Does keeping 'long-term' safety net in bonds make sense?
"The answer to your question depends very much on your definition of ""long-term"". Because let's make something clear: an investment horizon of three to six months is not long term. And you need to consider the length of time from when an ""emergency"" develops until you will need to tap into the money. Emergencies almost by definition are unplanned. When talking about investment risk, the real word that should be used is volatility. Stocks aren't inherently riskier than bonds issued by the same company. They are likely to be a more volatile instrument, however. This means that while stocks can easily gain 15-20 percent or more in a year if you are lucky (as a holder), they can also easily lose just as much (which is good if you are looking to buy, unless the loss is precipitated by significantly weaker fundamentals such as earning lookout). Most of the time stocks rebound and regain lost valuation, but this can take some time. If you have to sell during that period, then you lose money. The purpose of an emergency fund is generally to be liquid, easily accessible without penalties, stable in value, and provide a cushion against potentially large, unplanned expenses. If you live on your own, have good insurance, rent your home, don't have any major household (or other) items that might break and require immediate replacement or repair, then just looking at your emergency fund in terms of months of normal outlay makes sense. If you own your home, have dependents, lack insurance and have major possessions which you need, then you need to factor those risks into deciding how large an emergency fund you might need, and perhaps consider not just normal outlays but also some exceptional situations. What if the refrigerator and water heater breaks down at the same time that something breaks a few windows, for example? What if you also need to make an emergency trip near the same time because a relative becomes seriously ill? Notice that the purpose of the emergency fund is specifically not to generate significant interest or dividend income. Since it needs to be stable in value (not depreciate) and liquid, an emergency fund will tend towards lower-risk and thus lower-yield investments, the extreme being cash or the for many more practical option of a savings account. Account forms geared toward retirement savings tend to not be particularly liquid. Sure, you can usually swap out one investment vehicle for another, but you can't easily withdraw your money without significant penalties if at all. Bonds are generally more stable in value than stocks, which is a good thing for a longer-term portion of an emergency fund. Just make sure that you are able to withdraw the money with short notice without significant penalties, and pick bonds issued by stable companies (or a fund of investment-grade bonds). However, in the present investment climate, this means that you are looking at returns not significantly better than those of a high-yield savings account while taking on a certain amount of additional risk. Bonds today can easily have a place if you have to pick some form of investment vehicle, but if you have the option of keeping the cash in a high-yield savings account, that might actually be a better option. Any stock market investments should be seen as investments rather than a safety net. Hopefully they will grow over time, but it is perfectly possible that they will lose value. If what triggers your financial emergency is anything more than local, it is certainly possible to have that same trigger cause a decline in the stock market. Money that you need for regular expenses, even unplanned ones, should not be in investments. Thus, you first decide how large an emergency fund you need based on your particular situation. Then, you build up that amount of money in a savings vehicle rather than an investment vehicle. Once you have the emergency fund in savings, then by all means continue to put the same amount of money into investments instead. Just make sure to, if you tap into the emergency fund, replenish it as quickly as possible." I am understanding the OP to mean that this is for an emergency fund savings account meant to cover 3 to 6 months of living expenses, not a 3-6 month investment horizon. Assuming this is the case, I would recommend keeping these funds in a Money Market account and not in an investment-grade bond fund for three reasons:
You can keep the cash in your account as long as you want, but you have to pay a tax on what's called capital gains. To quote from Wikipedia: A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.[1] Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price. Thus, buying/selling stock counts as investment income which would be a capital gain/loss. When you are filing taxes, you have to report net capital gain/loss. So you don't pay taxes on an individual stock sale or purchase - you pay tax on the sum of all your transactions.  Note: You do not pay any tax if you have a net capital loss. Taxes are only on capital gains.  The amount you are taxed depends on your tax bracket and your holding period. A short term capital gain is gain on an investment held for less than one year. These gains are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. A long term capital gain is gain on an investment held for more than one year. These gains are taxed at a special rate: If your income tax rate is 10 or 15%, then long term gains are taxed at 0% i.e. no tax, otherwise the tax rate is 15%. So you're not taxed on specific stock sales - you're taxed on your total gain. There is no tax for a capital loss, and investors sometimes take profits from good investments and take losses from bad investments to lower their total capital gain so they won't be taxed as much. The tax rate is expected to change in 2013, but the current ratios could be extended. Until then, however, the rate is as is.  Of course, this all applies if you live in the United States. Other countries have different measures. Hope it helps!  Wikipedia has a great chart to refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States. "value slip below vs ""equal a bank savings account’s safety"" There is no conflict.  The first author states that money market funds may lose value, precisely due to duration risk.  The second author states that money market funds is as safe as a bank account.  Safety (in the sense of a bond/loan/credit) mostly about default risk. For example, people can say that ""a 30-year U.S. Treasury Bond is safe"" because the United States ""cannot default"" (as said in the Constitution/Amendments) and the S&P/Moody's credit rating is the top/special. Safety is about whether it can default, ex. experience a -100% return.  Safety does not directly imply Riskiness. In the example of T-Bond, it is ultra safe, but it is also ultra risky. The volatility of 30-year T-Bond could be higher than S&P 500.  Back to Money Market Funds.  A Money Market Fund could hold deposits with a dozen of banks, or hold short term investment grade debt. Those instruments are safe as in there is minimal risk of default. But they do carry duration risk, because the average duration of the instrument the fund holds is not 0.  A money market fund must maintain a weighted average maturity (WAM) of 60 days or less and not invest more than 5% in any one issuer, except for government securities and repurchase agreements.  If you have $10,000,000, a Money Market Fund is definitely safer than a savings account.  1 Savings Account at one institution with amount exceeding CDIC/FDIC terms is less safe than a Money Market Fund (which holds instruments issued by 20 different Banks).  Duration Risk Your Savings account doesn't lose money as a result of interest rate change because the rate is set by the bank daily and accumulated daily (though paid monthly).  The pricing of short term bond is based on market expectation of the interest rates in the future. The most likely cause of Money Market Funds losing money is unexpected change in expectation of future interest rates.  The drawdown (max loss) is usually limited in terms of percentage and time through examining historical returns.  The rule of thumb is that if your hold a fund for 6 months, and that fund has a weighted average time to maturity of 6 months, you might lose money during the 6 months, but you are unlikely to lose money at the end of 6 months. This is not a definitive fact.  Using GSY, MINT, and SHV as an example or short duration funds, the maximum loss in the past 3 years is 0.4%, and they always recover to the previous peak within 3 months. GSY had 1.3% per year return, somewhat similar to Savings accounts in the US." You know what lowers wages?  Social safety nets.  *NOW*...before you read that as advocating for the removal of social safety nets, hear me out:  A low-wage service company would, in the absence of any social safety net, be required to pay employees far more.  Why?  Because employees would be required to cover all of their needs with their wage.  No food stamps, Medicaid, etc.    What, then, would higher wages do?  It would cut back on the need to spend on social safety nets.  Higher wages provide employees with the ability to cover more of their own needs with their labor income.    Unfortunately, this is a chicken-or-egg problem.  I would never cut social safety netting before advocating for higher wages, because I wouldn't leave people out in the cold without needed assistance.  So where do I stand?  I advocate for higher wages *first*, so that we can gradually decrease taxpayer funded social safety nets for working Americans later. Actually, you're missing the key feature of CDOs.  Most CDOs use (much to our economic misery, ultimately) a system call tranching.  To simplify this idea, I'll make a two tranch example.  Suppose I buy mortgages covering a face value of $120,000,000.  Because they are subprime, if I just put them in a pool and finance them with bonds, the rating will be lousy and most investors will shun them (at least investors who are safety oriented).  What I do is divide them into two tranches.  One bond issue is for $100,000,000 and another for $20,000,000.  The idea is that any defaulting mortgage comes out of the latter bond issue.  I'll probably keep these bonds (the lower tranch).  Thus buyers of the first issue are safe unless defaults exceed $20,000,000.  Then the rating agencies rate the first issue AAA and it gets snapped up by investors.  In a strict sense it is overcollateralized, basically the entire $120,000,000 backs up the first bond issue. In reality, many CDOs had multiple tranches, with the lowest tranch being retained by the underwriters and the other tranches sold as bonds of various ratings. "(Congrats on earning/saving $3K and not wanting to blow it all on immediate gratification!) I currently have it invested in sector mutual funds but with the rise and fall of the stock market, is this really the best way to prepare long-term? Long-term?  Yes! However... four years is not long term.  It is, in fact, borderline short term.  (When I was your age, that was incomprehensible too, but trust me: it's true.) The problem is that there's an inverse relationship between reward and risk: the higher the possible reward, the greater the risk that you'll lose a big chunk of it. I invest that middle-term money in a mix of junk high yield bond funds and ""high"" yield savings accounts at an online bank.  My preferences are HYG purchased at Fidelity (EDIT: because it's commission-free and I buy a few hundred dollars worth every month), and Ally Bank." You're mixing up two different concepts: low-risk and recession-proof. I'll assume I don't need to explain risk: there is always risk, regardless what form you keep your assets in. With bonds, the interest rate is supposed to reflect the risk. If a company offers bonds with too low an interest rate for the risk level, few people will buy them. While if a company offers bonds with too high an interest rate for the level of risk, they are gypping themselves. So a bond is a slightly more transparent investment from a risk assessment perspective, but that doesn't mean the risk is necessarily low: if you buy a bond with a 20% effective annual yield, that means there is quite a high risk that the underlying company will fold (unless inflation is in the double-digit range as well, in which case a 20% yield is not that much). Whereas with a stock, no parameter directly tells you anything about the risk. Recession-proof is not the same thing as low-risk. Recession-proof refers to investing in (or holding debt for) industries that perform better in a recession. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/industries-thrive-on-recession.asp. Distributions of interest from bonds are taxable as income by the Federal, state and municipal (if applicable) government. End of year fund distributions are subject to capital gains taxes as well. You can minimize taxation by: Note that the only bonds that are guaranteed safe are US Government obligations, as the US government has unlimited taxation powers and the ability to print money. Municipal obligations are generally safe, but there is a risk that municipal governments will default. You can also avoid taxation by not realizing gains. If you buy individual stocks or tax-efficient mutual funds, you will have minimal tax liability until you sell. Also, just wanted to point out that bonds do not equal safety and money markets do not pay sufficient interest to offset inflation, you need a diversified portfolio. Five year treasury notes are only paying 1.3% now, and bond prices drop when interest rates go up. Given the level of Federal spending and the wind-down of the war, its likely that rates will rise. It is my understanding that banks pay less than the going rate on savings accounts and require that the person who takes out a loan pay more than the going rate. That is how the bank gets its money.  Usually the going rate is affected by the current inflation rate (but that has not been true for the last few weeks). So that means that, typically, the money you have in the bank is, gradually, losing purchasing power as the bank typically pays you less than the inflation rate.  So if you want your money to keep pace with inflation (or do a bit better) then you should buy bonds.