Where do you put your emergency fund?

Where do you put your emergency fund?

Have you heard the doomsday stories about how unprepared Americans are for unexpected expenses? The numbers vary: 40% can’t cover a $400 expense, most would go into debt over a $500 expense, only 39% can cover a $1,000 emergency. They all tell a similar story, though: many Americans don’t have any significant source of savings that they can draw upon.

The solution that many people recommend is an emergency fund. An emergency fund is just what it sounds like: a stash of money to deal with unexpected emergencies. Advice varies, but most people seem to suggest that a good emergency fund should at least cover 3 months of expenses.

Because it’s supposed to deal with unexpected emergencies, the money should be pretty liquid (ie, easily accessible). Equity in a rental property would make a terrible source of emergency funds because it would likely take months to be able to get access to that money. At the same time, a good emergency fund should be pretty safe in terms of not being in risky investments. The last thing you want is to have your 3 months of expenses cut down to 2 months of expenses right when you need it because there was a market crash at the same time as you need your appendix removed.

Because it’s pegged to spending, an emergency fund that covers three months of expenses is likely going to be a significant amount of money (relatively speaking) for most people. For my family, with a mortgage in the expensive Northern Virginia housing market and two young kids, three months of expenses is easily over $10k. It was killing me to keep so much money in a checking account earning no interest.

CDs

Thankfully, one of the positive side effects of interest rates rising is that some of the safer savings vehicles are starting to have respectable returns again. Once I started seeing rates for CDs had hit 2%, I decided it finally made sense to take the plunge.

What is a CD? It stands for “Certificate of Deposit”. I think of it as similar to a savings account with slightly more restrictions. However, in return for those restrictions, CDs provide a slightly higher interest rate. CDs have a term (usually from 1-5 years) which is the amount of time you agree to give the money to the bank without withdrawing it. In return, you get a guaranteed return that usually beats what you can get in a savings account. Since CDs are also FDIC insured, it’s close to a risk-free return. In the case of an emergency, the money can be withdrawn early before the end of the term for a penalty.

“But I thought emergency funds were supposed to be liquid? Paying a penalty to withdraw early doesn’t sound very liquid to me.” Yes, random interjecting voice, paying a penalty to withdraw funds early from a CD isn’t ideal, but the penalty is typically pretty minor (a few months of interest). Still, in order to avoid potentially having all of their money tied up for a year or more and to take advantage of environments where interest rates are expected to go up (like today’s environment), many people choose to ladder their CDs.

CD Laddering

What is CD laddering? Let’s say you have $8k you want to put into CDs but would rather not have the entire amount tied up for a long time. You could put all $8k into a 3 month CD, but the interest rate on that CD is lower than the interest rate on a 1 year CD. Is there a way to get the best of both worlds?

Kinda. Think about this compromise:

NameAmountTerm
CD #1$2,0003 months
CD #2$2,0006 months
CD #3$2,0009 months
CD #4$2,0001 year

This invests all $8k into CDs, but if an emergency happens you are never more than 3 months away from a CD maturing and having penalty-free access to the money. You also get some benefit from the higher interest rates that longer term CDs provide. Even better? If CD #1 matures and you don’t need access to the money, you can now re-invest that into a new 1 year CD (with possibly an even higher interest rate than the one from CD #4 if interest rates have gone up in the past 3 months) to keep the ladder going. Here is what your new ladder would look like then:

NameAmountTerm
CD #2$2,000
+ some interest
6 months
(3 remaining)
CD #3$2,000
+ some interest
9 months
(6 remaining)
CD #4$2,000
+ some interest
1 year
(9 months remaining)
CD #5
(formerly CD #1)
$2,000
+ interest from CD #1
1 year

The cycle can then start over when CD #2 matures. There are a lot of things that can be tweaked with this formula for an individual’s specific circumstances as well. Don’t think you’ll potentially need money every 3 months? You could ladder CDs with 1, 2, 3, and 5 year terms instead. Maybe you want the safety of a CD maturing every month? Split the money into twelfths instead. There’s a lot of flexibility with CD laddering.

Up until recently, the best rates that I have found for CDs so far have been with Synchrony Bank. Over the past year or so I’ve started slowly transitioning my emergency fund money from my checking account to CDs with Synchrony. Every few months they’ve been bumping up the rates on their CDs and that’s when I open a new one with a portion of my remaining emergency fund. Right now I have 6 CDs open averaging around 2.5% APR.

Robin Hood to the rescue?

The phrase “until recently” may have caught your attention in the paragraph above. That’s because just this morning I saw a headline that Robin Hood is planning on offering checking and savings accounts that will pay a 3% interest rate. While that’s still significantly less than the average return of the stock market, it’s ridiculously better than most comparable alternatives right now. My checking account is currently with Bank of America and as of the day I am writing this, the absolute highest interest rate their savings accounts pay is 0.06%, and even that is reserved for individuals with a large amount of money with the bank. Yes, that’s right, Robin Hood is proposing to offer an interest rate that is 50 times greater. Beyond that, the 3% rate tops even the rates that I mentioned above that I was getting on CDs, and it doesn’t requiring tying up your money for a specific term.

I had been playing around with Robin Hood a little bit for a few months since I had heard good things about it, so I figured I would put my name on the list to get access. The service is supposed to launch in “early 2019”. Assuming it’s all that it’s cracked up to be (or event just most of what it’s cracked up to be), then I might consider moving my emergency fund out of CDs and into this Robin Hood savings account. If you’re interested in putting your name on the list, you can try out my referral link here. If I understand their referral program, then I think we both get a free share of stock in a random company. That could be icing on the 3% checking account cake.

So that’s how I’m handling my emergency fund right now, and some insight into how I might handle it in the future. What about you? Where do you put your emergency fund? How many months of expenses do you try to have saved up? Would you be interested in trying Robin Hood’s new offering? Do you have an even better place to put an emergency fund? Let me know in the comments. Thanks!

35 thoughts on “Where do you put your emergency fund?

  1. Online savings accounts are good. Can get your money in a matter of days and currently have 2+% interest rates as well.

    1. I’ve been strongly considering an online savings account, but I just don’t know if I want to have to deal with juggling so many different accounts at once. I’m already running into some (very minor) trouble getting money from BoA to Synchrony and I haven’t even tried to have money go back in the other direction. Not sure I need to double the complications with yet another account somewhere else.

  2. “Do you have an even better place to put an emergency fund?” Yep. You’re missing two sections above: “stocks” and “bonds”. I keep my emergency fund in (taxable) stocks/bonds. Vanguard will let me get at my money in ~1 business day. So if I need like 3 months worth of savings, waiting 1/30th of that time for the money to come is usually no big deal. I do keep a much much smaller amount (~$2k) in checking for emergencies that can’t wait ~1 business day.

    So, what happens if the markets drop right when I need to access the money? That’s actually ok! Removing money right after a drop is emotionally taxing, but it’s mathematically optimal. Removing money from stocks/bonds right after a drop in the market is way better than putting money into and taking money out of a ~3%/year CD or savings account at any time. Agreed?

    1. I’m not sure I follow. With the CD laddering setup that I have, I shouldn’t have to withdraw any money out of a CD before maturity (barring some larger emergency that requires more than 3 months of expenses immediately). So in theory my emergency fund shouldn’t be losing any value. Money invested in the market (or in bonds, I believe) can go down and there’s a very real chance that your 3 months of expenses could turn into 2 when you need to withdraw it. I would agree that your long term return should be better, but the risk of losing money is also higher.

      1. CD laddering still leaves you with an emergency fund that you can get to in a matter of days unless I’m missing something.

        1. Yes CD laddering gives you too little money per year. The difference between 0% (after inflation) and 6% (after inflation) is huge in my mind.

        2. sorry typo, CD laddering leaves you with an emergency fund that you CAN’T get to in a matter of days unless I’m missing something.

          oops.

          1. Sure, in my example above, there are situations where a CD ladder leaves you unable to access (without penalty) money for 3 months. If that’s a problem, you could ladder on a monthly basis or just keep some money in a more easily accessible savings account. That’s why the flexibility of CD laddering is nice.

      2. > in theory my emergency fund shouldn’t be losing any value

        That’s correct, but you have situations (most situations) where you are losing money compared to the market.

        > there’s a very real chance that your 3 months of expenses could turn into 2 when you need to withdraw it

        Correct. Make sure to store more than 3 months of expenses here. Use 4 months instead. Or more?

        > the risk of losing money is also higher

        Compared to what? Compared to cash? Why are you comparing things to cash? If you use CDs the risk of losing money compared to the market is ~99%. It’s all perspective. You want your emergency fund to always always always beat storing the money in cash. That is an unnecessary requirement. Use stocks and bonds, use a slightly larger amount of money, and you won’t have a 99% chance of losing money compared to keeping the money in the market.

        1. I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer between us. It just comes down to the type of risk we’re comfortable with. For my emergency fund, I am willing to exchange the risk of losing to inflation/the market for the safety of not seeing my emergency fund getting cut in half. You seem to be more comfortable with that risk in exchange for the higher rates of return that the market can provide.

          I just get a little uncomfortable with the idea that my emergency fund, which I’ll be relying on in moments of distress, might end up being a lot lower than I was counting on it being when I need it the most. I’m willing to exchange some performance for predictability.

          1. Of course. I agree there aren’t any right or wrong answers here. Both scenarios are acceptable to me. But I’ve been trying to avoid scenarios where my money is sitting in 0% real return (or worse) buckets. If that means increasing risk, but still having enough to live on, I usually opt for that.

  3. “Removing money from stocks/bonds right after a drop in the market is way better than putting money into and taking money out of a ~3%/year CD or savings account at any time.”

    Can you expound on that? Or I’m not sure I follow the reasoning for that statement.

    1. Sure. Some scenarios:

      Stocks/Bonds 1: 99% chance. We store 4 months of expenses in our stocks/bonds. We have an emergency after 6 months that requires 3 months of expenses. The market is up (or even) and we withdraw 3 of the 4+ months of expenses. Yay, we win.

      Stocks/Bonds 2: 1% chance. We store 4 months of expenses in our stocks/bonds. We have an emergency after 6 months that requires 3 months of expenses. The market is down and we withdraw all the money and take the 1 month loss. Sad, but ~1% possibility.

      CDs/savings: 100% chance: We store 3 months of expenses in our CDs/savings. Our money goes up 3%. We have an emergency after 6 months. Regardless of the market, we withdraw the 3 months.

      Of these three scenarios, it seems obvious that I’d prefer to take the first two than the third.

      It’s even crazier when you include that inflation is usually greater than 3%/year. Your “real” increase with CDs is ~0%. It so illogical to me 🙂

      1. I’m not sure I follow where the 99% and 1% odds came from. That seems optimistic that the market will almost never go down and reduce your emergency fund. I guess partly I see an emergency fund’s purpose is to be available and low risk more so than to make money. If you had an emergency fund invested in the market in 2008 and then a tree fell on your house thats not good. Thats an extreme example but I think illustrates my point. I would concede though that if your mindset is solely on maximizing return then an emergency fund doesn’t really fit that.

        1. > I see an emergency fund’s purpose is to be available and low risk more so than to make money

          I agree with “available”, I don’t agree with “low risk”. Why does it need to be low risk? I agree it shouldn’t be *high* risk, but can’t it just be . . . I dunno, medium risk? Which you’d get from a combo stocks/bonds?

          Is what you gain from it being low risk worth what you lose?

          1. “Is what you gain from it being low risk worth what you lose?” I don’t think we can know the answer to that without knowing the future. If its money I’m on planning on spending in the next two years for whichever of life’s emergencies shows up then over the short term it doesn’t seem worth it to expose it to market risk. What I’m losing out on is the potential it goes up. I’m gaining the potential it doesn’t go down. And getting a risk free couple of percent.

        2. Daniel, this is a reply to a lower comment that it won’t let me reply to.

          “If its money I’m on planning on spending in the next two years for whichever of life’s emergencies shows up then over the short term it doesn’t seem worth it to expose it to market risk”

          I guess we can agree to disagree here: “worth it” is a calculus that I’m trying to suss out. I flip it in reverse: Is it “worth it” to expose that money to low-returns? 0% after inflation seems pretty low to me.

          1. If I need that money in order to buy an air conditioner for my house after it dies or to put a roof back on after a storm or to pay for an unexpected surgery then yeah I think for my family thats worth it to expose that money to low returns. In those situations I don’t have the ability to wait for a long term market returns.

            If you knew you were going to spend money on something next week would you still invest it in the market to try and get some gains off that money?

        3. Daniel, this is a reply to a lower comment.

          “If I need that money in order to buy an air conditioner for my house after it dies or to put a roof back on after a storm or to pay for an unexpected surgery then yeah I think for my family thats worth it to expose that money to low returns. In those situations I don’t have the ability to wait for a long term market returns.”

          If you need the money now *and* the market is down: take the loss. It’s an acceptable risk (imo). The unacceptable risk (imo) is the zero real returns with CDs/savings.

          “If you knew you were going to spend money on something next week would you still invest it in the market to try and get some gains off that money?”

          No. Easy question. 🙂

          1. “If you knew you were going to spend money on something next week would you still invest it in the market to try and get some gains off that money?”

            No. Easy question. 🙂

            So whats the difference between that and an emergency fund? If its money I’m planning on spending in the ‘short term’ how is it materially different from the money you aren’t putting in the market for a week?

          2. Daniel, replying here.

            “I think there is like an 90% chance I use it for something so that might be part of our underlying difference.”

            You could be right. I don’t think I’m going to have ~1 emergency per year 🙂 Maybe we define emergencies differently? If it’s something I’m doing once per year, then it’s probably not an emergency: I’ll usually just put it on my credit card, or move it out of the market when the time is good and I’m feeling right.

        4. Daniel, Replying here.

          “So whats the difference between that and an emergency fund? If its money I’m planning on spending in the ‘short term’ how is it materially different from the money you aren’t putting in the market for a week?”

          The expected number of weeks it can sit before I’ll need it?

          There’s like a 1% chance I’ll need it in the next year? And a 1% chance I’ll need it the year after that? So, the expected number of weeks it’ll be sitting is around 3600 weeks ( ln(50%)/ln(99%)*52 ). Since the expected number of weeks until I’ll need it is about 3600 weeks, that’s greater than 1 week, so I make a different decision based on that.

          1. If you think there is a 1% chance of using your emergency fund then it makes way more sense to keep it in the market. I think there is like an 90% chance I use it for something so that might be part of our underlying difference.

      2. I agree with Daniel that your 99% and 1% probabilities seem wildly optimistic. Check out the graph about halfway down this fantastically written article:
        https://rampantdiscourse.com/everybody-should-be-investing/
        My interpretation of that is that over a 3 month period, over a third of the time your emergency fund invested in the stock market is going to lose money. That’s a lot riskier than the 99% to 1% numbers you are using.

        I think I understand your point that over the long term and on average, putting an emergency fund in CDs or something similar is essentially “money losing” compared to putting the fund in stocks. I do think, however, that that is understating the importance of what an emergency fund is supposed to be for. It’s not there to make you money. It’s there to be available when and if you need it. I think a good example is health insurance. On average, health insurance probably isn’t a good idea in that you’ll probably pay more money than you make off of it. But making money isn’t the point of health insurance. The point is for it to be there if and when you need it for a catastrophic medical bill.

        1. Yeah, sorry, in another thread I said it probably should have been 90% and 10% for under a year.

          There are two problems with your graph:

          1. You’re using “real” returns. So you need to look at “real” returns for your savings account scenarios. ~0% of the time you’ll see positive “real” returns for a savings account. Inflation rates are almost always greater than savings account rates, right? Would you prefer 68% or ~0%?

          2. You’re looking at “market” returns. That probably doesn’t include bonds. For super short periods of time (less than 10 years) people suggest a mix of bonds. For super-er short periods of time (less than 2 years) people suggest mostly bonds.

          1. Right, and your reply probably makes sense if you’re just looking to maximize returns. I agree that the market is probably going to have a better return than CDs. My point is that an emergency fund isn’t for maximizing returns (at least for me). When it comes to an emergency fund, I prioritize not losing money first and then making a return second. In other words, I would rather have a 90% chance of a lower return but a 100% chance of at least not losing money versus a 90% chance of a better return but a 10% chance of having less money than I started (and I do think over a 3 month time period that we’ve been talking about the probabilities of losing money are higher than 10%).

  4. If your emergency fund, which I also look at as liquid savings, is large enough, I don’t see a reason to keep it out of risky investments. I have about six months of cash split between a savings and checking account right now. I have everything else that’s liquid in various brokerage accounts in ETFs, stocks, and bonds. That means I have a safety net that is always available immediately without penality, but I also get better returns from the bulk of my liquid savings. If the market drops significantly, I may also move more money into investments from the savings account. I have a lot in savings now because the market seems especially risky.

    1. Wouldn’t your emergency account in this case be the six months of cash split between savings and checking? The other stuff in ETFs, stocks, and bonds would seem to be just extra savings on top of an emergency account to me.

  5. Robin Hood’s promised 3% return on demand deposits is well above the rate on treasuries until you get into 20 year maturities. It seems to me that they are setting themselves up for a mess like the S&L crisis, and those deposits are not insured.

    1. From what I’ve heard it’s not FDIC insured but it should be SPIC insured, which barring a huge financial meltdown should be pretty similar. You do raise a good point, though, that there probably is at least a slightly higher level of risk associated with Robin Hood’s offering versus a more established and traditional bank. I certainly wouldn’t put my life savings in a Robin Hood saving account, but I would consider putting my emergency fund there as I consider it less risky than the stock market.

      1. I view all cash and liquid assets as my true “emergency fund” as those are all the funds which are available to me more or less immediately and for which I don’t incur any penalties for use. I would feel comfortable having as little as 1-2 months of expenses in my cash accounts so long as my investment accounts had a much higher balance, but I wouldn’t say at that point that I only have a single month’s worth of emergency savings.

      2. Their status is pretty murky and I heard that they’ve taken down their page in order to shift the message. See here: https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/14/robinhood-insurance-sipc/

        The problem I worry about with something like Robin Hood vs. the stock market is systemic risk. If you invest in a Robin Hood “checking/savings” account, you are exposed to the failure of a single institution that is likely to fail at roughly the same time as the stock market tanks. Robin Hood could pull through, or it could go bust just like any other company/stock/bond. Given that they are definitely reinvesting your money in risky and/or long-term, time locked investments, they could very well be susceptible to a “run on the bank” without any emergency fund (FDIC) of their own. I don’t think the Robin Hood account is a bad idea, but I would never put all my eggs in that basket. Even though an ETF may lose significant value, it’s almost certainly not going to $0. I can’t say the same for Robin Hood “checking/savings” accounts.

        (Apparently my other reply went on this thread instead of its intended thread. Sorry!)

Leave a Reply