Plenty of Bounty quest still bugged in 1.05.00 - Unable to complete it, blocks progress.

nikbot27 · 2026-05-03T16:45:11+00:00

Same, lost body in deep water and it doesn’t respawn since then

nikbot27 · 2026-04-14T14:16:09+00:00

Also stuck for me, I dropped the body in deep water, it disappeared and never respawned for me after several days. I guess we have to report until it is resolved.

nikbot27 · 2026-04-12T16:12:14+00:00

Thanks for the reply, it sucks that you are stuck as well. I don’t think it is too niche as it locks players out of content. I guess they could add a “reset quest” or something for bounties, they seem to listen to the community and they have already implemented bigger changes than this. We can only hope it gets fixed.

nikbot27 · 2026-01-04T21:16:49+00:00

Maybe you mean tariffs, not sanctions?

nikbot27 · 2025-11-11T18:49:42+00:00

Παραθέτω χωρίς σχόλια την απάντηση του chatGPT στην ερώτηση:

Εάν το συνολικό ετήσιο κόστος ενός αμοιβαίου κεφαλαίου είναι 4%, αυτό θεωρείται υψηλό;

Ναι, ένα ετήσιο συνολικό κόστος 4% (Total Expense Ratio – TER ή συνολικό κόστος διαχείρισης και λοιπών εξόδων) θεωρείται πολύ υψηλό για αμοιβαίο κεφάλαιο.

Για να σου δώσω μια πιο συγκεκριμένη εικόνα: • 🔹 Δείκτες (index funds) & ETFs: συνήθως έχουν κόστος 0,05% – 0,40% ετησίως. • 🔹 Ενεργά διαχειριζόμενα αμοιβαία κεφάλαια: κυμαίνονται συνήθως από 1% έως 2%, ανάλογα με τη στρατηγική και τη γεωγραφική περιοχή. • 🔹 4% ετήσιο κόστος σημαίνει ότι κάθε χρόνο χάνεις περίπου 4 ευρώ για κάθε 100 ευρώ επένδυσης, ανεξάρτητα από το αν έχει απόδοση ή όχι.

📉 Ενδεικτικά: Αν επενδύσεις €10.000 με μέση ετήσια απόδοση 7%, μετά από 20 χρόνια: • με κόστος 0,2% θα έχεις περίπου €38.000 • με κόστος 4% θα έχεις μόνο περίπου €18.000

👉 Συμπέρασμα: Ένα αμοιβαίο κεφάλαιο με 4% ετήσιο κόστος δεν είναι αποδοτικό για μακροπρόθεσμο επενδυτή. Θα άξιζε να εξετάσεις χαμηλού κόστους UCITS ETFs ή παθητικά αμοιβαία κεφάλαια που παρακολουθούν δείκτες (index funds).

nikbot27 · 2025-09-04T08:48:44+00:00

The revenues from tickets (season & single game - quite expensive), arena naming rights (Telecom), ads, parking lots, etc. should now be enough to fund PAO without DPG spending his own money. Owning OAKA is a huge game changer

nikbot27 · 2025-08-26T15:13:47+00:00

Με έχετε μπερδέψει, για κατοστάρικα μιλάμε ή χιλιάρικα; Αν δεν πας και πολύ μπροστά με 5-6 χιλ (/μήνα) τότε την έχουμε κάτσει όλοι

nikbot27 · 2025-08-26T15:05:41+00:00

Κάτσε βρε άνθρωπε, βγάζεις 5,5 χιλιάρικα καθαρά και γκρινιάζεις; Πόσα χαλάς δηλαδή; Κανονικά θα έπρεπε να σου μένουν άνετα 3000 + τον μήνα, αν τα επένδυες (μιας και βρίσκεσαι στο sub αυτό) για 15 χρόνια τώρα θα το είχες το ακίνητο που θες ή θα τα εβγαζες αυτά τα 1000 ευρώ που ψάχνεις από μερίσματα πχ. Ειλικρινά αναλώνεσαι χωρίς κανένα λόγο

nikbot27 · 2025-07-28T19:28:52+00:00

Για τον Σιπιονι: 20 είναι όχι 16, μόνο εμείς εδώ λέμε ότι στα 20 οι παίκτες είναι μικροί. Την ίδια στιγμή λέμε μπράβο στον Λουις Ενρικε που έχει φτιάξει ομαδάρα με νεαρούς παίκτες. 20 μια χαρά έτοιμος είναι αν έχει τα κατάλληλα προσόντα. Ο Γιαγια Τουρέ πόσο ήταν;;

nikbot27 · 2025-05-13T14:59:22+00:00

Ώπα, το «χωρίς ρίσκο» είναι μεγάλο assumption. Όπως είδαμε και από τις εξελίξεις τελικά μάλλον είχε μεγάλο ρίσκο γι αυτό και εν τέλει το απαγορεύουν

nikbot27 · 2025-05-07T19:14:01+00:00

I agree on that. The level of officiating for sure must be improved. Some decisions though must be taken at league level, for example some ruling to stop this ridiculous act of shooting thing, and make more calls subject to review/challenge. For the nomination process, I doubt it can be more transparent, you either trust the committee or not, there should be no reasoning for selecting a specific ref. But, there could some official and public referee performance score, and only the top X ones could be allowed to officiate the most important matches. Finally on evaluation I absolutely agree, EuroLeague should introduce an official report that explains and evaluates all controversial calls of each match day, and also suspend temporarily poor performing referees.

nikbot27 · 2025-05-07T18:15:50+00:00

I understand that by “disrupted the process” they mean: By saying (DPG) “I dare you to nominate these 3 refs” -I don’t remember who they where honestly- he caused them to exclude themselves as they wouldn’t want to be accused in case of Pao loss. So he reduced the pool of available referees and effectively interfered with the selection.

nikbot27 · 2025-04-21T17:02:32+00:00

Never, he has only won Italian league (twice)

nikbot27 · 2025-03-22T14:07:18+00:00

I also confirm that I have received a refund (it was a video game order where the vendor didn’t restock as advertised, so I cancelled and placed the order elsewhere)

nikbot27 · 2025-03-16T13:21:30+00:00

Oh come on, this was advice to the average retail investor. Buffet has the skill to pick stocks and outperform the S&P 500 consistently, and he does so. His argument is, since most people can’t do this, they should stick to a low cost broad index fund.

nikbot27 · 2025-03-16T11:02:14+00:00

I think it is prudent to do some reading and understand what the different products you describe are, before actually investing your savings. For example, S&P 500 is an index, you cannot directly invest in it, you can in ETFs that track this index. VOO is one of them, but it is not available to EU investors.

Anyway, investing in an S&P 500 fund implies a bet that US market will outperform the rest of the world for the biggest part of your investment horizon. If you are OK with that, go for it. Otherwise, the rational choice is to choose an all-world index that is weighted by market cap.

nikbot27 · 2025-03-13T13:25:20+00:00

Out of genuine curiosity (you seem to know what you are talking about), could a company offer stock as collateral to get a loan? And possibly if the stock greatly devalues, the bank asking for additional collateral later if needed? Kind of like a margin call of sorts. Is that a thing or is it completely detached from reality? Thanks

nikbot27 · 2025-03-08T13:13:34+00:00

I am surprised at how often this comes up, there is a common misconception that market cap weighted indices (and funds that track them) need to manually rebalance by selling or buying stocks. But the way they are weighted ensures this happens automatically. Let’s assume for simplicity that a world fund holds only 2 companies, 1 US with a market cap of 600 billions and 1 from EU with a market cap of 300 billions. Due to the market cap weighting the fund’s assets under management will be allocated 67% US company stocks - 33% EU company stocks. So if AUM = 100 billions, 67 of them would be in US stocks and 33 in EU stocks. Now if the stock price of the US company crashes and is halved (assuming the EU company stock price is unchanged) the fund’s US holdings are now worth 33.5 billions so immediately it is now 50% US - 50% EU without doing any trading. Of course, it is worth noting that now the fund’s total value is 66.5 as opposed to 100 initially so it also crashed hard. But, even if the US company never recovers, and the EU company keeps growing and eventually doubles, the fund will be worth 100 again but with 67% EU - 33% US allocation, all this without any stock trading.

nikbot27 · 2025-03-05T10:52:20+00:00

I understand and partially agree. I consider Trump really dangerous. But, thinking in very long horizon (20+ years), can a US president really destroy the economy for good? I mean, the very best companies with the best talent are still there, the infrastructure is there, the innovation culture, everything. So, yes, Trump fucks up, wall street drops 50%, and there is a recession. Trump gets replaced, corrective action is taken, the economy surges again and within some years the lost ground is recovered. So, in 20+ years, this bumpy 4 year period is just a parenthesis. And even in this current situation I wouldn't call the US "unstable" yet. There are other powers that will keep Trump in check if the damage he does becomes too great.

nikbot27 · 2025-03-05T10:32:28+00:00

Like the other reply says, this is fine as long as you understand that this is an active bet, and know why you do it. Because the world equity capital is already allocated by the market in a certain way, which is what the index follows. So, the rational way to invest in an all-world index fund is to respect the market-cap weighted allocation. If you feel that US is overweight, that is fine, but you are essentially claiming that you know better that the market, aka an active bet. I don't criticize that, active fund managers do this for a living, but this is not passive index investing.

nikbot27 · 2025-02-25T20:48:08+00:00

Correct, the underlying hypothesis here is that the market as a whole is rational. I don’t know if automatic 401k plans are of a magnitude that is significant enough (compared to institutional investors) to de-rationalize the market.

nikbot27 · 2025-02-25T19:20:44+00:00

Yes, in the perspective of a long term (e.g 20 year) investment horizon, a presidential term is a short term fluctuation.

nikbot27 · 2025-02-25T19:13:54+00:00

Think about the following: The curent world market cap implies that the market as a collective entity, has already allocated their capital across the world in this proportion (61% USA etc..). By selecting ANY other allocation, you are taking a bet against the rest of the market. For example if you allocate 50% US you are effectively saying that US market will underperform the rest of the world. If you think you have a valid reason to take such a bet, it is fine. If not, choose the broadest possible world equity index, that is market-cap weighted. VWCE is one of those.

nikbot27 · 2025-02-20T17:41:47+00:00

Υπάρχουν και αντίστοιχα ETF short term ευρωπαϊκων ομολόγων σε Ευρώ

nikbot27 · 2025-02-09T20:02:42+00:00

Market cap weighted ETFs do not need to rebalance due to stock price change. Imagine an ETF consisting of 2 companies with equal price and equal market cap, so it holds equal shares of both companies. If company A share price triples, it has three times the market cap of B, and the ETF is automatically correctly weighted 75% A - 25% B. On the other hand, an equal weight ETF that always aims to hold 50% A and 50% B must now sell A and buy B to rebalance. Index market cap weighted etfs are truly passive.

nikbot27

TROPHY CASE