In the Die with Zero approach, when it comes to gifting, it is recommended to give earlier when one is alive and not later when already dead.

There are 2 reasons for this:

1. Feeling the joy of giving and being able to share the happiness with the recipient. No joy when one is dead.

2. Time value of money. To the recipient, usually a dollar now to is much more valuable than to 10 dollars in 20 years time.

I feel this is more selfless than hoarding wealth till the end.

Die with zero is a tight rope to walk....
Why need to stress ourselves on a tightly controlled expenditure?

In doing that you want to make sure you don't over spend nanti insufficient left

Or underspent then cannot die with zero....

I can give I can donate while still alive and still when l die I still have assets to distribute ....this provide a good safety margin..

We never know when we will die and how much we may spend...


Yes die with zero save costs of transfer.... that's why properties I bought in their names....in fact ASMs also ...

Still if we have control over the cash we plan to distribute to them later on......that relieves me of the headache of the need to die with zero....knowing full well when I die they can access the money as it is already under their names..

This post has been edited by guy3288: Nov 19 2025, 11:34 AM

Yes what you are saying is also correct. Thats why i say experiences define how we make our will.
We are so used to the culture that we are the center of the universe, so when we passes on everything will be distributed without much regard to our better half. The question is why should we entirely have the right to decide ? Most of us gifted some of our assets to our children earlier sometimes to assist , sometimes based on needs. For the reasoning that we just need to pass on enough for the wife to survive. The question is " why not distribute all and keeping enough for both of you to survive now" ? If able to answer it fairly then i will agree. I do agree that transfer of properties will incur twice lawyer fees but i think it is worth it. Transfer between spouses and/ or children is considered free except for lawyer and some minor fees.

Even when we make our will, our lawyers fully agreed to the way our will was designed, sharing the horror stories derived from their experiences with their clients will.

Actually I don't count the income from options trading as spending budget, but also because my target income from options is low - although I think like many, this year the option trading income seems to be on the high side.

definitely due to the high vol... it was only due to this that I dare to dabble a bit in this kind of activities... plus only after April 2025...
but who knows... a big part of the high vol is due to trump.. so can last 3 years?


edit: looks like the party continues after yday's nvda announcement... but I feel its wiser to be more prudent moving forward... should be cutting my short term options risk by half... market feels too complacent...

That said, the Fed put is still much alive... (bubble is still bubbling)...


This post has been edited by Wedchar2912: Nov 20 2025, 08:21 PM

Interactive broker. The only other rela alternative would be tasty trade but you will lose money in terms of exchange rate. Hence the only way to prevent you from losing extra money to banks is by interactive broker.

Haha, been lurking in investment Moat telegram group, learnt that perpetual SWR will be around 2.4%, my aim is 2%, so that my wealth will increase perpetually and ready for next gen stewardship, rules will be setup to instill ownership and skin in the game, hoping that next gen will do their best to manage wealth, no squandering allowed. Reward and punishment just like corporate style.

Just sharing from experience, for awareness.

A 2.4% WR sits right at the very conservative end of what most people consider a normal swr range.
Traditionally the benchmark is 4%, but newer research indicates the realistic band at 3 to 5%, depending on context. (Worth google search a bit for independend reading... plenty of good material out there.)

Of course, if someone prefers a conservative WR and sleeps better with it, nothing wrong there.

But just to give some feel:

1m at 2.4% → 2k pm (feels very tight for a millionaire rite?)
10m at 2.4% → 20k pm (still feels tight for someone with that net worth)
20m at 2.4% → 40k pm (less tight?)
50m at 2.4% → 100k pm

You’ll notice something funny:
People with more money could comfortably adopt a higher wr… but ironically they often don’t increase their spending.
Meanwhile those with less might actually need a slightly higher wr just to make life practical.

Just some perspective from the trenches.

For those having >10M, just putting into the FD already can fund the expenses

Actually, if really risk adverse... Just throw everything into epf. 10m in epf and boh chap already. Especially if at a old age like 50 and above.

Turn off all social media and ignore the parliament noise. Everyday take out 1000rm and spend that... Life is simple.

Note: everyone else not lazy, there are safe ways to generate income with 10m.

Yaya only lazy people can accumulate more than 10m..

We maybe lazy but definite we not stupid



.

Read the context and one should know which grouping one wants to be in.

Some really wants to be lazy in retirement. No harm.
Some wants to double or triple one's networth while in retirement. No harm too.

Lol.

Edit: was too direct in my first reply. Haha.

This post has been edited by Wedchar2912: Nov 21 2025, 05:19 PM

I saw your first reply. Damn full of fire and messy too

At gym... It's not messy if you read it again.

Then again, patience towards those not yet fired... Is good.

Problem is we cant throw everything into epf n currently only 100k/year. Easier to throw into ASMx. Most of my liquid assets r in these two. Currently contended with the returns which is double my yearly expenses.
Very tempted to go into US options n stocks esp after I sell off my land.

This post has been edited by MGM: Nov 21 2025, 11:00 PM

are you into ETF I also load more into these 2 asm and epf since fd is literally dead

No not into etf.

for those of you already fire, what do you state your occupation in loan applications/insurance /bank/asnb and so on?

retired?

with a stream of passive income from dividents/interest, should have a term to describe occupation instead retired right? eg pemungut dividend/passive income collector

Just write unemployed. That's is the best thing to make the bank think you are poor so they won't try to come after your money.

On serious note, FIRE is not really recognised by financial institution cause the govt and finance people wants you to work until official retirement. You can try retiree. That will raised eyebrow if you are young. For me personally, I will just write unemployed.

This post has been edited by Ramjade: Nov 24 2025, 12:20 AM

haha
if unemployed, all loans could be rejected.... another issue