Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U today

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
Post Reply
Topic Author
robjer
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:28 pm

Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U today

Post by robjer »

Anybody think the fixed will climb off Zero for May I bonds? Maybe to .02?
FillorKill
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:01 am

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by FillorKill »

Keep hope alive - but I doubt it....
STC
Posts: 415
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:22 am

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by STC »

How are IBonds a disaster currently. Better yield then TIPS. No principle risk. Sounds like a darn bargain to me!
Topic Author
robjer
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by robjer »

Sorry, disaster was too strong.
Before today's CPI-U, it looked like May's bonds would have both a 0% inflation rate and a 0% fixed rate.
Maybe not a disaster, but no better than money in a mattress for 6 months for new bonds purchased in May.
STC
Posts: 415
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:22 am

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by STC »

robjer wrote:Sorry, disaster was too strong.
Before today's CPI-U, it looked like May's bonds would have both a 0% inflation rate and a 0% fixed rate.
Maybe not a disaster, but no better than money in a mattress for 6 months for new bonds purchased in May.
But a lot better then TIPS, and Nominal bonds at the moment. Sad state of fixed income...
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52216
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by nisiprius »

Why would changes in the CPI be expected to affect the fixed rate?

I don't expect to see increases in the fixed rate for a while.

Since I bonds can be redeemed in five years with no penalty and no interest rate sensitivity, they are directly comparable to a five-year TIPS held to maturity. They are currently paying more than a five-year TIPS; they are obviously a good deal, probably constrained by the Treasury being embarrassed or unable to offer a negative fixed rate or to eliminate the program entirely. Traditionally, they paid noticeably less than TIPS. This is clearly a case of "good time to buy." I don't think we will see a positive rate on I bonds until TIPS real rates rise a little bit into positive territory.

I bonds are no better when the CPI rises and no worse when it falls. If the CPI is zero, they are money in the mattress, but if the CPI is zero, there's nothing wrong with money in the mattress.
Last edited by nisiprius on Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
crowd79
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by crowd79 »

What was the CPI-U number (2xx.xxx) released today? How does it compare to October of last year. Is it still lower? If yes, then we're still looking at a possible 0% for the next component...
User avatar
Dale_G
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:43 pm
Location: Central Florida - on the grown up side of 85

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by Dale_G »

Actually, taxpayers are better off if the inflation component is zero. There is never an advantage to pay taxes on inflationary gains. Now if the real rate was positive, I'd be happy to eventually pay taxes on that gain.

Dale
Volatility is my friend
dad2000
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:04 pm

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by dad2000 »

crowd79 wrote:What was the CPI-U number (2xx.xxx) released today? How does it compare to October of last year. Is it still lower? If yes, then we're still looking at a possible 0% for the next component...

I think I have this right:

Today (Feb 2013): 232.166
Sept 2012: 231.407

Sources:
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htm
Topic Author
robjer
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by robjer »

nisiprius, keep the personal attacks out of your response to me. No reason to tell me about myself.

My only point was that today's CPI-U might make the I Bonds for May better.
I didn't compare I Bonds to Tips or talk about any tax implications.
crowd79
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by crowd79 »

dad2000 wrote:
crowd79 wrote:What was the CPI-U number (2xx.xxx) released today? How does it compare to October of last year. Is it still lower? If yes, then we're still looking at a possible 0% for the next component...

I think I have this right:

Today (Feb 2013): 232.166
Sept 2012: 231.407

Sources:
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htm
So, as it stands right now, the next component will be at least 0.65%, which will be higher (or lower) based on next month's CPI-U data.
camaro327
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:04 am

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by camaro327 »

robjer wrote:Anybody think the fixed will climb off Zero for May I bonds? Maybe to .02?
No, even if they only offer 0.66% that beats the heck out of the vast majority of savings account rates. Plus the index to inflation guarantee is better than what a typical savings account can offer.
gkaplan
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:34 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by gkaplan »

robjer wrote:nisiprius, keep the personal attacks out of your response to me. No reason to tell me about myself.

My only point was that today's CPI-U might make the I Bonds for May better.
I didn't compare I Bonds to Tips or talk about any tax implications.
You're a relatively new poster, but you should know that nisiprius is one of the most respected members in these forums. You should at least consider his advice before you dismiss it out of hand.
Gordon
DualIncomeNoDebt
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:38 am

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by DualIncomeNoDebt »

robjer wrote:personal attacks
Didn't see his response as personal attack. Just a direct, informed response. A helpful one too.
STC
Posts: 415
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:22 am

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by STC »

gkaplan wrote:
robjer wrote:nisiprius, keep the personal attacks out of your response to me. No reason to tell me about myself....
You're a relatively new poster, but you should know that nisiprius is one of the most respected members in these forums. You should at least consider his advice before you dismiss it out of hand.
Nis is also notoriously curt with people, but gets a free pass by the admins due to his advisor status. A courtesy that is not extended to others who have "different" communication styles.

[If anyone feels that forum policy has been violated, please report the post ("!" in the top right corner). Members can always PM a moderator (or site admin) for an explanation if they disagree with a moderator action. --admin LadyGeek]
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52216
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by nisiprius »

robjer, you are correct, and your retort was appropriate. I ought not to have made that remark and I apologize. I've removed it from my posting.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
gkaplan
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:34 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by gkaplan »

STC wrote:
gkaplan wrote:
robjer wrote:nisiprius, keep the personal attacks out of your response to me. No reason to tell me about myself....
You're a relatively new poster, but you should know that nisiprius is one of the most respected members in these forums. You should at least consider his advice before you dismiss it out of hand.
Nis is also notoriously curt with people, but gets a free pass by the admins due to his advisor status. A courtesy that is not extended to others who have "different" communication styles.
I think you have the wrong person.
Gordon
sscritic
Posts: 21853
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:36 am

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by sscritic »

232.166 - 230.280 = 1.886
1.886 / 230.280 = .0082
.0082 x 12 = 0.983 or 9.83%

Alternative:
232.166 / 230.280 = 1.0082
1.0082 - 1 = .0082
.0082 x 12 = 0.983 or 9.83%

Do you love extrapolation as much as I do?
FillorKill
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:01 am

Re: Hey, I Bonds might not be a total disaster after CPI-U t

Post by FillorKill »

sscritic wrote:Do you love extrapolation as much as I do?
Ehhh extrapolation? I could take it or leave it.... But don't get me started on interpolation, now that's the ticket :!:
Post Reply