Dazed&Confused
Registered User
- Messages
- 16
Interesting - the usually approach (I believe) is to have 6 months of expenses... So depending on what your out-goings are (& with an option to stop your discretionary spend), your 6 months joint net income will be many more months of expenditure. Food for thought.We keep the equivalent of 6 months’ joint net income.
For what it’s worth, we’ve adopted the ‘6 months approach’. I don’t think that it could be described as ‘excessively risk-adverse’.
Why? Because once it’s done, every incremental cent is being invested more aggressively, either into property by way of mortgage overpayment, into equities by way of a personal portfolio, or into an investment property.
I fully appreciate the need for an emergency fund for many reasons. From an income perspective, when I worked in the aerospace industry I lost my job after the tragic 9/11 events. There are also other reasons due to unexpected increases in cost. We lost our family home in a house fire last summer & needed to book a months worth of hotel rooms for a family of 5 at short notice. If you are ever going to have a house fire, I would advise not to have it at peak summer season - its expensive because accommodation is highly booked!
Lightning never strikes twice - right!Interesting contribution! You have experienced an event that is probably at the extreme end of circumstances that one is keeping their emergency fund for and you are looking at reducing it rather than bolstering it. Food for thought.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?