<prompt> Human: I routinely read that you should have a three-six month emergency fund that is basically cash or immediately available savings. But what is the point of having such a large emergency fund of cash or near cash, if you have sufficient other assets that could be reasonably liquidated? It just seems like a fairly large drag on ROI.Let me give a specific example. Six months of expenses for me would probably be about 30,000 dont judge, child support is a big chunk of that.But I have not, in the last 25 years Ive been an adult, ever needed an emergency fund. So if I followed the advice, I would have had 20-30k sitting in cash, for 25 years, making next to nothing.Now I understand why you dont stop planning for emergencies just because you have not had one, but here is my point - why would I not just keep my money in Vanguard mutual funds? At this point in my life, I have a fair bit there, and while yes, they could drop 20-30 in a given year or two, that would still leave me with the ability to sell them off in a true emergency and have well more than six months cash. Why would I instead just keep 30,000 in cash, when I have a lot more than that which I could liquidate in a few days making a much higher ROI?I always see the emergency fund in cash advice, and feel like Im missing something. It feels like I could weather nearly anything short term with a credit card which I could pay back, and if I genuinely hit an emergency that requires me to pay 30,000 in cash in less than a day or two, I probably have end of the world type of problems that the cash is not going to fix anyway.Looking for some explanation so that perhaps I can either understand why I should keep so much sitting in cash, or put this issue to bed and just keep a smaller amount in cash and invest the rest.  <response>: I think the recommendation comes with a lot of but do whats right for you caveats. Most of the time we think of emergencies as being a broken-down car, or a medical bill which could certainly be covered with a credit card. Some people view their emergency fund as something that could cover virtually anything---meaning a serious disaster where you need cash because banks are closed, or the possibility of your accounts being frozen and there again cash is king. Youre right, having 30k sitting in an account earning 0.75 interest isnt the most appealing option--and I think this is where you need to make some personal choices. Its not an emergency fund if its not liquid, but there are no rules that you keep it all in the same place, or just how liquid you keep it. You might decide to keep 1k in cash, 3k in the savings account, and 26k in a semi-liquid fund--its really what works for you. And, of course, most financial experts recommend that you only save the full 6 months once all your debt is paid--so in theory, that 30k is only a small portion of your assets altogether. If you have debt and no retirement account, you probably shouldnt have 30k sitting in an account doing nothing for you. 