Do you REALLY want six months’ salary sat in a ‘savings’ account?


    Published: 00:00 EDT, 27 August 2020 | Updated: 05:25 EDT, 27 August 2020

    It might seem an odd time to question the wisdom of what seems like a sensible piece of financial advice.

    The emergency cash fund is a recommendation that almost all advisers make, as the first thing to do with spare cash after paying off debts.

    And in the light of events since February this year, it appears more sensible than ever. But the question is, how much is enough? Three to six months’ salary is the usual rule trotted out by IFAs.

    But few of us will conform to the averages that such principles are based on – in terms of our careers, financial objectives, attitudes to risk and so on.

    ‘Some people will prefer, instead of building up a massive cash allocation, to do other things: pay down the mortgage perhaps, or do up the property in order to sell, or invest it, or raise pension contributions.’

    Most households either can’t afford financial advice or don’t want to pay for it, and many absorb stock wisdom from the press, which will always tend towards the belt-and-braces conservative.

    I think there is room for pragmatism. Let’s say you have a total annual household income of £80,000 – so c.£50,000 net of tax. 

    Assuming you are even able to put as much as £25,000 aside, do you really want it sat in a savings account? Which at the very best will be just protecting it from inflation – and soon probably not even that. 

    If you then want to buy a home, are you really going to keep that money where it is, depreciating, rather than use it towards your deposit or moving expenses? 

    It has always just seemed a little pie-in-the-sky to me. What is an emergency cash fund for, anyway? 

    Unforeseen expenses like a new boiler it is often said. For most homes that’s c. £3,000 fitted. Yes your roof might fall in too – but it is hoped insurance would cover that.

    Most households with half-decent credit ratings can snap up a 0 per cent interest credit card in minutes. Assuming you are comfortable with debt and the repayments, this must be an alternative way to cover unforeseen expenses.

    People use credit card spending to accumulate cashback these days – whether you agree with that or not, it’s hardly a taboo financial strategy.

    The emergency cash fund is, at the most urgent end of things, a stop-gap for your mortgage and other living expenses should you lose your job or fall ill. But for the life-changing threats of joblessness and ill health, some sort of income protection insurance or critical illness cover might be more appropriate? 

    Some employees are lucky enough to have such policies as part of their perks package. If you are paying (or not) for this sort of insurance, do you still need a £25,000 emergency fund?

    Some people will prefer, instead of building up a massive cash allocation, to do other things: pay down the mortgage perhaps, or do up the property in order to sell, or invest it, or raise pension contributions.

    Others will want the security and comfort of keeping that cash in the bank, and that’s fine. We all want some cash deposits to dip into. But some will be happier with a smaller amount than others.

    Attitude to risk is one of the things that broach the gap between saving and investing. But the gap need not be so wide, nor the attitude so different.

    Inflation is now at 1 per cent, and by most reckonings on the up. The best savings account is NS&I’s Income Bonds at 1.15 per cent – for the moment. Deposits are flooding in and the rate seems set to fall soon.

    So, it’s a choice of near-certain losses from saving versus possible losses from investing, where there is also a good chance of positive real returns. I know what I’d choose.

    By selecting well balanced and diversified funds – passive or active – or investment trusts it is possible to create a portfolio that is unlikely to suffer major losses even in the short term. The challenge is to keep fees and costs down to the absolute minimum so that returns are not eroded.

    But even if your investing Isa earns you a measly 2 or 3  per cent a year, net of fees, that’s better than the alternative. And more fun.

    Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.

    Share what you think

    The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

    We will automatically post your comment and a link to the news story to your Facebook timeline at the same time it is posted on MailOnline. To do this we will link your MailOnline account with your Facebook account. We’ll ask you to confirm this for your first post to Facebook.

    You can choose on each post whether you would like it to be posted to Facebook. Your details from Facebook will be used to provide you with tailored content, marketing and ads in line with our Privacy Policy.

    This is Money is part of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday & Metro media group


    Donnez votre point de vue et aboonez-vous!

    Laisser un commentaire

    Votre point de vue compte, donnez votre avis

    [maxbutton id= »1″]


    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here