 kg? can melt them and make a dumb-bell... paint it black and use it to flex muscle... hehe

This post has been edited by Wedchar2912: Sep 25 2025, 01:54 PM

Yeah. 2008 was very kind. Some of best buy done then.

But it turns out my best nw gain is this year. Overseas portfolio up like 50% ytd. Imagine the absolute value.

What does this mean?
BTFD works.
Continously remain invested also works.

Since we are on the topic of "efficiencies" of asset classes, one thing I find interesting is that, in FIRE discussions here, bonds rarely get mentioned. Even among those who are already retired or old (say, above 60, since that’s the official retirement age).

Is it because EPF already acts as our “fixed income substitute”? Or maybe because short-term accounts and e-wallets are giving 3–4% yields, making bonds look less relevant?

Or perhaps bonds are just... not exciting enough to talk about compared to equities and shiny commodities like gold

I see your points... but textbooks and even professionals still argue that bonds have a place in a portfolio. Especially as one gets older. Even the Trinity Study recommends 40 to 50% in bonds. (self confession... i hold zero bonds currently. i used t-bills previously just to optimize my spare cash)

So I sometimes wonder.I s there a blind spot I’m missing here, one that only becomes obvious with age? For example, when you’re 75, should a bulk of assets really be in bonds for stability?

Or is it simply that bonds are less exciting to discuss compared to stocks, gold, or options?

(Maybe it’s also an age factor — at a younger stage, the need for bonds just isn’t as apparent.)

Wow... 45%! If we include EPF, would it be fair to guess that more than 60% of your retirement pot is in some form of fixed income?

Did you purposely structure it this way? May I ask, is it because you expect rates to come down, or a recession ahead, or mainly to secure a steady income stream from bonds?

7% YTD is impressive... that's almost 10% annualised!