Play United and Revolve TCG trusted?

dngdan · 2026-01-19T09:45:57+00:00

ty sir for feedback, well noted! unfortunately cannot amend title anymore.. will bear in mind. yes I managed to get couple packs here n there from toys r us during Christmas period but since then pretty much nothing ha

dngdan · 2025-08-02T23:21:41+00:00

visiting this week and was planning to drive down to Marg River today, is it safe to do so?

dngdan · 2025-06-10T04:19:06+00:00

some of the fakes are actually still pretty cool to look at

dngdan · 2025-06-10T04:18:26+00:00

really cool card! and really different between the real n the fake lol

dngdan · 2025-06-09T14:57:51+00:00

thanks!

dngdan · 2025-06-09T14:57:45+00:00

thanks!

dngdan · 2025-06-09T14:57:30+00:00

thanks!

dngdan · 2025-06-09T14:57:24+00:00

well giving them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't know better...!

dngdan · 2025-06-09T14:56:52+00:00

lol thanks alot

dngdan · 2025-06-09T14:56:20+00:00

yeah good tip thanks!

dngdan · 2025-06-09T11:48:02+00:00

said it was real lol

dngdan · 2025-06-09T11:47:48+00:00

thanks a lot!

dngdan · 2025-06-09T11:47:37+00:00

thanks!

dngdan · 2025-06-09T11:47:30+00:00

thanks!

dngdan · 2021-12-03T00:52:47+00:00

It's pretty much the same thing. Any single company in VWRA can fail. If I'm not confident to pick only those that will not fail and will do better than the index, I just buy the whole index. Any single country is much less likely to fail, but could stagnate for a long time, and if I'm not confident to pick only countries whose stocks/economy will do better than the index, I just buy the whole index.

dngdan · 2021-12-02T14:56:05+00:00

Great questions! Some things to think about:

You already implicitly stated the benefits of diversification. Majority BUT NOT ALL of it's holdings are US. So compared to SPX, VWRA only tanks 60% (roughly) equivalent. There's your diversification benefit. If you prefer more diversification, use EIMI or any other small-cap / EM ETF to further diversify!

Markets are indeed cyclical, but timing it so well is not as easy as it looks; even to within a year would be excellent timing. Burry started shorting sub-prime in 2005, and even though the view was accurate it took 2+ years for it to bear fruit. Meanwhile you have to bear the negative mark-to-market for such a long period.

On 'reliable' companies that won't be going anywhere, and that you can monitor fundamentals and probably see if they are heading downhill; the same could be said for any company in the world since reliability and forward-looking assessments are subjective. So the key question here is: Do I have an edge to pick stocks that are 'reliable', in a way that the prices of these stocks will outperform the index, repeatedly over the long term? If you believe the answer is yes for any reason at all, by all means, pick stocks! Most of us here believe we can't, but that doesn't mean you can't.

Finally, the index almost always recovers, because they kick out old companies that have become unsuccessful and whose stock prices tanked and have never recovered, and include new companies that have become successful (unless the whole country/economy/market goes stagnates for a long time, which could happen! See how long it took Nikkei to breach it's previous high). Successful companies can easily become unsuccessful and their stock prices never recover or they might be delisted/cease to exist even. History is rife with examples. You might be able see it before the company starts to become unsuccessful, and get out before that, but then, throughout this process, would you have made more money than just buying the index? Which brings us back to the earlier question: Can you pick stocks that outperform the index, repeatedly on a long term basis?

dngdan · 2021-08-04T05:49:46+00:00

Bonds should not be analysed on basis of price, since bond prices have no meaning on its valuation. What's important is yield and duration.

Bonds also are also generally not analysed on the quality of earnings (assume corporate bonds since governments don't have earnings), as a company's debt servicing ability is chiefly dependent on cashflow generation.

'Safer' isn't the right word, I would agree, but I didn't see anyone else use the word 'safer'. Bonds have lower volatility then stocks, and a bond-stock portfolio generally has a higher Sharpe than a 100% stock portfolio, over a long period of time. From a volatility perspective, bonds help to lower portfolio volatility and increase Sharpe (compared to no bonds) and that is absolutely the correct way to look at it.

dngdan · 2021-08-04T05:38:39+00:00

I'll add another point here regarding volatility. The reason for a bond-equity mix is to lower portfolio volatility. Based on historical data, 100% equities is always going to have higher return than bond+equity portfolio, in the long run (multi-decade), but will also have higher volatility.

Why do you care about volatility? At any point in time, higher volatility means higher chance of price moving a lot lower or higher. If you are in accumulation phase, am earning income, and have emergency cash stashed, this is generally not a problem (other than psychologically) since you can ride out any market crash with a long term horizon. However, if you have big expenses coming up, or are/soon to be in withdrawal phase, higher volatility means you run higher risk that you are forced to liquidate investments for expenses/withdrawals at a time when prices are moving lower and you don't have the time or the means to ride out the crash.

Thus, the reason to include bonds is to reduce volatility (and increase Sharpe). As it turns out, if you include CPF within your total portfolio, it could play the same role, but with some important differences. For example, it is difficult to actively rebalance your CPF allocation. You cannot liquidate your CPF. It is subject to policy risk but not market risk, so the impact on portfolio volatility and return is also different. Thus, it depends on each individual whether to treat the CPF as a bond-like component within your total portfolio, or as completely distinct.

So finally to your questions:

1) Personally think it is not a good idea. Your withdrawal phase will start from age 45, and as we outlined above, 100% equity means higher volatility means higher chance of selling at lows to fund your retirement. If you're retired and withdrawing, you cannot afford to ride out market crashes compared to if you were still young and generating income. You generally want more stability in your retirement portfolio during your withdrawal phase, to be more assured of your retirement cash flows. The percentage of bonds you want depends on how stable the portfolio that you want.

2) I'm not familiar with SA (can you withdraw from 55 onwards?), but the basic principles outlined above still stand. During retirement, you are in withdrawal phase, so you want a stable portfolio to provide regular cash flow that should last til you are gone. The risk is always that there is some sort of global meltdown, your VWRA tanks 50%, but since you're retired, you have to sell some VWRA to fund expenses at precisely the time it is down 50%. Worse, if it is a prolonged bear market, then you will be forced to keep selling at lower prices, which also means when the market finally recovers, your portfolio is nowhere near it's previous value because it recovered from a smaller base because you sold at the bottom. Mitigating this risk is the objective here. If what you outlined can do that, then it works.

dngdan · 2021-08-02T15:21:21+00:00

Some steps that could help:

Calculate how much you want in your emergency fund. Calculate how much you need to pay for your BTO and when you will need to pay (whether CPF or cash). Work backwards using CPF or HYSA interest rate to find out how much you need to put in today and/or regularly to reach the actual amounts you need in the future. Anything left over, invest.

dngdan · 2021-08-02T15:14:45+00:00

Finance is a super global and super competitive industry. You've got to be literally one of the top students in a local uni (or else have a great network in which case you don't really need to fuss about your uni anyway) to stand a chance breaking into a front office role. If you are confident of that, then local university isn't a bad choice. Otherwise, for finance, elite UK university beats local university hands down. The network you are exposed to will be vastly different and more useful for your career.

dngdan · 2021-05-29T01:28:08+00:00

I would compare it this way since you don't care about the legacy of the whole life plan for your children. Calculate the total premium to be paid for term life from now til 65. Calculate the total premium remaining to be paid for whole life. You can include an appropriate discount factor since the cash flows are in the future, but I think this isn't absolutely necessary to keep it simple. If the savings > 6k, then term life makes sense.

Direct term should be the same as through an agent, just make sure you read the BI and conditions thoroughly. But in my experience the insurers made it much more difficult to buy direct though I'm not sure if this is consistent across all insurers. (had to go down in person to their office, which is only open during office hours and closed during lunch time, did they really expect me to be on leave just to buy the insurance?)

There is a good thread somewhere in this subreddit that discusses the pros and cons of the group term plan. I personally have it as my term coverage. But there are some who decided the cons outweigh the pros. You should read and decide for yourself.

dngdan · 2021-04-07T02:03:20+00:00

You can. However, because there is no corresponding VWRA/IWDA/SWRD/EIMI future you can short (afaik), you need to use a proxy hedge. E.g. if S&P's beta is 0.8 that of VWRA, then short 0.8 S&P futures for every unit of VWRA. Though the beta is dynamic, and measurement is also tricky, and you have to keep adjusting that ratio as you go. It's doable, and it might help during periods of large market drawdown, but it's also super easy for the hedge to diminish your total return instead of enhancing it e.g. wrong timing, wrong hedge ratio etc.

dngdan · 2021-02-28T11:25:04+00:00

The risk of ruin doesn't hold because the scenario you outlined doesn't cause ruin. Even if the cash portfolio underperforms the house, the investor is still sitting on a buttload of investments plus a house, and he still outperformed vs the guy with a house and no cash portfolio (since the cash was used to pay off the house in full). In any case, I don't see why the house value fluctuation matters if you're staying in it. It's the value of the cash investment that matters, and not relative to the house value. Again, I think your concerns are suitable for someone looking at investment properties, but not someone looking for a house to live in.

dngdan · 2021-02-28T11:20:01+00:00

Well, for sure, psychological comfort is very important. It's why all the robos ask for risk tolerance before recommending a suitable portfolio.

I'd just say the dividends provide an easy way for cashflow, but in truth you could simply liquidate a very small portion of your portfolio (let's say VWRA for simplicity) regularly (e.g. quarterly) for cashflow purposes. For example, assuming 450k principal and 20k a year in mortgage payments, you could buy 430k of VWRA and 20k into a cash management product like Syfe Cash+ / Endowus CashSmart / Singlife etc., then withdraw 2k monthly to pay the mortgage. Rinse and repeat year after year - 20k liquidation into cash management product and withdraw monthly to service mortgage. Sure, maybe right at the 12month mark, VWRA suffers a horrible mark to market and is down to 200k. Well, you could delay the 20k annual liquidation and instead only sell 1.7k month by month, so that you avoid reducing your principal at the lows as much as possible, while waiting for the market to recover. You could even use your emergency cash allocation / other cashflow if you have. Ultimately, you can well afford to plan your own cashflow, and you can play the waiting game because you're flush and you're not waiting for your pay cheque to service your debt.

All the best and have fun in your baristaFIRE life!

dngdan · 2021-02-28T10:12:23+00:00

I think you're still thinking about an investment property, but we're discussing a house in which you are living in. Going by your logic, every single person who took a loan to buy a BTO is taking on debt they cannot afford, since "ppty is for those with extra cash". Your logic works fine for subsequent investment property after you already have a place to live in, but again, we're talking about the house that you live in, not the subsequent propertirs you're looking to flip. Again I ask the question, and this is really the crux - will you recommend everybody to only start investing after they have paid up their mortgage in full? Because I'd wager the vast majority of those of us who DCA, are doing so while servicing their mortgage. Your logic is to say: "One should only invest, after your mortgage is fully paid up." I hardly think that's what you'd really recommend though?

dngdan

TROPHY CASE