dakinemaui I Bonds have a no access period of 1 year. After that there is a 3(?) month interest penalty if you take money out before the bond turns 5. 

ynaber2613 I Bonds specifically are inflation-protected. So if you are just looking to keep up with inflation then they will suffice. Rates at bank accounts tend to come down fast and then are slow to rise, so there is never a guarantee they will match or beat inflation.

dakinemaui while they do have their withdrawal limitations, I've found they are easier to manage I Bonds than a CD ladder. Since I'm not locking up huge amounts of money, inflation protection is good enough. I reduce the 1 year risk by making monthly purchases.

If this money weren't part of my budget, I'd probably use this money to pay down the mortgage instead. But then there would be the lack of liquidity. I guess there's always "velocity banking" 😂, but I can't figure out where people are getting first position HELOCs at a low enough rate to make it worthwhile. I'd have to store ALL of my cash in it just to break even at rate deltas vs. my conventional mortgage, and that's a risk I'm not willing to take.

dakinemaui what I'm familiar with when it comes to CD ladders is the idea that enough cash can be extracted from a CD in any given month to cover irregular budget variance, primarily income replacement. I wouldn't suggest CDs for much else, as other investment vehicles have higher returns. It's not so much about what categories the money is for, but liquidity and returns are managed in the overall portfolio. CDs just don't do much of value when interest rates are low. This is even more true when high yield savings allows immediate access with no penalty for a few basis points lower than a reasonably long term CD.

I-bonds seem like a reasonable and potentially easier to manage longer term solution, but with some risk during the first year.

Superbone It's definitely the risk factor in any single stock. One of the reasons I use broad market indexes is because of single stock risk. Think Kodak, Enron, or more recently a company like GE, which while still alive is in bad shape and it's unknown if they will recover. It's hard to tell the difference between a good company and a bad one until it's too late. When a company goes bankrupt, the stock is worthless.

If you are going to invest in stocks, you might as well make the smart play and invest for total return and not focus on dividend. Total return is capital appreciation + dividend. A company that is earning the average total return but has a high dividend has less appreciation, but you are paying taxes on the dividend. It's essentially a forced sale. What's the point of focusing on the dividend when you can always "make your own dividend" by selling appreciated stock, and pay the taxes when you sell. With this type of home-made dividend the return of capital is part of the sale so not everything is subject to taxes.

Bonds are what they are. We're in a low interest rate environment, exacerbated because the recession. So bond funds aren't returning much of anything, just like savings accounts. I don't know much about the credit worthiness of California municipal bonds. I didn't touch New Jersey bonds, because the credit risk was pretty high in that state. I haven't looked into North Carolina since we moved.

One of the reasons I went with I Bonds besides the inflation protection is the tax deferral. If I hold on to them until maturity, then I am likely to be in a lower tax bracket when we cash them in. If i need the money earlier, then taxes aren't all that important a consideration over the need to cash them in earlier.

nolesrule Great stuff! I'm glad I asked. Really good point about focusing on total return rather than dividends. I've definitely heard and read that before but lost focus when comparing to interest rate returns. I don't need the funds now so it makes even less sense to pay forced taxes on dividends now. It all points me back to the beginning and simplest solution: VTSAX. Thank you.

Superbone I haven't researched this Streitwise thing, but I have family that lost their entire retirement nest egg in a bunch of non-traded REITs several years ago.  I ended up pushing them to get a lawyer and they were able to recover a small fraction.  This is super risky stuff, as for them there was no guarantee that liquidity would remain, even at 5 years (it did NOT), though they apparently assumed it would.  The 10% return is from new investors buying in (hello pyramid scheme?) and not from capital gains from the principal invested.

I don't know if these Non-traded REIT schemes have improved their terms and security in the past 10 years, but just make sure you understand the risk and suitability of these investments in your portfolio.

Annieland Of course. I did a ton of research on this before investing. The owners themselves are heavily invested. The properties are in high-traffic, affluent areas. I have 2% of my nest egg invested in Streitwise.

Superbone Ok, I figured, but just had to throw out my warning in case others might fall into the "unsuitable investment" trap my family did.  The REITs they invested in were huge and popular, but obviously did not account for the housing crash at the end of the prior decade.  2% sounds a lot better than the insanity they were talked into by a highly commissioned "advisor."  $750k gone and they're living on social security and an annuity (which they purchased with the settlement after I hired a lawyer for them).  🤦‍♀️  

Annieland Wow. That makes me sick to my stomach. They paid big bucks to lose their entire nest egg. 🤬Anybody worth their salt knows not to put all your eggs in one basket. Sickening. Thankfully, I am my own advisor.

From all my reading, I've decided never to purchase an annuity personally. I want the flexibility to invest my nest egg and harvest it as I choose. But if you can't or don't want to manage your retirement funds, I understand it's use.

Superbone I would have never advised them to go the annuity route, but they probably wouldn't have listened to me even if they asked my opinion anyway.  Well, at least they didn't have to go through the stomach-churning experience of this year's market movements.  To each their own.

Annieland The market is always going to fluctuate. You’ve got to know that if you’re invested in it. But it has always (US) gone up over time. It just happens to be near all-time highs at the moment. What’s more likely though in 10 years from now? The market is the same or down from where it is now or 2.5 times where it’s at now? Look at the history but of course past performance is no guarantee of future results. I know which side I’d put (and am putting) my money on.

Green Falafel This doesn't sound like a scam, but it does sound like a way to get people to sign up for 0.2% interest plus a decent chance of winning a few extra pennies, where there are other online savings accounts that currently pay 0.6%.