What emergencies could justify a highly liquid emergency fund?
"I suppose this could really depend on the part of the world you're in, but there are still many instances of ""emergencies"" that need ""cash"". You have to decide how much cash is the right amount, but I still recommend having $1,000 or so in liquid cash. It can really make a huge difference. Let me give a few examples.  Bad weather. I live in Florida and after a hurricane if you want gas, food, or water, you're going to need cash. ATM networks are the last to get repaired. Same for internet. Cell services are not at the top of the list. You could be 4-5 days without access to your accounts. If you need anything in that time frame it's cash or the Red Cross. Children. As a foster parent we keep some cash on hand because as kids come in to our care we want to get them in school right away. How are they going to eat? You can't give them your plastic, you haven't had time to setup ""lunch accounts"" or the like. Cash always works. Along those same lines are bus tickets, clothes, supplies and what not. Not everywhere will take an ATM card, and if your money is tied up in a stock then what are you supposed to do for 3 days? Tell your new kid that he can't eat? Big Emergency problems. Like your car breaks down on the interstate. Sure it can get towed to the dealership, and yes they will add the tow to your bill, and sure you have a few days to pay it (while your car gets fixed), but how are you going to get around? Not all taxis take plastic around here.  Almost none of the busses take plastic even though they are supposed to. Lost Wallet or ID theft. Lose your wallet, good luck getting into your bank accounts. It can take weeks to establish your ID after you lose it in some cases. You want your ID, but you need your birth certificate. You have to GO to the state of birth and request it. Oh but wait, to travel you need an ID. No problem send away for it, but wait, you need to send them money to mail it. To bad all your money is tied up.  Running or Evacuating - So you need to evacuate for some reason. No big deal. But all your money is in a place you can't get to it. How do you put gas in your car. Lets stick with it and say you get to ""cash out"" an account of some kind. Guess what, they're not going to mail it to some random address. Now you're stuck fighting support centers to get them to understand that you need your funds delivered to New York even though you live in Florida.  In short, you don't need $100,000 in liquid funds, but there are a few cases that you need something liquid. You also make a lot of assumptions. For example, not every one will have health insurance, or a heath problem that is covered by their insurance. Some serious home repairs are ""down payment"" upfront. Car problems like an accident that means you need a rental can totally be up front. Especially if credit cards can't be used." "You are not wrong - just about anything can be charged and paid off in 30 days with a sale of non-liquid investments.  So there are not any emergencies I can think of that require completely liquid funds (cash). For me, the risks are more behavioral than financial: I'm not saying it's a ridiculous, stupid idea, and these are all ""what-if""s that can be countered with discipline and wise decisions, but having an emergency fund in cash certainly makes all of this simpler and reduces risk. If you have investments that you would have no hesitation liquidating to cover an emergency, then you can make it work.  For most people, the choice is either paying cash, or charging it without having investment funds to pay it off, and they're back in the cycle of paying minimum payments for months and drowning in debt." Weather events and aging infrastructure.  Cash will buy gasoline, food and water when there is no power or telephone connectivity to process ATMs and credit cards. What sort of emergency requires payment up front for which 2-3 days processing of a stock sale would pose a problem? In my case, the sudden and unexpected death of my wife. Back in 2011, my wife was struck and killed in a traffic incident. I had to immediately (not in 2 - 3 days) cover 50% of the entire costs of the funeral. The balance was due shortly after, though I now forget if the balance was due in 7 days or in 30. I suspect the latter. The life insurance paid out in approximately 4 months for this simple case. Even if your mortgage is insured, you still have to pay the entire balance, along with living expenses, until the paperwork is resolved. And, again in simple cases, assume this will take months rather than days or weeks. My point is, the funeral is only one of the expenses you'll have to cover in such a situation, though generally you'll have sufficient lead time for the other expenses, where your investments would likely be sufficiently liquid. Yes, a credit card would (and did) help in this situation, but if you have no credit card (as your question poses), you need ready access to thousands of dollars to cover this sort of eventuality. My bank told me that many people in such a situation have to take out an emergency loan the very day their spouse dies. Let me assure you this would be... emotionally difficult. Funerals vary widely in price. The Motley Fool indicates the median cost of a funeral with a vault was $8,343 in 2014. Crematory fees, a headstone, flowers, food, obituaries, all add to this cost. My total cost was closer to three times the median, though some of the expenses (headstone, primarily) came later. I'm sure I could have gone for a cheaper funeral, though it's hard to make rational economic decisions at that sort of time. I don't recall the exact amount I had to put down, but it was somewhere around $6000 - $8000. (No need to leave a comment expressing condolences; thanks, but I've already had plenty and now my goal is to help share knowledge. :) ) I tend to agree that the need for liquidity is overplayed in this day and age.  We live in a world of electronic transfers that take only a couple days at most.  With my brokerage account I can go from stock to gas in my tank via debit card in about 3 days. We're a long way away from the days when it took weeks, phone calls, and physical checks in the mail to go from stock to cash in your hand.  We've also moved a long way away from limited credit/debit card acceptance.  It was not long ago that my mechanic didn't accept credit cards.  Locksmiths didn't carry a square reader on their iPhone 10 years ago.   However, don't expect debt to always be available.  Many many many people with strong income and stellar credit histories had their credit/HELOC limits slashed from 2008-2010 while banks pared back risk.  A cash position of a size that makes sense gives you a high level of short term control; you aren't reliant on someone else's money. Liquidity isn't the main issue with emergency funds.  The main issue is psychological.  Build a foundation rather than overly optimistically chasing yield. "If you engage in any kind of dangerous activity, the training courses will often state that an accident is not the result of a simple error.  Examples of this include SCUBA and motorcycle training.  Properly maintained equipment and training will mitigate many emergencies.  Recently my dive buddy was 60' down, and ran out of air due to a tank O ring failure.  She did not panic, and all of the dive team rallied to get her to the surface without anyone getting hurt, or even coming close to it. Financial tragedies are similar.  In some cases, a single event triggers an avalanche of events that leads to tragedy.  For example, hard economic times may lead to an employer doing 5% pay cuts across the board.  However, they also cut bonuses and other ancillary pay items.  This leads to a real cut of 20-25% of income.  Leading a true cash flow emergency.  As such cutbacks are needed, and this might put a strain on an already shaky relationship, this leads to that relationship ending, requiring more cash.  Perhaps a car dies in this process or some household item needs repairing.  Sure one can borrow money, but this tends to exasperate the avalanche rather than solve it.    Having a low debt and a liquid emergency fund stops the avalanche in its tracks. In the case cited above issues would have been solved if the person lived off of 50% of their income rather than the way most people live (paycheck-to-paycheck).  Also if there were savings for the car repair then that becomes a pain, but not a true stress. Think of a liquid emergency fund as ""properly maintained equipment"".  It allows you to build a financial life on a solid foundation.   In my own case, I attempted to live and invest without an emergency fund.  It just did not work.  I often had to liquidate investments at in opportune times, and could never really hold onto money.  With the foundation of an emergency fund, one can build a prosperous life for one's self. You are welcome to try it your way, but if you fall, hopefully you will remember this answer and build your foundation first." Emergency funds are defined in terms of months of tightened-belt living -- that's according to the usual gurus such as Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey etc.   They aren't for short-term emergencies like a blown transmission.  Use other money for those.  Why?  People with bad financial habits have short-term emergencies all the time, and that emergency fund doesn't have a chance of lasting.  This is just their financial habits manifesting.  Here's what an emergency fund is for.    Scenario: big economic bubble bursts.  Stock market drops 50%.  Credit dries up.  This happened in 2007 by the way.  The dominoes start falling boom, boom, boom: I'm exaggerating a bit here, but a lot of people lived at least half this stuff in 2007-11.  Nothing starts those dominoes falling like lack of cash at a key moment.  That's what an emergency fund is all about - keeping things tight-normal for long enough to get back on your feet.  If you want to keep your emergency fund in something risky -- keep a lot more of it! Having a highly liquid emergency fund can lubricate the wheels for disaster recovery.  For example, several years ago I returned from a vacation to discover that, during my absence, a plumbing fixture had broken and my house was flooded. Since we had sufficient liquidity to cover the cost of the repairs in our emergency fund, the insurance company was much easier to deal with, and the relationships between the contractor, bank, and insurance company were much smoother. The bank was able to approve the insurance in minutes versus days. Ironically, we didn't actually have to touch our emergency fund precisely because we had it. Clarification - I make it a point to have no debt. First of all, a person that relies on their ability to tap a line of credit to cover an emergency isn't generally the kind of person that has investments they can cash out to cover the debt. That being said, my personal reasons for having a liquid emergency fund revolve around bank errors and identify theft. I used to work for a company that made bank software. Errors are a common occurrence. You'd be surprised how many transactions are still input by human hands despite our computerized world. All it takes is one typo to wipe out your ability to swipe plastic for a few days. This has actually happened to me. My utility company sent me a bill for $240 and wound up taking $2400 by accident, overdrawing my account and sending me into a fee spiral. They fixed their mistake... several days later. The snowball of fees from other transactions that bounced took another two months to correct. In the meantime, I also had my mortgage payment due. In the US, you can't pay your mortgage with credit, and for those who rent, many landlords won't let you pay with credit either. I have also seen this scenario play out twice with other people I've known who've had their ID stolen. Yes, the bank will cover the fraud after a lengthy process. But the disruption causes fees and overdrafts to quickly snowball out of control. I have a separate savings account at a different bank for this kind of thing, and I have a few hundred dollars cash in my house at all times. Having a liquid emergency fund allows you to quickly stabilize the situation and gives you walking around money for those times where the banking system becomes your enemy for a time. This might vary from other answers but I generally prefer to use debt before touching an emergency fund.  But one of the reasons I have an emergency fund is to that I can make sure I can cover any debt payments.  Essentially, this give you leverage.  You might start off with a small emergency such as needing a new refrigerator.  If you pull the cash out of the fund to pay this off immediately, you've depleted your account and if something major comes along, you might be short.  By using debt, you can often cover the costs with cash-flow and leave your risk buffer in place. Often, retailers will offer really sweet financing deals.  0% for 12 months or whatever.  Often, though, if you don't pay it off in time, they can be costly.  I'm not sure if this is legal (in the US) anymore but if it wasn't fully paid off in time, you'd be retroactively charged interest on the whole amount.  But if you have an emergency fund, you pretty much guarantee that won't happen.  The only time it will is if something else happens that requires the emergency fund to be cashed in.  But if things are that dire, the debt is unsecured.  You're credit may suffer but they can't come after your assets. It's not an either-or situation.  You give yourself options by having the cash available.  It allows you to take advantage of opportunities that might be too risky otherwise.  Ultimately what you want to be able to weather the storm in a situation where you have, say, a mortgage on a house that is underwater, the stock market is down, and you have no income.  In that situation, you don't want to liquidate your stock when it's down and you (probably) don't want to lose your home equity in a foreclosure. I recently drove past Winslow, Arizona and knocked out the fuel pump in my truck. It cost $500 to repair, and the tow would have been another several hundred if I hadn't had a Good Samaritan's club card, since it was the weekend. 2-3 days would not be acceptable in this sort of scenario. And that was just the fuel pump! "Visa card expired while on the other side of the world.  Visa from other bank declined for suspected fraud.  ""You should have told us you were going to a country that has lots of fraud.""  Nearest ATM, twelve kilometers." While there have been plenty of good answers I would like to suggest turning it on it's head--the problem is one of perception. Other than in terms of cash-type emergency funds (my general policy is to have enough cash to get home, however far from there I might be) I consider available credit + assets that can be liquidated reasonably quickly to count as emergency fund money. Since no one else mentioned it, there are sometimes amazing deals that require being the first person to take advantage of them. I'm not talking about black Friday sales, I'm talking about the woman who decided to sell the Porsche (she had bought for her cheating husband) for $1000. You might not run into those types of deals often, but having liquid investments will allow you to take advantage of them instead of kicking yourself. I just bought some real estate with some of my emergency fund that needed several months before I could properly finance it due to some legal issues with the deed that needed to go through court because there was a deceased person on the title. I will make far more on the deal when it's done than I ever could have made with that money invested in the market.
Duffbeer703 covers most everything. The entire point of an emergency fund IS for it to be liquid.  Now I do understand (if you feel your situation requires over 6 months of living expenses): That is a lot of money to have sitting in a statement savings account! Under no circumstances should you take any sort of risk with an emergency fund. However, you COULD do this: Invest some of the assets in a six month, 1 year or 2 year CD if returns were enough to be worthwhile.  If you don't need the money, then fine, great. But if you do, you can break a Certificate of Deposit before maturity. There will be a penalty fee. You might lose interest too. But you'll have access to your money, no liquidity risk. So maybe you could put most, say 60% of your rainy day funds in truly liquid assets. The remainder could be in longer term CD's which you hopefully won't need because you'll be back to non rainy day living again. "If you've already got emergency savings sufficient for your needs, I agree that you'd be better served by sending that $500 to your student loan(s). I, personally, house the bulk of my emergency savings in CDs because I'm not planning to touch it and it yields a little better than a vanilla savings account. To address the comment about liquidity.  In addition to my emergency savings I keep plain vanilla savings accounts for miscellaenous sudden expenses.  To me ""emergency"" means lost job, not new water pump for my car; I have other budgeted savings for that but would spend it on a credit card and reimburse myself anyway so liquidity there isn't even that important.   The 18 month CDs I use are barely less liquid than vanilla savings and the penalty is just a couple months of the accrued interest.  When you compare a possible early distribution penalty against the years of increased yield you're likely to come out ahead after years of never touching your emergency savings, unless you're budgeted such that a car insurance deductible is an emergency expense. Emergency funds should be guaranteed and non-volatile.  If I lose my job, 90 days of accrued interest isn't a hindrance to breaking open some of my CDs, and the process isn't so daunting that I'd meaningfully harm my finances. Liquidity in 2017 and liquidity in whatever year a text book was initially written are two totally different animals.  My ""very illiquid"" brokerage account funds are only one transaction and 3 settlement days less liquid than my ""very liquid"" savings account.  There's no call the bank, sell the security, wait for it to clear, my brokerage cuts a check, mail the check, cash the check, etc.  I can go from Apple stock on Monday to cash in my hand on like Thursday.  On the web portal for the bank that holds my CDs I can instantly transfer the funds from a CD to my checking account there net of a negligible penalty for early distribution.  To call CDs illiquid in 2017 is silly." "Yes... but it is a matter of balancing risks.  It is wiser to keep a small amount of ""ready cash"" as an emergency/buffer -- and to suffer the gradual loss to inflation...  Than it is risk becoming ""stuck"" in an emergency with zero dollars in any (low or no cost) source of funds -- those kinds of ""emergencies"" ($500 or $1,000 ""unexpected/unbudgeted"" expenses) are fairly frequent and virtually inevitable.  You lose vastly MORE money when you are forced to borrow those amounts (interest -- even **low-rate** loans -- is virtually always higher than the average inflation rate)." There is no right answer here, one has to make the choice himself. Its best to have an emergency fund before you start to commit funds to other reasons. The plan looks good. Keep following it and revise the plan often. "Edited answer, given that I didn't address the emergency fund aspect originally: None. You've said you don't feel comfortable locking it away where you wouldn't be able to get to it in an emergency. If you don't like locking it away, the answer to ""How much money should I lock up in my savings account?"" is none. On a more personal note, the interest rates on bonds are just awful. Over five years, you can do better." "Great question. There are several reasons; I'm going to list the few that I can think of off the top of my head right now. First, even if institutional bank holdings in such a term account are covered by deposit insurance (this, as well as the amount covered, varies geographically), the amount covered is generally trivial when seen in the context of bank holdings. An individual might have on the order of $1,000 - $10,000 in such an account; for a bank, that's basically chump change, and you are looking more at numbers in the millions of dollars range. Sometimes a lot more than that. For a large bank, even hundreds of millions of dollars might be a relatively small portion of their holdings. The 2011 Goldman Sachs annual report (I just pulled a big bank out of thin air, here; no affiliation with them that I know of) states that as of December 2011, their excess liquidity was 171,581 million US dollars (over 170 billion dollars), with a bottom line total assets of $923,225 million (a shade under a trillion dollars) book value. Good luck finding a bank that will pay you 4% interest on even a fraction of such an amount. GS' income before tax in 2011 was a shade under 6.2 billion dollars; 4% on 170 billion dollars is 6.8 billion dollars. That is, the interest payments at such a rate on their excess liquidity alone would have cost more than they themselves made in the entire year, which is completely unsustainable. Government bonds are as guaranteed as deposit-insurance-covered bank accounts (it'll be the government that steps in and pays the guaranteed amount, quite possibly issuing bonds to cover the cost), but (assuming the country does not default on its debt, which happens from time to time) you will get back the entire amount plus interest. For a deposit-insured bank account of any kind, you are only guaranteed (to the extent that one can guarantee anything) the maximum amount in the country's bank deposit insurance; I believe in most countries, this is at best on the order of $100,000. If the bank where the money is kept goes bankrupt, for holdings on the order of what banks deal with, you would be extremely lucky to recover even a few percent of the principal. Government bonds are also generally accepted as collateral for the bank's own loans, which can make a difference when you need to raise more money in short order because a large customer decided to withdraw a big pile of cash from their account, maybe to buy stocks or bonds themselves. Government bonds are generally liquid. That is, they aren't just issued by the government, held to maturity while paying interest, and then returned (electronically, these days) in return for their face value in cash. Government bonds are bought and sold on the ""secondary market"" as well, where they are traded in very much the same way as public company stocks. If banks started simply depositing money with each other, all else aside, then what would happen? Keep in mind that the interest rate is basically the price of money. Supply-and-demand would dictate that if you get a huge inflow of capital, you can lower the interest rate paid on that capital. Banks don't pay high interest (and certainly wouldn't do so to each other) because of their intristic good will; they pay high interest because they cannot secure capital funding at lower rates. This is a large reason why the large banks will generally pay much lower interest rates than smaller niche banks; the larger banks are seen as more reliable in the bond market, so are able to get funding more cheaply by issuing bonds. Individuals will often buy bonds for the perceived safety. Depending on how much money you are dealing with (sold a large house recently?) it is quite possible even for individuals to hit the ceiling on deposit insurance, and for any of a number of reasons they might not feel comfortable putting the money in the stock market. Buying government bonds then becomes a relatively attractive option -- you get a slightly lower return than you might be able to get in a high-interest savings account, but you are virtually guaranteed return of the entire principal if the bond is held to maturity. On the other hand, it might not be the case that you will get the entire principal back if the bank paying the high interest gets into financial trouble or even bankruptcy. Some people have personal or systemic objections toward banks, limiting their willingness to deposit large amounts of money with them. And of course in some cases, such as for example retirement savings, it might not even be possible to simply stash the money in a savings account, in which case bonds of some kind is your only option if you want a purely interest-bearing investment." "The guideline for the size of an emergency fund is just a guideline.  I've usually heard it expressed as ""3 to 6 months,"" but everyone has a different idea of exactly how big it should be. The purpose of the fund is to give you enough cash to be able to pay for unexpected expenses that have come up that you have not budgeted for without you having to borrow money to pay for them. To figure out how big this fund should be, we look at the worst case scenario.  Suppose that you lost your job tomorrow.  What would you do? Cut your expenses.  You'd probably be much more careful how you spend money. Secure health insurance.  This would be done by either continuing your employer's policy with COBRA, or by purchasing your own insurance, likely through the Obamacare/ACA market.  Keep in mind that most likely your employer is paying for a portion of your insurance now, so this expense will go up quite a bit no matter which option you choose. Look for another job.  You'd probably begin your search for a new job immediately. The size of your emergency fund determines how long you will be able to go without income before you need to start a new job. Regarding cutting your expenses, it is up to you how much you would cut.  There are things that are easy to cut temporarily (or permanently), such as restaurants, entertainment expenses, vacations, etc.  You would probably stop retirement investing until you have income again.  The more you cut, the longer your emergency fund would last.  Things you don't want to cut are necessities, like housing, groceries, utilities, transportation, etc.  I would also include health insurance in this list.  Certainly, if you have a pre-existing condition, you do not want to let your health insurance coverage lapse. Your employability is also a factor.  If you believe that you would have an easy time finding similar employment to what you have now, your emergency fund might not need to be quite as big as someone who believes they would have a harder time finding another job." If you're relatively certain that you're going to meet the requirements, it sounds like a good move for you. The #1 priority with emergency funds should be easy access to the money when you need it.  Before the current economic situation, money market funds were great for this since they preserved the value of the dollars you put in.  Now the rates on money market accounts are barely better than the 0.2% you're currently getting. "A major danger of keeping ""emergency"" funds in the form of stocks is that many of the scenarios where one would need quick access to the money will also momentarily depress the stock market.  Someone whose emergency funds were in some other form could avoid selling stocks during a momentary downturn, but someone who has no other emergency funds would have no choice but to sell during the downturn (thus losing money as well as making the downturn more significant for everyone else)." While I don't disagree with the other answers as far as CD laddering goes (at least in principle), three months CDs are currently getting much lower rates than money market accounts, at least according to http://www.bankrate.com.  A savings account is also more liquid than CDs. Bonds are another option, and they can generally be liquidated quickly on the secondary market.  However, they can go down in value if interest rates rise (actually this is true of CDs as well--there is a secondary market, though  I believe only for brokerage CDs?). Bottom line, A high yield savings account is likely your best best.  As others noted, you should think of your emergency fund as savings, not investment. This is probably a good time to note that credit is not a liquid asset, and not an emergency fund. Credit can be revoked or denied at any time, and Murphy's law states that you may have issues with credit when everything else goes wrong too. There are many considerations before deciding on the best place for your funds: How liquid do you need the funds to be?   If this is for an emergency fund I would keep at least some in an account that you have instant access to,  What is your risk (volatility) tolerance? Would you be OK with the value dropping by as much as 30% in a year knowing that over time you'll probably earn 8-12% on it?  If not, then equity funds or other stock investments are probably not the best move for you. Do you need the funds now or are they for long-term (retirement) savings? Are you eligible to fund an IRA? That would defer your taxes until you withdraw the funds from the account, but there are age restrictions that you must heed to avoid penalties. Are CDs a good idea? They do pay decent interest, but in return for that you lock up your funds for a set period of time.  All that to say that there are many facets to determining the best place for your funds.  If you provide more specifics you can get a more specific answer. "The concept of emergency fund is a matter of opinion. I can tell you the consensus is that one should have 6-9 months worth of expenses kept as liquid cash. This is meant to cover literally all bills that you might encounter during that time.  That's a lot of money. There are levels of savings that are shy of this but still responsible. Not enough to cover too much in case of job loss, but enough to cover the busted transmission, the broken water heater, etc. this is still more than many people have saved up, but it's a worthy goal.  The doctor visit is probably the lowest level. Even without insurance, the clinic visit should be under $200, and this shouldn't cause you to have to carry that amount beyond the time the bill comes in.  The point that shouldn't be ignored is that if you owe money at 18% on a credit card, the emergency fund is costing you money, and is a bit misguided. I'd send every cent I could to the highest rate card and not have more than a few hundred $$ liquid until the cards were at zero.  Last - $5K, $10K in the emergency account is great, unless you are foregoing matched 401(k) dollars to do it. All just my opinion. Others here whom I respect might disagree with parts of my answer, and they'd be right.   Edit - Regarding the 'consensus 6-9 months' I suggest -  From Investopedia - ""...using the conservative recommendation to sock away eight months’   worth of living expenses...."" The article strongly support my range for the fact that it both cites consensus, yet disagrees with it.  From Money Under 30 The more difficult you rank your ability to find a new job, the more   we suggest you save — up to a year’s worth of expenses if you think   your income would be very difficult to replace. From Bank of America   I have no issue with those comfortable with less. A dual income couple who is saving 30% of their income may very well survive one person losing a job with no need to tap savings, and any 'emergency' expense can come from next month's income. That couple may just need this month's bills in their checking account." "Now store the money in -- okay here, think about a realistic worst case scenario.  Not zombie attack or meteor mega-strike, but the kinds  in which you are not entirely helpless: job loss stacked on top of the worst recession since the Great Depression, along with credit drying up so you can't just borrow your way through the hard times.   Store the money in an account and investment which is  relatively liquid, meaning you could extract cash value from it fairly easily in a worst case scneario.  Safe -- essentially impossible to lose significant value in a worst case scenario.  (or, you only count the part of its value that's sure to be there in a worst case.) If you're much too cool for an emergency fund, then sorry to waste your valuable time!    For the rest of us, it's a planning tool.   Even dot-coms do this: it's called a ""burn-rate"" and they know exactly how many more weeks their VC can fund operations.    Of course in practicality, it may not go to X months of routine expenses. Most of it may get burned up in month 2 on a new transmission.  You can't really predict this stuff, the ""X month"" paradigm is just an arm-wave.   For the financially uneducated, it's also a training tool.   In the US, school does not provide financial education.  Most people get financial habits from their parents, and like most family lessons, they are deeply emotionally wired, even if they are unconscious of that fact.  For instance, some people don't ask for the salaries they deserve, and spend lavishly until the checkbook is zero - they literally push money away.  Suffice it to say, it's a challenge to get some people to even realize that savings is a thing, when they have never in their whole lives been able to hold onto more than $20 for more than a week. The concept of an emergency fund is a sellable way to break through that ""I can't save"" mental-block. So I can see where you might think the emergency fund is greasy kidstuff.   Fair.  But it's not just that, it's also a very practical planning tool." Imagine that a fund had a large exit load that declined over several years. If you wanted to sell some or all of your investment in that fund you would face a large fee, unless you held it a long time. You would be hesitant to sell because waiting longer would save you money. That is the exact opposite of a liquid investment.  Therefore the ideal level for a liquid fund is to have zero exit load.