logo
Do you have the top predictor for financial well-being? Here's what Vanguard's research says.

Do you have the top predictor for financial well-being? Here's what Vanguard's research says.

CBS News28-05-2025

It doesn't take $1 million to achieve the top predictor of financial well-being, according to new research from investment firm Vanguard. Instead, it's something far more attainable: Socking away at least $2,000 in an emergency savings account.
People with at least $2,000 saved for an unexpected expense report a greater improvement in financial well-being than those who have incomes of more than $500,000 or assets of more than $1 million, the survey of more than 12,000 Vanguard investors found.
The findings come as many Americans are feeling more financially stressed, with a separate study from Primerica finding that about half of middle-class households expect to be worse off financially in 2026, almost double the share in December, due to worries about the cost of living and the economy. Taking small steps to build an emergency savings account could prove to help alleviate financial anxiety, noted Paulo Costa, a behavioral economist and certified financial planner at Vanguard who co-authored the research.
"What's so powerful about this research is that it's not about gathering a lot of money to have that peace of mind," Costa told CBS MoneyWatch. "That initial $2,000 makes a big difference."
While it may seem that having $1 million in assets should boost financial well-being more than $2,000 in a savings account, the results show the importance of being prepared for an unplanned expense, Costa added. The median cost of an emergency is about $2,000, which means having that cash on hand gives people the confidence that they can handle a sudden money stressor, he said.
"When is $2,000 more than a million dollars? It's when it comes to emergency savings," Costa said. "The point of emergency savings is to have that money readily available if you need it. A lot of people have money, for example, in retirement accounts that may have some requirements about when you can withdraw that money and may have some tax consequences and some penalties."
Retirement assets are generally not readily available to cover unexpected expenses, with people younger than 59 1/2 incurring a 10% penalty for taking out money. But having $2,000 set aside in a bank account means that you've got the peace of mind that you'll be able to handle a surprise car repair or medical bill.
And people with $2,000 in emergency savings typically spend about 2 hours less each week thinking about their finances versus those without any savings, the study found.
How many people can handle emergency expenses?
To be sure, obtaining $2,000 in savings could prove out of reach for many Americans, especially those who are low income, struggling with debt or who reside in an area with a high cost of living. Vanguard's survey includes only people who have investment accounts at the company, which signals they access to 401(k)s and other types of investment accounts that many Americans lack.
Almost 4 in 10 Americans say they don't have the cash on hand to pay for an $400 emergency expense, according to research from the Federal Reserve.
Still, more Americans appear to be socking away money for a rainy day, with the Primerica study finding that 64% of those surveyed in March said they had an emergency fund of at least $1,000, up from 58% two years earlier.
Even if saving $2,000 seems out of reach, you can start small by saving as little as $10 week, Costa said. The best idea is to find a strategy that works for you, whether that's budgeting or automating savings by directing a certain amount into a dedicated account with each paycheck, he said.
"I love the idea of, 'out of sight, out of mind,' so when you get paid, you immediately send money to your savings account," he said. "By saving $50 per week, you will build up to $2,000 in less than a year."
He added, "Saving something is better than saving nothing. So just getting started, that really makes a big difference."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Financial Repression Won't Make Interest Rates Lower
Financial Repression Won't Make Interest Rates Lower

Bloomberg

time11 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Financial Repression Won't Make Interest Rates Lower

The federal government, financial markets and most Americans are all in a state of denial about interest rates. Whenever someone goes on business TV, gets a mortgage or makes a long-term debt projection, I usually hear some variation of the phrase, 'when rates go back down.' I am sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but rates are not going back down, especially to the levels of the 2010s. And almost any attempt to try to force them down — what we economists call financial repression — will only bring pain.

Elon Musk-Trump spat on X is a distraction from the failures of DOGE
Elon Musk-Trump spat on X is a distraction from the failures of DOGE

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Elon Musk-Trump spat on X is a distraction from the failures of DOGE

Elon Musk stepped down from his position as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on May 30, only months after promising to transform government by cutting trillions of dollars from the federal budget and eliminating so-called 'waste, fraud and abuse.' Just a week later, Musk's relationship with President Donald Trump ― the man Musk spent nearly $300 million to elect — went up in flames, as Americans watched the drama unfold in real time on X and Truth Social. Trump publicly denounced Musk as 'disloyal' for criticizing the president's signature legislative effort, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' while Musk called the bill a 'disgusting abomination' and openly called for Trump's impeachment. The spectacle of the richest man in the world and the president of the United States exchanging insults online may be remembered as DOGE's final chapter in the public imagination. But it should not obscure the damage Musk wrought when he commanded one of the most powerful positions in the Trump administration. More from Freep Opinion: Democrats better hope Michigan Gov. Whitmer changes her mind about presidential run To start, Musk's promised savings never came. The DOGE website currently claims to have saved the public $175 billion through a range of actions like eliminating 'fraud and improper payment' and cancelling grants. But even that sum — which is believed to be falsely inflated through a combination of guesswork and suspect arithmetic — is less than 3% of the federal budget, and less than 9% of the $2 trillion in cuts Musk promised upon assuming his role. In other words, DOGE failed on Musk's own terms. What did materialize is an unprecedented attack on public institutions, beginning with the people who carry out the work of public service. According to the latest data, around 260,000 federal employees have either been forced out, been slated for cuts, or chosen to leave their posts since DOGE began its work. These aren't faceless 'bureaucrats.' They are the people who test our water for contaminants, inspect our food for harmful bacteria, and ensure air travel is safe, among other public services. The department with the highest number of planned terminations is Veterans Affairs, with up to 80,900 personnel serving our nation's veterans slated for future cuts, according to the New York Times. Many of these jobs are health care workers who care for veterans directly. More from Freep Opinion: I'm a gay man in Detroit. Celebrating Pride feels more important than ever In cutting both people and programs that provide essential services, DOGE attempted a bargain that Michiganders are painfully familiar with: treat government like a business, and attempt to cut public services to balance the books no matter the risks to public health, the economy or democracy. During our state's era of emergency management, decision-making power in several cities and school districts like Flint and Detroit shifted from democratically elected local officials to appointees of the governor. In Flint, a series of emergency managers focused on cost-cutting to address the city's financial crisis, including the ill-fated decision to switch the city's water source. The result was the worst man-made environmental catastrophe in American history. Flint should have been a warning to the country that 'efficiency' without regard for public welfare is a dangerous proposition. Yet DOGE was a far more extreme expression of this logic. Like Flint, the DOGE experiment is a grave warning about what happens when democracy is treated as a private enterprise rather than a public trust, when billionaires think they know best what people need in their own communities. And while it may take decades to account for the potential harms DOGE's actions might produce, we are already seeing some. Here in Michigan, DOGE reportedly canceled $394 million in federal public health grants, money that ultimately supports local health initiatives statewide. These cuts are not abstract. They will be felt in people's bodies and the broader society. Local health providers will have to cut back on critical services such as vaccine administration and interventions for substance use disorder. According to a 2019 study, every dollar invested in public health departments yields as much as $67 to $88 of benefits to society. DOGE also cut $15 million in AmeriCorps funding for our state, impacting programs that offered tutoring, support for seniors, and assistance for homeless residents. At a time when Michigan ranks 34th in the nation in overall child wellbeing, students in more than 60 school districts may see tutoring support disappear. This begs the question: Who ultimately benefited from Musk's relentless cutting? The clear answer is Elon Musk, who is $170 billion richer since endorsing Trump in the summer of 2024, even accounting for the drop in Tesla's stock attributed to the public backlash over DOGE's actions. (How this most recent fiasco will affect Musk's bottom line remains to be seen.) Meanwhile, DOGE spent months attempting to 'delete' entire agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which stops predatory banks from scamming veterans, seniors, and consumers in general. And it destroyed the IRS' ability to audit wealthy tax cheats, forcing workers and families to shoulder more of the nation's tax responsibility. DOGE has also made us less free. The initiative's most significant legacy may be what the writer Julia Anguin described as 'a sprawling domestic surveillance system for the Trump administration ― the likes of which we have never seen in the United States.' In agency after agency, Musk and his lieutenants accessed the most sensitive data about Americans and handled it with reckless disregard. Information like Social Security numbers and bank accounts that once stood in the relative safety of government silos are now being merged to create more sweeping surveillance tools than ever before. They could be used to further crack down on immigrants' speech, or to simply make it easier to target political enemies. This is what we're left with. A public more exposed to harm — from preventable diseases, from corporate predation and scams, from toxins in our air and water—and a small group of wealthy elites more empowered to dominate our government and our democracy. Perhaps this is why a solid majority of Americans disapprove of Musk's job performance, arguably accelerating his departure from government. The American public deserves a government that is fit for purpose and delivers on its promises. But Elon Musk never intended to create that. DOGE was built on the fiction of Musk's mastery of all things, one of the many myths attributed to the ultra-wealthy. What it concealed was a public sector novice who failed to understand the basic mechanics of the institutions he railed against. On the day Musk announced his departure, a lawsuit against him and DOGE was cleared to proceed, accusing him of wielding unlawful power over federal agencies, contracts and data without democratic oversight. It was a fitting coda. Musk left behind no durable reform, only institutions hollowed out, public trust frayed, and a template for how easily government can be turned against the people it exists to serve. Even this spectacular fallout with Trump should not distract from the wreckage he leaves behind. Bilal Baydoun is Director of Democratic Institutions at the Roosevelt Institute, a national policy think tank devoted to building on the legacy of FDR. A version of this column was previously published on the Roosevelt Institute's Substack. Submit a letter to the editor at and we may publish it online and in print. Like what you're reading? Please consider supporting local journalism and getting unlimited digital access witha Detroit Free Press subscription. We depend on readers like you. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Elon Musk-Trump spat is a distraction from DOGE failures | Opinion

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store