Is there an advantage to keeping a liquid emergency fund if one also has an untapped line of credit?
"People treat an emergency fund as some kind of ace-in-the-hole when it comes to financial difficulty, but it is only one of many sources of money that you can utilize. What is an emergency? First, you have to define what an emergency is.  Is it a lost job?  Is it an unplanned event (pregnancy, perhaps)?  Is it a medical emergency?  Is it the death of you or your spouse? Also, what does it mean to be unplanned?  Is being so unhappy with your job that you give a 2-week notice an emergency?  Is one month of planning an emergency?  Two? Only you can answer these questions for yourself, but they significantly shape your financial strategy.  Planning is highly dependent on your cashflow, and, for some people, it may take them a year to build enough savings to enable them to take 3 months off work.  For others, they may be able to change their spending to build up enough for 3 months in 1 month. Also, you have to consider the length of the emergency.  Job-loss is rarely permanent, but it's rarely short as well.  The current average is 30.7 weeks: that's 7 months! Money in an Emergency There are six main places that people get money during a financial emergency: A good emergency strategy takes all six of these into account.  Some emergencies may lean more on one source than the other.  However, some of these are correlated. For example, in 2008, three things happened:  the stock market crashed, unsecured debt dried up, and people faced financial emergency (lost jobs, cut wages).  If you were dependent on a stock portfolio and/or a line of credit, you'd be up a creek, because the value of your investments suddenly decreased, and you can't really tap your now significantly limited line of credit. However, if you had a one or more of cash savings, unemployment income, and unemployment insurance, you would probably have been OK. Budgeting for an emergency When you say ""financial emergency"", most people think job loss.  However, the most common cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical debt.  Depending on your insurance situation, this could be a serious risk, or it may not be.   People say you should have 3x-6x of your monthly income in savings because it's an easy, back-of-the-envelope way to handle most financial emergency risk, but it's not necessarily the most prudent strategy for you. To properly budget for an emergency, you need to fully take into account what emergencies you are likely to face, and what sources of financing you would have access to given the likely factors that led to that emergency. Generally, having a savings account with some amount of liquid cash is an important part of a risk-mitigation strategy.  But it's not a panacea for every kind of emergency." An emergency fund is your money, sitting in a bank, that you can use for emergency purposes. A line of credit is somebody else's money, that they've provisionally promised to let you borrow.  But they can change their mind at any time. Stop trying to make money with your emergency fund. It's purpose is to sit there idly waiting for a bad day. A day when you need that cash (liquid) not in a bank or a line-of-credit. The few dollars you might make trying to chase interest/investments with your emergency fund aren't worth it if a true emergency came up and you couldn't get to your cash in time. Once you have a fully funded EF then start investing heavily. That's your future game plan. Not the EF. recommend keeping some amount of money in cash as an emergency fund I see two keywords, with two interpretations here. Cash: Emergency: 1 + 1 is rarely a problem. Even if it takes a couple of days to sell reliable investments. 1 + 2 is a rather large problem. You need to leave town, today, because the town won't be there tomorrow. You're out of gas, and the phones are not working. The guy minding the local service station with an AR-15 can't process your Amex Centurion card and would prefer actual cash. I live in an area prone to earthquakes and cyclonic storms. The last large one didn't knock out anything major, but the cash machines emptied out rather quickly. We keep a month's income in cash in the house, and I have a spare tank of gas in storage*. As others have said, there is no single answer for everyone. But do consider what you take for granted and what happens when it goes away.  *Change it every 2 months - common gasoline is not chemically stable Why can't you have both? If you do have both credit and an emergency fund, and an emergency occurs, you can draw from the line of credit first. Having debt + cash is a much more stable situation than having neither, because then you have the option to use the cash to pay off the debt, or use the cash to pay other expenses. If you just have cash, when you spend it it's gone and there's no guarantee anyone is going to lend you any money at that point. Let me offer what I did in a similar situation - Two points (a) we were banking $20K/yr or so to the cash fund, 2 good incomes, and the ability to go indefinitely on just one of the 2. (b) A HELOC that was prime-1.5%.   The result was to mentally treat the HELOC as our emergency fund, but to enjoy the interest savings of over $16,500/yr for the $100K that had a sub-1% return.  When I first referenced this story, I came under criticism. Fair enough, it's not for everyone. Let's jump ahead. We owe $228K @3.5%. We had tapped the equity line for brief periods, but never over $20,000. When we lost our jobs, both of us, we had hit our number and are semi-retired now. Our retirement budget included the current mortgage payment, so we are in line for that dropping out of the budget in 12 years, and starting social security after that, which I did not include as part of the budget.  Note - when we lost our jobs, the severance was 6 month's pay, and we collected unemployment as well. The first 12 months were covered without tapping our retirement funds at all. So, to Nick's point (and excellent answer) our first line of defense against unemployment was this combination of severance and unemployment insurance.
Emergency funds, car funds etc tend to have to be accessible quickly (which tends to rule out CDs unless you have the patience to work something like a monthly CD ladder, an I don't) and you'll want your principal protected. The latter pretty much rules out any proper investment (ETFs, mutual funds, stock market directly, Elbonian dirt futures etc). It's basically a risk-vs-return calculation. Not much risk, not much return but at least you're not losing from a nominal standpoint). Another consideration is that you normally aren't able to decide freely if and when you want to pull money out of an emergency fund. If it is an emergency, waiting three weeks to see if the stock market goes up a little further isn't an option so you might end up having to take a hit that would be irrelevant if you were investing long term but might hurt badly because you're left with no choice. I'd stick that sort of money into a money market account and either add to it if necessary to keep up with inflation or make sure that my non-retirement investments over and above these funds are performing well, as those will and should become a far bigger part of your wealth in the longer run. "So long as you have complete, virtually instant access to funds through checks, debit card, or ATM transaction, then yes it would be a better option than a ""vanilla"" savings account.   If it's in a brokerage account that you would need to process a transfer and potentially wait a few days for everything to settle, then I would just keep it in savings. The amount earned in interest isn't worth the extra hassle.  A compromise might be to keep a few thousand in a savings account and the rest in a money market.  That way you earn some interest and still have instant access to enough funds to cover most emergencies." "What you're describing makes sense. I'd probably call the non-liquid portion something besides my ""emergency fund"", but that's semantics mostly. If you have 3 months of ""very liquid"" cash in this emergency fund and you're comfortable that this amount is good for your situation, then I don't see why you can't have additional savings in more or less liquid vehicles. Whatever you set up, you'll want to think about how to tap it when you need it. You might have a CD ladder with one maturing every three months. That would give you access to these funds after your liquid funds dry up. (Or for a small/short term emergency, you'll be able to replenish the liquid fund with the next-maturing CD.) Or set up a T Bill ladder with the same structure. This might provide you with a tax advantage." This very much depends how you use that second line of credit and what your current credit is. There are of course many more combinations buy you can probably infer the impact based on these cases.   Your credit score is based on your likely hood of being profitable to a creditor should they issue you credit. This is based on your history of your ability to manage your credit.  Having more credit and managing it well shows that you have a history of being responsible with greater sums of money available.  If you use the card responsibly now then you are more likely to continue that trend than someone with a history of irresponsibility.  Having a line but not using it is not a good thing.  It costs the creditor money for you to have an account.  If you never use that account then you are not showing that you can use the account responsibly so if you are just going to throw the card in a safe and never access it then you are better off not getting the card in the first place. Two adages come to mind. Never finance a depreciating asset. If you can't pay cash for a car, you can't afford it. If you decide you can finance at a low rate and invest at a higher one, you're leveraging your capital.  The risk here is that your investment drops in value, or your cash flow stops and you are unable to continue payments and have to sell the car, or surrender it. There are fewer risks if you buy the car outright.  There is one cost that is not considered though.  Opportunity cost.   Since you've declared transportation necessary, I'd say that opportunity cost is worth the lower risk, assuming you have enough cash left after buying a car to fund your emergency fund. Which brings me to my final point.  Be sure to buy a quality used car, not a new one.  Your emergency fund should be able to replace the car completely, in the case of a total loss where you are at fault and the loss is not covered by insurance. TLDR: My opinion is that it would be better to pay for a quality, efficient, basic transportation car up front than to take on a debt. I'd imagine that it's a small portion of the population that can have much of both. If one is saving a decent amount for retirement, say 10-15%, they aren't likely to have much else, aside from the house if included. For example, when I look at my 'pie chart' I get Retirement 72%, House 22%, everything else 6%.  Specific to your question, emergency funds should be just that, accessible for urgent matters, other short term needs, such as car fund, big TV fund, vacation, etc, also in non-risky cash (i.e. money funds CDs, etc) and the rest invested long term. The short need money isn't part of the long term asset allocation, to be specific. "IMO, you can do whatever you want with an emergency fund, as long as it is in a deposit-type account. The purpose of the fund is for emergencies, not to make money, so you want it to be liquid so that you can access it in an emergency. Personally, I'm willing to take accept a potential penalty for withdrawing. Here's some examples of what I mean: You don't want ""emergency"" funds in a marketable security, because your emergency could be directly or indirectly related to some sort of market crisis. If you absolutely needed to liquidate an investment in the days after the collapse of Lehman brothers, you probably would have taken a bath -- even secure, US State bonds fell in value. If you feel that this is taking too much cash off the table, that's ok, just don't consider the part that you invest part of your ""emergency"" fund. The 3-8 months of expenses thing depends on your situation. If you're a salesman, err towards 8. If you're a unionized civil service worker with seniority, 3 months is probably appropriate." "There are exactly zero experts in the field of Personal Finance that would advise having an ""emergency fund"" (liquid assets available to meet sudden obligations like illness, car accident, AC breaks, etc.) that is sub $1,000.   If you have less than $1k in liquid assets you either A. must live at home with your parents, B. very broke or C. being very irresponsible. I think an emergency fund of $10k is really the sweet spot. I can't imagine anyone reasonable funding the shit out of their 401k, IRA, etc. and having less than $1k cash." Based on your situation, I'm not sure it should be an either/or sort of choice.  The less debt you have the better, but because the HELOC is secured debt, the interest rate should be rather low.  If you're trying to build a cash cushion for emergencies, it may help to figure out a few things first: Once you know how much you want to save and how long it will take, you can figure out how much longer it would take of some of the savings were diverted to debt reduction. If your credit is good enough to get a HELOC in the first place, putting some of your cash-flow toward both goals is an option worth considering. There is no difference in safety form the perspective of the bank failing, due to FDIC/NCUA insurance.  However, there is a practical issue that should be considered, if you allow payments to be automatically withdrawn from your checking account  In the case of an error, all of you money may be unavailable until the error is resolved, which could be days or weeks.  By having two accounts, this possibility may be reduced.  It isn't a difference between checking and savings, but a benefit of having two accounts. Note that if both accounts are at the same bank, hey make take money from other accounts to cover the shortfall. That said, I've done this for years and have never had a problem.  Also, I have two accounts, one at a local credit union with just enough kept in it to cover any payments, and another online account that has the rest of my savings.  I can easily transfer funds between the two accounts in a couple days. Choosing between an emergency fund and investing aside, there is no reason to use a systematic investment plan when you have a lump sum ready to invest. Here are the three possible futures, and the effects on each strategy: Obviously if you are investing in the market you expect it to go up over time, so using an SIP will work against you in that case.  If the market does go down you'd be better off, but historically the market has gone up more than it's gone down, so there's no practical reason to keep money in your pockets  You can always rebalance, change investments, do whatever after you've invested, so at worst you may have some transaction fees, but that shouldn't be a huge issue. 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. The latter. Simply because having some savings is always better than having no savings. Using a credit card in an emergency will always be an option (as long as you are paying off debt) but using savings earmarked for emergencies is better. Since you're coming out of college, you're probably a new investor and don't know too much about stocks, etc. I was in the same situation as well.  I wanted to keep my cash 'liquid' and wanted to make low risk investments. What I ended up doing was investing the majority of my money in higher interest GICs (Guaranteed Investment Certificate) and keeping the rest in my chequing/savings account. I understand that GICs aren't exactly the most liquid asset out there. However, instead of investing it all into 1 GIC, I put them in to smaller increments with varying lock-in times and roll-over options. I.e. for 15000 keep $3000 on hand in your account 2x$1000 invested for 2 years 4x$1000 invested for 1 year 3x$1000 invested for 180 days 3x$1000 invested for 90 days When you find that you run out of cash from your $3000, you'll have a GIC expiring soon.  The 'problem' with GICs is that redeeming them before the maturity period usually incurs a penalty in the form of no interest.  Keeping them in smaller increments allows you to redeem only the amount you need without losing too much interest.  At maturity, if you don't need the money, you can just have the GIC renew.   The other problem with GICs, is that interest rates, though better than savings accounts, aren't that much more.  You're basically just fighting off inflation.  The benefit is that on maturity, you are guaranteed your principal and the interest.   This plan is easy to implement if your bank/credit union allows you to create and manage GICs online. I suppose it depends on how liquid you need, and if you're willing to put forth any risk whatsoever.  The stock market can be dangerous, but there are strategies out there that will allow you to insure yourself against significant loss, while likely earning you a decent return.  You can buy and sell options along with stocks so that if the stock drops, your loss is limited, and if it goes up or even stays where it's at, you make money (a lot more than 1% annually). Of course there's risk of loss, but if you plan ahead, you can cap that risk wherever you want, maybe 5%, maybe 10%, whatever suits your needs.  And as far as liquidity goes, it should be no more than a week or so to close your positions and get your money if you really need it. But even so, I would only recommend this after putting aside at least a few thousand in a cash account for emergencies.