This was posted 4 years 4 months 13 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Stream 'Playing with FIRE' Documentary for Free (Normally AU $7.32)

650
Stream 'Playing with FIRE' Documentary for Free (Normally AU $7.32)
Go to Deal
Cashback
kzl on 06/12/2019 - 21:50 vimeo.com (1303 clicks)
Last edited 06/12/2019 - 22:25
FIRE

I just saw this on reddit, thought I'd share here as well.

Here's the trailer. (According to the link, it usually costs $7.32 to stream over a 24 hour period, or $14.63 to stream anytime)

It's about the FIRE movement. FIRE stands for financial independence / retire early. Basically it's about living frugally, saving as much as you can, retire early, and live a good life without having to worry about money.

There was a FIRE-related article from ABC a while ago.

To watch the documentary for free, use this link. Password is FIRE (all capitals).

The documentary is pretty average and doesn't teach anything new about FIRE. But since it's free you can watch it and judge for yourself.

Entertainment Documentary

Related Stores

vimeo.com
vimeo.com

closed Comments

  • jelko on 06/12/2019 - 22:39

    Any person who is true to the FIRE principles would never pay for this documentary. They would also be pirates and steal most of their online content.

    • ippy on 07/12/2019 - 00:52
      +9

      FIRE doesn't equate to 'pirate'. You can still be FIRE minded and budget a little bit for "entertainment" etc.

      • nikoris on 07/12/2019 - 13:09
        +1

        Ohhh, living frugally doesn’t go well with paying for documentaries online.

    • dajackal on 07/12/2019 - 14:01
      +7

      Frugal doesn't mean necessarily cheap/pirate.

      • jelko on 07/12/2019 - 14:35
        -7

        You're not doing it right then.

  • 7hours 44min ago on 07/12/2019 - 07:29
    +1

    VGS, 2.25%, DRP, LIC, A200

    • bobzor on 07/12/2019 - 13:11
      +13

      ABC, DEF, GHI, JKLMNOP, QRS, TUV

    • chrismelba on 07/12/2019 - 15:42
      -1

      50% vas 50% vgs

      • sav11 on 07/12/2019 - 18:38
        +5

        50% VAS is way too much concentration risk. Not just as it's one country which is ~2% of the world market (and the same one your job etc. is, assuming you live here) but the index it tracks is one of the worlds most concentrated, extremely heavily weighted to the banks and miners. And depending on your POV the banks are potentially exposed to overpriced housing market and excessive household debt.

        • 7hours 44min ago on 07/12/2019 - 19:04

          Ffffrrraaaannnnkkkiiinnnnggggg

          • sav11 on 07/12/2019 - 19:26
            +2

            @7hours 44min ago: Total Return is where it's at. Sure, franking is not completely priced in so there's some benefit to overweighting Aus. IMO 50% is too much, and worse the Peter Thornhill cult followers are massively exposed without realising it as they haven't done their research properly. At least chrismelba has some reasonable diversification with 50% VGS.

            If there's a localised recession/market crash/debt crisis/stagflation etc. your franking credits wont save you. Have a look at the Nikkei graph for last ~30 years and ask the Japanese about investing home bias.

            • Oofy Doofy on 08/12/2019 - 12:24

              @sav11: 60% 50/50 into IWLD & IHWL (hedged currency).

              40% into A200 or a cheap MER equal weight australian index fund (the latter being my preference atm).

              I have lots of other opinions too, dependant on personal circumstances.

        • chrismelba on 07/12/2019 - 20:02

          Yeah but I plan to retire in Australia so the benefit of having my investments denominated in Australian dollars seems worth it

          • sav11 on 07/12/2019 - 20:21

            @chrismelba: Sure, you need to mitigate currency risk, especially the closer you are to retirement. But the way to do it is not by increasing concentration risk by heavily overweighting Aus investments. You can have international investments denominated in $AUD using currency hedging. Have a look at VGAD which is just VGS hedged to the $AUD.

            • snorkey on 07/12/2019 - 21:21

              @sav11: Heya. I haven't started my investing journey yet. I'm currently still in the middle of information gathering stage.
              Would you mind sharing what you reckon are the advantages of VGS over its corresponding Vanguard retail fund? Do the brokerage fees negate VGS's lower management fee? Selfwealth & CMC appear to be popular here and they both aren't fee free.
              Thanks

              • sav11 on 07/12/2019 - 22:20
                +3

                @snorkey: ETFs (e.g. VGS) vs unlisted funds it depends on how much you have to invest and how often, and whether you need to automate it. ETFs it's better to be investing in larger portions to make the brokerage worthwhile, commonly cited is minimum $5k parcels. Unlisted funds, after the initial investment you can Bpay in $100 with no brokerage. One big advantage of the unlisted funds which is not often mentioned is they are very helpful in mitigating behavioral risk, which is significant for most people. You can just set and forget. There are a few threads on Whirlpool about ETFs vs unlisted funds and someone on there did a detailed mathematical analysis.

                If you are researching investing and have done enough research/been smart enough to decide to go down the passive investing (ETFs/unlisted index funds) route I recommend reading the articles here: https://www.passiveinvestingaustralia.com/

  • syousef on 07/12/2019 - 20:46
    -6

    If it were easy to earn passive income, there would be no one to do the work and the goal would be to be a bum. Get rich quick scams.

    • kzl on 07/12/2019 - 23:34
      +5

      You clearly don't understand the idea of FIRE.

      • syousef on 07/12/2019 - 23:39
        -4

        I've clearly seen too many get rich scams and am not interested in the intricate details of yet another. Anyone telling you that you can set yourself up for passive income or living off your assets in 10 years is lying to you and probably trying to take some of what little you have. For every person that succeeds by sacrificing tobuy stocks like the guy in the ABC article, there are thousands that fail - they live a life of poverty and have nothing to show for it. Look up "survivorship bias".

        Heed my warning, or don't. I'm not your parent.

        • sav11 on 08/12/2019 - 00:15
          +3

          I agree with your sentiments but you have the wrong target in this instance. There are many get rich quick scams but FIRE is not one of them. It's a get wealthy slowly lifestyle/community. There is some misguided information in some of the FIRE blogs, because they have not properly done or understood the research on the investing part, but they are well-meaning.

          Survivorship bias is one of many reasons most people on the FIRE path use ETFs/index funds for investment rather than individual shares/managed funds/stock-picking services etc.

          • syousef on 08/12/2019 - 07:23
            -5

            @sav11: There aer always well meaning individuals caught up with get rich quick schemes. And there are no investment strategies that are both low risk and high yield. You simply can't get rich in 10 years with stocks without gambling and most will lose that gamble. Describing anyone that fails as "not properly done or understood the research" is no different to blaming anyone who tried but failed to become an olympic champion or a rock star as "just having done it wrong". Very, very few can possibly succeed doing what is described by FIRE.

            FIRE can be summed up as:
            1. Be cheap and don't spend anything on yourself or your family or friends for 10 years that you don't have to. Don't buy a house and mooch off your family.
            2. Get lucky investing in high risk high yield, but don't admit to anyone that it's high risk.
            3. Retire early and hope you don't go bankrupt.

            It is total BS.

            • sssx on 08/12/2019 - 18:26

              @syousef: FIRE: It's slow. You don't get rich. You won't live a lavish lifestyle. There's no club, no fees, no consultants, no seminars. It's free.

              syousef: Get rich quick scam.

            • sav11 on 08/12/2019 - 18:39

              @syousef: What kzl said.

              Since you are telling people to google terms, maybe you should google 'confirmation bias'.

              Learn what it really is, or don't. I'm not your parent :P

              • syousef on 08/12/2019 - 19:04
                -2

                @sav11: How about you google: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

                Skepticism isn't confirmation bias. If you have a shed load of ordinary Australians in your closet to show me who've retired at 35 thanks to FIRE, by all means pull them out and lets talk. You don't though, do you? Just a handful of outliers right? If you make an extraordinary claim you have to back it up with evidence, buddy. If you can, great. If you can't, stop misusing terms like "confirmation bias" to sell your little cult. I repeat: Avoiding scams is not about "confirmation bias". It's about skepticism - using your brain to avoid being gullible.

                • Pentanol on 08/12/2019 - 20:06
                  +1

                  @syousef: @syousef lol what are you here? It's obviously not for you and you're definitely not going to change anyone's mind over the internet.

                  You're obviously lacking in the financial literacy skill to even comprehend the simplicity of this strategy. The plan is not to get rich, most peoples plan involves saving 25x annual living expenses. Living off $40k a year is hardly a get rich scheme. Sure you pay brokerage, but you're not paying any of us brokerage, you're paying it to a platform. This is no different to buying stocks from a platform for brokerage, except ETFs are cheaper than any investment option as well. BTW, I'm a finance major.

                  • syousef on 09/12/2019 - 08:16
                    -2

                    @Pentanol: It's all about the personal attacks isn't it. I understand the idea perfectly fine. If you think someone who retires in their 30s isn't considered wealthy, it isn't my financial literacy that needs to come into question.

                    You cannot make enough money to sustain yourself for 50-70 years by working hard for 20 years, spending next to nothing and mooching off your friends and family, no matter how you invest it. Do the math on what your return needs to be, then think that return needs to be consistent year to year despite contractions and recessions. Meanwhile you've alienated any support network that could help you if things go really bad and wasted your opportunity to have any pleasure in your youth when you can really enjoy it.

                    Let me tell you a little secret about growing older. Not only are you no longer capable of what you could do in your 20s and early 30s, things but you aren't going to have the energy you had back then and you'll likely be dealing with daily aches and pains.

                    And I really couldn't give a stuff if there are people unwilling to consider what I've had to say on the Internet. I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm providing a counterpoint to this cult like madness. I've already told one other person they can listen or not, as I'm not their parent. Did you fail to read that or did you ignore it. Downvote all you like. You're only shooting the messenger.

                    You also should get a refund on your education, particularly since it's in finance. People like yourself brought us the GFC.

                • sav11 on 08/12/2019 - 23:13
                  -1

                  @syousef: What 'extraordinary claim' have I made that you say I have to back up with evidence? You are the only one making uninformed claims and accusations here.

                  I see you made full use of confirmation bias in your response to sssx above by the way. If you applied some critical thinking and objectivity you may realise it.

                  • syousef on 09/12/2019 - 08:06
                    -2

                    @sav11: You don't think it's an extraordinary claim that people can retire at 35? How many 35 year old retirees do you see around you? Then you accuse me of not applying critical thinking and ramble about confirmation bias? Confirmation bias is what YOU are doing. The vast majority of examples are of people who have not been able to retire at 35. You are cherry picking the hand full of self help paddlers that have done so and saying "see! it works". I am taking the majority and telling you "No, if this worked we'd see more examples".

                    Since you've made it very very clear that you don't understand the difference between skepticism and confirmation bias you are either being very dishonest in attempting to confound others who may not be familiar with it or otherwise let me suggest this: Find a lawyer and get a full refund on your education because you have a very strong case.

                    • sav11 on 09/12/2019 - 12:18
                      -1

                      @syousef: I never made any claim about anyone retiring at 35. I didn't cherry pick anything and I also didn't say "see! it works" or anything of the sort.

                      You are the one trying to confound the issue by falsely attributing claims and statements to others.

                      • syousef on 09/12/2019 - 12:38
                        -2

                        @sav11: The entire movement is cherry picking and involves stated goals and promises of retiring in your 30s.

                        Stop with the slander. There is no false attribution involved. Have a look at all the links on Google and Wikipedia that I have referenced above.

                        You are in fact the one that accused me of "confirmation bias" when it is very very clear you don't know what the term means or how to apply it. You aren't "biased" because you refuse to believe something with no decent evidence put forward. You might as well call believing that the sun will almost certainly rise tomorrow a confirmation bias if you're going to apply the term in such a slipshod way.

            • brad1-8tsi on 13/12/2019 - 11:04
              +1

              @syousef:

              Very, very few can possibly succeed doing what is described by FIRE

              FIRE is a get rich slowly scheme except if you live your life right you don't actually have to be rich.

              Personally, I think FIRE should stand for Financially Independant, Recreational Employment.

              I started my investment journey in the late 1980s when I was 20-something, except i had no direction.
              In my mid-30s I was about to buy a Porsche (I still had no idea or direction) and intended to retire at 55. then my wife got pregnant so the Porsche went out the window and the retirement goal stayed.
              In my mid-40s the GFC hit and I lost enough that my calculations said I'd be working until I was 72. Plus I promised to pay for both of my kids Uni education when it was only about $8k to do a degree. Child #1 finished last year and that was a cheap degree for $30k. Child #2 is deferring for a while so I'll give her the equivalent in shares as it's proven that you are better off with a HECs debt.

              FastForward to today. I started working my investments harder about 5 years ago and learnt about FIRE in 2016 (maybe 2017). I made a plan and have been diligent in educating myself financially and sticking to my plan. The result is that I will probably quit my job (that I don't enjoy) in July 2020. I see a fee for service financial planner this coming monday to get a 3rd set of eyes over my figures and assumptions around taxation. I'll be 58yo.
              I don't intend to properly retire, just go and do things i feel like and enjoy - maybe for some extra income, maybe not.

              One of my colleagues is like minded but 12 years younger than me. He's been on a similar journey and intends to quit when he is 50 (4 years time).

              FIRE is what you make of it. It's like making a cake, there are a few different recipes but the process is similar and the outcome tasty.

              If you don't subscribe to the method then fair enough but don't put crap on something you obviously don't understand.

              1. Be cheap and don't spend anything on yourself or your family or friends for 10 years that you don't have to. Don't buy a house and mooch off your family.

              lol.
              I own a nice house in an expensive suburb close to the CBD. Sure, my first 3 houses were old pieces of junk under the flight path but I fixed them up and sold plus I rented a couple of times between properties waiting for the right place to come along.
              I go to nice restaurants, I drink nice booze, I travel a lot locally and overseas, I go to the AFL and 4 different theatre groups. You don't have to be a miser, you just have to make considered decisions where you spend your money. I do drive a 12 year old car and I have a $300 phone that i bought a few years back. I rarely buy take-away and I don't get things delivered. I buy wine by the dozen rather than single bottles. I cook at home on weekdays. I shop around. I take my kids on holidays and out to the theatre and dinner.

              Get lucky investing in high risk high yield, but don't admit to anyone that it's high risk.

              What do you consider High Risk?
              Is Flight Centre a high risk investment? It's certainly high yield for me with a 250% capital increas since 2008 and a 30%FF dividend yield on my original purchase price.
              Or Cochlear? That's up 200%
              Is owning your own home with no mortgage High Risk?
              Is saving up and paying for things in full a high risk?

              Retire early and hope you don't go bankrupt
              Work until you are 65 with all the toys and then be too worn out to enjoy it. Take your pick.

              • syousef on 13/12/2019 - 12:39
                -1

                @brad1-8tsi: Nice straw man. What you are describing isn't FIRE. It's called retirement planning. I didn't say I was against retirement planning. I'm against the extremes being espoused under the name FIRE.

                Retiring at 55 instead of 60 or 65 under the old rules is hardly something I'd be boasting about. I've known people who've retired in their mid to late 50s without evangelizing FIRE. You also own a house while FIRE strategy suggests you shouldn't. Are you being so frugal that you mooch on your relatives and friends, refusing to ever go out or buy yourself anything but the bare necessities? No?!? Not FIRE!

                I sincerely hope your recreational employment pans out and that your investments don't crash because otherwise it's working Australian's that will be supporting you once you've chewed through your assets. Any of those investments could crash for any number of reasons!

                You're also citing high short term yields as proof of low risk. I'm surprised you didn't lose it all in the bitcoin crash. Did you see how high those yields were?

                • brad1-8tsi on 13/12/2019 - 13:09
                  +1

                  @syousef: 12 years is short term? 20 years for some of my investments?

                  You really don't understand FIRE do you. Nor do you seem to understand that it's a flexible concept. Do you even understand current rules regarding superannuation, taxation, etc?

                  If it all crashes I'll go back to work again with all my transferable skills or go on the aged pension at 65. I've paid enough taxes, duty and excise over the years that I won't feel guilty.

                  • syousef on 13/12/2019 - 13:22
                    -1

                    @brad1-8tsi: Crashes never happen after 12 years. Or 20. If your investment doesn't fail in that time frame, it's safe?

                    Do you think they'll be hiring 65 year olds if there's a major recession? You know. The one that most financial experts believe is inevitable. It's tough right now! But certainly not as tough as it could be…

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

                    • brad1-8tsi on 13/12/2019 - 13:30
                      +1

                      @syousef: Yes, my father lived through the great depression and WW2 (including service in the RAN) and multiple recessions (I think I've done around 10 recessions).

                      Did you know there were more millionaires (when it meant something) made in the great depression than any other time?

                      To quote Dorothy Thompson "Only when we are no longer afraid do we begin to live."

                      To quote my Dad "Have a crack Son. Nobody got anywhere standing still"

                      • syousef on 13/12/2019 - 14:45

                        @brad1-8tsi:

                        Did you know there were more millionaires (when it meant something) made in the great depression than any other time?

                        Yes and how many suicides were there? I am amazed you didn't quote Ayn Rand. Delusional.

                        To quote my Dad "Have a crack Son. Nobody got anywhere standing still"

                        Did he happen to bet on the horses?

                        In any case: false dichotomy. At no point did I say you shouldn't try to do well investing your money. I just said that early retirement with everything in stocks was probably not the safest bet.

                        One more thing to think about:
                        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10060993/Retire…

                        • brad1-8tsi on 13/12/2019 - 22:26

                          @syousef:

                          Did he happen to bet on the horses?
                          Non-smoker
                          Non-drinker
                          Non-gambler

                          Died aged 87 having left school in 4th Form (year 10), served his country in the RAN doing mine clearance in the pacific islands and then had a distinguished career as a senior federal public servant

  • sav11 on 09/12/2019 - 12:58

    The entire movement is cherry picking and involves stated goals and promises of retiring in your 30s.

    Wrong. Anyway whatever the movement does or does not state is not attributable to me. Read back what I actually said.

    You are seeking out and "cherry picking" information to affirm your prior beliefs.

    "Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that affirms one's prior beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning." Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

    • syousef on 13/12/2019 - 12:41
      -1

      Anyway whatever the movement does or does not state is not attributable to me

      Then why the hell are you arguing with me?

      You are seeking out and "cherry picking" information to affirm your prior beliefs.

      Look at those last 2 quotes. You're literally cherry picking in the first, and complaining about me cherry picking in the second.

      I'll repeat: You don't understand the difference "cherry picking" and "requiring evidence".

      • forrester on 13/12/2019 - 17:37
        +1

        Just read this thread randomly and noticed you are very passionate in your multiple responses - just interested to find out why is this and what is your story?

        • sav11 on 13/12/2019 - 22:50

          Perceptive question. I'd hypothesize this comment from her post above has something to do with it:

          How about you google: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

          • syousef on 14/12/2019 - 14:24

            @sav11: Her? You're so perceptive you have my gender wrong.

            Do you know what ad hominmem is?

        • syousef on 14/12/2019 - 14:23

          Yes I'm passionate about it because people are being sucked into something very like a cult.

      • sav11 on 13/12/2019 - 22:41

        Then why the hell are you arguing with me?

        Why not, am I not allowed to debate unless I represent the movement and every statement it's ever made?

        Look at those last 2 quotes. You're literally cherry picking in the first, and complaining about me cherry picking in the second.

        I neither "cherry-picked" nor complained about anything. I simply demonstrated that you are repeatedly using cognitive bias despite your protests to the contrary.

        I repeat: read back what I actually said.

        • syousef on 14/12/2019 - 14:25

          Why not? Because you are using yourself as an example to argue about something that you claim not to be participating in. In other words you aren't making much sense.

          I neither "cherry-picked" nor complained about anything. I

          I don't believe you even understand the meaning of that phrase.

  • SuperSonic on 12/12/2019 - 22:46

    Anyother link to watch the movie for free ?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join