by jdmartin » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 22:20:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('allenu', '
')It sounds like due to past experience, you have become very risk averse. As a result, you feel safer having that emergency cash, even if it's going to cost you extra to have. I think I understand your argument as basically this: Have emergency money now, even if it costs you extra, because if you end up needing it, it will be very difficult to obtain that amount (due to credit card companies or banks not wanting to lend to you).
In the end, choosing to have an emergency fund in lieu of paying off more of one's debt is definitely a good idea if there was a good chance you would need it. As the probability of requiring the emergency fund goes down, however, it becomes less useful and more wasteful.
Put in another way, if you knew three months from now you were going to be out of a job and would be hard pressed to find somebody who would lend you money to get by, then of course you would save up that cash now instead of paying off your debt. However, if you could look into the future and see that you weren't going to lose your job at any time in the next year, you would be more likely to pay off the debt.
Because no one can see into the future, whether or not you choose to save up emergency money despite being in debt depends on how much risk you want to take on.
Very good post and one I pretty much agree with. Having been in the workforce for 20 years, I have been on the receiving end of a job loss once before, and it is not pretty. So to some extent I speak from experience. Nonetheless, it is almost a universally considered financial concept to have some cash on hand for a certain number of living expenses (6 months used to be popular, 1 year is gaining more credence these days).
And you are absolutely correct in the statement that
if you could look into the future and be assured to have your job a year, two, ten down the road, you would be remiss in amassing a war chest while high-interest debts accrue interest. This is why its usually recommended a certain amount of living expenses (i.e. 6 months) versus building a war chest for war's sake. I like to keep 6 months on hand, with the knowledge that I've got access to another 6 months worth of expenses easy in credit. So that gets me a year down the road should the situation arise - hopefully, more than enough time to sell the house, land another job, etc. Of course, I work in the city management field, and as anyone familiar with local politics knows, the axe can drop at any second. So to some extent I am in a "high risk" field. However, in these days of instant unemployment, there's few people who are not in a high risk field.
As for being risk-averse, I would say that I'm a risk realist. My 6-month money sits in low/no risk avenues easily liquidated (savings account, cd's, money market). My retirement funds run around in higher-risk growth mutual funds, since I don't need them anytime soon. As a hedge, my pension funds are invested in low-risk mutual funds. So to some extent I've got several bases covered. I consider myself to have a portfolio, in which different needs are placed in different areas. If the whole thing goes to hell, I may be screwed to some extent. I like to think, however, that I've got something of a finger on the pulse, versus many of my mindless "let's get a bigger SUV" cohorts. At least there's comfort in the knowledge that for the most part, we'll all be going down together...
After fueling up their cars, Twyman says they bowed their heads and asked God for cheaper gas.There was no immediate answer, but he says other motorists joined in and the service station owner didn't run them off.