i guess i'm just not worried about losing my job. and even if i were keeping "cash" on hand while missing out on the market gains it could be making in the event you lose your job just so its there. i'm mean its costing you money to keep that kinda money around so you're "Not selling low strategy" doesnt really make a whole lot of sense. since by putting it in an account that grows lower than inflation you are in fact selling low on your money.
I don't recall if you were part of the thread I was a part of earlier about emergency funds, but I've changed my views on emergency funds to align more closely with yours.
The way I look at it is this
Assume that the chance of needing money in some kind of unpredictable emergency in any given year is 15%. Also suppose that the chance of the stock market being in the dumps in any given year is 10%.
We can dispute these assumptions all day long. I've chosen these arbitrarily and people should decide for themselves what they think is appropriate.
Then
if we assume the two events mentioned above are independent of each other, in any given year, the chance of needing money in an emergency and the stock market having recently experienced a crash is 15% * 10% = 1.5%. The chance of you going ten consecutive years without this occurring is (1-.015)^10 = 86%. In the meantime, that's a lot of investment gain that you're missing out on to avoid something that only has a 14% chance of occurring.
Now clearly, many people operate under the assumption that if the stock market crashes, then there is a decent to high probability that you will lose your job and need to dip into your emergency fund and/or investment portfolio. Assume that there is an 60% chance that if the stock market crashes, you will lose your job and need to draw on an emergency fund and/or investment portfolio (again, replace this probability with whatever you like).
In this scenario, you'll need emergency money in a crashed stock market in one of two situations: you have an emergency that can include job loss, but that job loss is not because of a stock market crash, and the stock market crashes (probability of this is 1.5% like before), or the stock market crashes and you lose your job (probability of this is 15% * 60% = 9%). So overall, the probability of needing emergency money in a crashed stock market is 10.5%. The chance of you going ten consecutive years without this occurring is sadly only 33%.
So clearly you get vastly different results depending on what assumptions you make. And these assumptions aren't reliable. But,
- I think everybody should consider what you're giving up by holding an emergency fund. When I started out, I just blindly followed the conventional wisdom (well, conventional on Bogleheads forums, perhaps not conventional here) of you want 6-12 months of expenses in your emergency fund. And in order to try to understand what you're giving up, you're going to have to make some assumptions.
- Realize that at least some of the significant decisions that we make are based on probabilities, not certainties, and that deciding how much money, if any, to keep in an emergency fund is one such decision. The most notable example of such a decision that comes to mind right now is using cFIREsim to decide if you're ready to FIRE. I don't think very many, if any, people here actually shoot for a 100% success rate with cFIREsim. I don't think that's very constructive. Also, cFIREsim is backtesting your input against historical data. While cFIREsim uses a lot of historical data, and if you're looking at 80%+ success rate on cFIREsim you'll probably be fine, there's certainly no guarantee that the future will behave like the past.
I think emergency funds are a great tool for those who are starting out on their way to financial responsibility and FIRE. But as you amass more wealth, and get a better understanding of what your cash flows are like (because I think some "emergencies" predictable), an emergency fund becomes less and less useful.