I may do so soon.
So if you wait til Nov 1 will the rate go up or down?
Requirement to keep for one year is only downside I see.
It's a weird security for sure. Why the arbitrary $10,000 limit? Why the additional $5,000 with your tax refund, but only a paper bond (seriously, paper?), and why only for people who get a refund but not for people who have to pay in? Why can't we hold it in a custodial account somewhere instead of setting up a separate account on an antiquated website that's just one more account to have to keep track of?
Can't answer most of it, but I think the $10K limit is because it costs the government money. Pretty sure one year treasuries more or less always sell for less than CPI-U. Certainly if they sold another product at market that gave holders the option to redeem the bond any time after a year or keep receiving CPI-U on it as a return, that would be valuable enough to sell at below the current CPI-U. So offering these for $10k allows them to say they are offering individuals protection against inflation, when in reality, there's no real protection unless you are willing to put $10k away year after year and give up any chance of above inflation return on those deposits, so that it's almost a certain loser compared to investing in the S&P500.
Not meaning to pick on you here, just chiming in because I see this so frequently. People say past performanc is no guarantee of success, but then forget what that means. At some point, the US economy will be in long term decline. When it is, investing in the S&P500 is likely to be a losing investment far outpaced by things like bonds or I bonds. Given that they are sold below a market rate due to how they are set up, they make a compelling hedge for a mature investor.
This is true but irrelevant for most investors. Very few people are able and willing to save enough that they can make it without the S&P providing a return above inflation. If you want to fund a 30 year retirement with just inflation based returns (and assuming your salary keeps up with inflation), you'd need to save over 42% of your income for 40 years. For most people, even if you could guarantee that the S&P was going to lose money and matching inflation is the best possible return, they'd throw up their hands and just say they'll work til they die.
But you are correct about it being useful for investors exiting the accumulation phase and entering the drawdown phase and I undersold it looking at it just from the perspective of someone looking to accumulate and grow assets.
If you're a middle class retiree and have saved and invested to have $1M stashed for retirement, that's roughly $40k a year plus SS if you're following the 4% rule. I guess if you start putting $10k a year away starting say 8 years from retirement (which you would presumably be reducing yoru stock exposure anyway so it would be consistent with proper asset allocation), then that gives you roughly two years of inflation protected, liquid assets to draw down in the event of a market downturn. And I guess the value of someone that's going to be relying on a $500k nest egg and social security would be even greater.
Yep, basically. Was also getting at that bonds (especially bond funds) can be tricky for mature (ie, old) investors as the market can drive prices on those to some weird places. I guess you could always just buy actual bonds and have the option to mitigate that risk by holding until maturity, but typical 401k funds make that difficult.
ETA: not really arguing to build a $100k balance in ibonds and hold it for 30 years. If one is worried about inflation (I'm not, the Feds attitude towards wage gains has justified everything I've said for years), then it's an option. I'm more saying it's part of a CD portion of a portfolio. 10% in CDs is smart IMO (to give that hedge against the market but still seeing some gains), a rolling ladder, and there's no problem rolling this year's CD ladder rung into I bonds, then back out of it when inflation comes down. Why buy a CD at 2.5% when ibonds are right there at 9?