<prompt> Human: I started to follow this sub-reddit a couple weeks ago and have found most of the posts to be both apropos and informative. However, EVERYONE here seems to be fixated on having a Emergency Fund that could last from anywhere between 3 months -12 months. I understand the importance of having available liquidity, but I think the case for an emergency fund can be overstated. For example, lets say I have a six month emergency fund. Why wouldnt I put five months of that into a Large-cap ETF or other blue chip stocks? Sure, worse case scenario they could drop some points and I would need to withdraw some funds at a loss. However, its not like those funds are really inaccessible nowadays. Its a couple clicks of the mouse away. TLDR: I think the emergency fund fixation is overblown given that most investments can be liquid within a matter of days. Assistant: as long as you can handle the risk, this is no problem. the fixation is that you have enough in your efund to keep you going for up to a year. the reason for this is that most folk who get laid off right now, are unemployed for well over a year. Now WHERE you keep it doesnt quite matter as much as that you have it and its liquid, so your point is taking.However, within weeks in 2008, many stocks lost 50 of their value...that would shorten your Efunds time horizon in half...and JUST when you really cant afford that ie, if the markets drop 50, massive UE is probably right around the corner.So there is a lot more risk of course to your method...but its better than no fund at all, and ofcourse the upside is has greater potential...Human: Sure, thats true. But in hindsight you could have made a killing by placing half your e-fund in the stock market AFTER the 2008 collapse. My point is that Ive seen several posts where a person has 5k-10k with negligible debtscosts and it seems like theres almost a knee-jerk reaction to put the money in a separate bank account and just let it sit there. I see the wisdom of an emergency fund but think that it can sometimes be overblown, e.g. when the 2008 investment opportunity occurred. Assistant: Yeah, but if you had hindsight before the fact you wouldnt need the emergency fund since you could plan around it. You could say In hindsight, you could make a killing by using half your emergency fund to short the market September 2008, but that sounds funny doesnt it?When talking about emergency funds, were talking about people with no money. I.e. people who will fall behind on mortgagesfoodshelter if they lose that moneyincome.Also, if youre using your emergency fund for investing and you end up selling low when the market plummets, then youre doing investing wrong because you should never be aiming to sell low.Human: So is the emergency fund advice really just another way of saying really poor people with no money should acquire money? Thats sounds strange to me. I understand the concept, I disagree with the execution advocated in a lot of the recent posts.  <response>: I understand the concept, I disagree with the execution advocated in a lot of the recent posts.I dont think you do. The concept is gaining financial security and getting out of debt, not earning money through interest or capital gains. The point is to be able to weather almost any foreseeable emergency without needing to dip into retirement savings, selling other investments at an inopportune time, or use credit cards that are probably already carrying a balance, thus losing money on interest.It sounds like you are ok with a higher level of risk than some people, and it also sounds like you dont really understand the feeling of being one small emergency away from financial ruin. Put yourself in the situation that of the people who are asking for advice in these threads where the advice is handed out: they are almost always carrying credit card debt and are in tough financial situations, one emergency could put them into bankruptcy or delinquency. Its not about maximizing your investment earning potential with all your available capital. 