Should I switch to this high rate checking account for my emergency fund?
I do this, and as you say the biggest downside is not having a separate account for your savings.  If you're the type of person who struggles with restraint this is not for you. On the other hand this type of account gives more interest than any other type of US Checking or Savings account I've seen, so you will benefit from the interest. "Check out the ""rewards checking"" accounts listed on this thread at fatwallet finance forums. You could easily get 3.5% - 4% right now if you are willing to do the rewards checking dance. If not, you should look into the 1-2% accounts at the top. I use Alliant CU and their website is nice (and they give you your credit score every six months)." If you're relatively certain that you're going to meet the requirements, it sounds like a good move for you. The #1 priority with emergency funds should be easy access to the money when you need it.  Before the current economic situation, money market funds were great for this since they preserved the value of the dollars you put in.  Now the rates on money market accounts are barely better than the 0.2% you're currently getting. I would also check into whether you can keep using your credit card instead of switching to a debit card tied to your checking account.  The credit card provides you protection from someone wiping your account out.  Most banks will help you get the money back if this happens while using a debit card.  But you are out the money while the bank figures out who is wrong.  In the credit cards case none of your money is actually taken from your account while you dispute the charge. I also agree with the others that having all your money in one account is more difficult to keep real spending money separate from emergency fund money.
"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims:  **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.**  **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.**  I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it...  I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, ""I""m sure we'd find...if we looked into..."" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010):  * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf)  About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly -  pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source:  &gt;""The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.""  Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41)  There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41.  * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.**  So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside.  * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html)  Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households.  * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/)  To quote the FDIC:  &gt;*""Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.""*  That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have banks accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with ""checking and savings"" was 75.8% while those with ""checking only"" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest.  This survey also directly addresses the issue of ""emergency savings"":  &gt; *""Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected  expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.""* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88)  Furthermore:  &gt;*""Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for  unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts  were the most used savings method followed by checking  accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings  in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent)  households that saved maintained savings in the home, or  with family or friends.""*   Emphasis added.  * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png)  This is further supported by the OECD data:  * [Americans ""currency and deposits"" are 13% vs 5.8% for ""securities and other shares"" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm)  Additionally:  * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB)  * [""Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used  savings method followed by checking accounts..."" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf)  * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.*  In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100." This is really just a matter of planning.  It's good that you don't want the train to go off the rails but really you just need to budget your fixed expenses.  I do this by having two checking accounts.  One account gets a direct deposit to cover all of my fixed expenses, the other is my regular checking account.   Take your rent and other fixed expenses, if you have any, and total them.  Take that total and divide by four.  That's how much of each check you should be socking away in to the separate account. Additionally, with a 30% pay increase you can probably start a savings account.  You should start to establish an emergency fund so this really never becomes a problem.  Take 10% of your pay and put it in savings, this will still leave you with a healthy pay increase to enjoy but you'll keep some of your money for yourself too. "Between 6 months and a year is normally regarded as the ""standard"".  Plan out what your monthly expenses are and save that money away.  One thing to consider is what extras can you give up.  If you are currently eating steak and lobster every day can you live with switching to ramen noodles for a period of time?  Can you switch from premium cable to basic cable (or cancel it altogether)?  Questions like this can greatly impact the amount you have to set aside. I personally have my emergency fund in CDs that mature the first of every month.  I know there is less liquidity in this approach but I'm ok with that.  My emergency fund is a sum of cash I'll always have so I wanted to reap the benefits of a higher yield.  If it comes down to it I can place an expense on a credit card and pay off the credit card when funds become available." With all due respect to The David, the $1000 is best put against 20%+ debt, no sitting in checking as part of some emergency fund.  I'd agree with the decision to pay off the lower rate card. Why? Because we can do the math, and can see the cost in doing so. Low enough that other factors come in, namely, a freed up card. That card can function as the emergency one in the short term. Long term, once these high rate cards are paid off, you'll build your proper emergency fund, but the cost is too high right now.  The $4000 is a nice start, but the most important thing is to get your budget under control. Only you can decide how much you can cut back, and go after this debt as if it were life or death. Based on your situation, I'm not sure it should be an either/or sort of choice.  The less debt you have the better, but because the HELOC is secured debt, the interest rate should be rather low.  If you're trying to build a cash cushion for emergencies, it may help to figure out a few things first: Once you know how much you want to save and how long it will take, you can figure out how much longer it would take of some of the savings were diverted to debt reduction. If your credit is good enough to get a HELOC in the first place, putting some of your cash-flow toward both goals is an option worth considering. "The concept of emergency fund is a matter of opinion. I can tell you the consensus is that one should have 6-9 months worth of expenses kept as liquid cash. This is meant to cover literally all bills that you might encounter during that time.  That's a lot of money. There are levels of savings that are shy of this but still responsible. Not enough to cover too much in case of job loss, but enough to cover the busted transmission, the broken water heater, etc. this is still more than many people have saved up, but it's a worthy goal.  The doctor visit is probably the lowest level. Even without insurance, the clinic visit should be under $200, and this shouldn't cause you to have to carry that amount beyond the time the bill comes in.  The point that shouldn't be ignored is that if you owe money at 18% on a credit card, the emergency fund is costing you money, and is a bit misguided. I'd send every cent I could to the highest rate card and not have more than a few hundred $$ liquid until the cards were at zero.  Last - $5K, $10K in the emergency account is great, unless you are foregoing matched 401(k) dollars to do it. All just my opinion. Others here whom I respect might disagree with parts of my answer, and they'd be right.   Edit - Regarding the 'consensus 6-9 months' I suggest -  From Investopedia - ""...using the conservative recommendation to sock away eight months’   worth of living expenses...."" The article strongly support my range for the fact that it both cites consensus, yet disagrees with it.  From Money Under 30 The more difficult you rank your ability to find a new job, the more   we suggest you save — up to a year’s worth of expenses if you think   your income would be very difficult to replace. From Bank of America   I have no issue with those comfortable with less. A dual income couple who is saving 30% of their income may very well survive one person losing a job with no need to tap savings, and any 'emergency' expense can come from next month's income. That couple may just need this month's bills in their checking account." "So long as you have complete, virtually instant access to funds through checks, debit card, or ATM transaction, then yes it would be a better option than a ""vanilla"" savings account.   If it's in a brokerage account that you would need to process a transfer and potentially wait a few days for everything to settle, then I would just keep it in savings. The amount earned in interest isn't worth the extra hassle.  A compromise might be to keep a few thousand in a savings account and the rest in a money market.  That way you earn some interest and still have instant access to enough funds to cover most emergencies." Do you have other things you might want to spend that cash on in the near future? (Like a down-payment on a house?) Beyond having emergency cash, the only reason to keep a pile of cash around is because you might need it for another purchase. Unless you are going to have other expenses that will require higher-interest loans to cover them, there's no need to sit on a big pile of cash. As long as you are getting the full match on your 401(k), that's the free money that might be worth more than the interest you are paying on the loans. In any case, I suggest you aim for at least 10% into your 401(k) account moving forward in your life so that you can properly fund retirement. 15% would be even better. It doesn't sound like you would be losing anything by paying the student loans, and you could then use the money freed from your loan payments to pay down your car faster.