Only 35% of Americans Have Emergency Savings

As usual, the truth about the financial condition of Americans is hidden in plain sight. All that's missing is some widespread coverage of the news and some serious reflection about what it means. The Wall Street Journal reported the story in Number of the Week: Americans Dipping Into Savings (January 22, 2010).

Over the two years ending September 2010, Americans withdrew a net $311 billion — or about 1.4% of their disposable income — from their savings and investment accounts, according to the Federal Reserve . That’s a sharp divergence from the previous 57 years, during which they never made a net quarterly withdrawal. Rather, they added an average of 12% of disposable income to their holdings of financial assets — including bank accounts, money-market funds, stocks, bonds and other investments — each year.

To some extent, people are acting exactly as policy makers want, at least in the short term. By holding interest rates near zero, the Fed is creating an incentive to spend rather than save — or to “save” in a different way by paying down expensive debt. With three-month certificates of deposit offering annualized interest of less than 0.3%, using available cash to pay off a credit card that charges 30% or a mortgage that costs 5% makes a lot of sense.

Over the two years ending September 2010, U.S. consumers — largely through defaults, but also through pay-downs — shaved nearly a trillion dollars off their mortgage and other debts, a shift that could make them less sensitive to credit freezes like the one we just suffered.

As the Journal notes, Ben Bernanke wants you to plow through your savings to sustain the miraculous recovery his near-zero interest rate policy has achieved. But there's a slight problem with this happy scenario.

In the longer term, though, Americans need to do more old-fashioned saving as well. One recent poll [xls spreadsheet] found that only 35% of Americans had enough emergency savings to cover three months of living expenses.

The less money they have for a rainy day, the more vulnerable they will be to job losses and other income shocks. As we have learned in the most recent crisis, credit is far from a perfect substitute for a healthy bank account.

The poll is a little out of date. FINRA did an online survey of 28,146 respondents across all 50 states (plus D.C.) between June and October, 2009. Since then, we've experienced the best statistical recovery money can buy. If the survey were done today, perhaps 36%, or even 37%, of Americans have enough "emergency or rainy day funds to cover their expenses for 3 months in case of sickness, job loss, economic downturn, or other emergencies"

The real problem with Americans not having any rainy day funds is that the forecast calls for rain—and plenty of it. At least that's true for those living in the lesser of our two economies, which is roughly 85% of everybody. For most the American Dream has become a nightmare. Vulnerability to shocks is now a way of life. The dream now is to get through another week. Unfortunately, the 454,000 Americans who filed unemployment claims didn't make it through last week.

The Journal says "in the longer-term, Americans need to do more old-fashioned saving." Yes, that's what they need to do some day when good-paying jobs are plentiful, health care is affordable and sound money falls like rain from the sky. My question is: when exactly will that day come?

And the likely answer for the large majority of Americans is: Never.

Comments

[BJ]

I've noted they always seem to gloss over the fact that spending is up more than income. Where is the money coming from if incomes aren't up equal to spending?

If you are already in survival mode, only paying for food and shelter, does total measures of inflation apply to you, or only inflation of food and energy prices?

Yes, Washington, and the Fed, is desperate for another consumer driven debt bubble, to replace theirs, before it pops.

[John D]

I have to say, though, that when I drive around town everyone has a fancy newer car. People that can't afford them have hefty car payments so that they can drive the latest SUV or such. I think there is an instant gratification factor involved in all of this lack of savings. Plasma screen TV's, high cost cell phone plans, and pay channels on cable are now considered necessities by many people.

[BJ]

John D: When I spoke to a credit counselor they said you would be shocked by what some folks considered "essential" expenses. If I hadn't had my expenses documented, they indicated they wouldn't have believed me. They increased my "expenses" significantly, when calculating my financial situation and necessary pay.

I've noted a lot of new vehicles on the road as well, especially the Prius, which is the result of government debt, and a high percentage of government employees, who make on average $5 more per hour than the rest of us. Most of us can't afford the cost of the battery replacement, let alone the vehicle. Lots of gas guzzling SUVs too. They act as if we wont be seeing $4 a gallon gas again anytime soon.

Bring on the debt, we are addicted to it, just can't get enough.

I live in a college town, which means the town is addicted to student loan debt. They are hoping students and their parents never face reality. Or the taxpayer passes out "free" college degrees to everyone.

[Chris in Chicago]

I would agree. How many people can actually afford a tahoe at 50k plus the cost of gas and lets face it do they really need it to drive around the city? No,but the auto manufacturers have planted it to there heads that they do.

Living in Chicago i read a interesting article by none outher then the insurance industry several years ago. It's stats showed that suv's
were involved in twice as many accidents as passenger cars when chicago recieved a 1-3 inch snowfall.

[Scott]

Rather silly graph if you ask me. It's not as though the "contributions to financial assets" were ever real.

[Gail]

Chris, could that be that proportionately more SUV's venture out in a snowstorm and smaller cars stay put?