<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New I bond fixed rate 1.30% - EE 3.40%</title>
	<link>http://www.savings-bond-advisor.com/new-i-bond-fixed-rate-130-ee-340/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:21:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Tom Adams</title>
		<link>http://www.savings-bond-advisor.com/new-i-bond-fixed-rate-130-ee-340/#comment-3216</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 15:34:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.savings-bond-advisor.com/new-i-bond-fixed-rate-130-ee-340/#comment-3216</guid>
					<description>Robert - Although you can't depend on the Treasury to continue this, lately it has consistently set the I bond fixed rate 95 to 100 basis points below the current 10-year TIPS rate. See the table at the bottom of my &lt;a href="http://www.savings-bond-advisor.com/series-i-savings-bond-fixed-base-rates/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"&gt;I bond fixed rate&lt;/a&gt; page.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert - Although you can't depend on the Treasury to continue this, lately it has consistently set the I bond fixed rate 95 to 100 basis points below the current 10-year TIPS rate. See the table at the bottom of my <a href="http://www.savings-bond-advisor.com/series-i-savings-bond-fixed-base-rates/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">I bond fixed rate</a> page.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: AndyK</title>
		<link>http://www.savings-bond-advisor.com/new-i-bond-fixed-rate-130-ee-340/#comment-3215</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 15:16:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.savings-bond-advisor.com/new-i-bond-fixed-rate-130-ee-340/#comment-3215</guid>
					<description>Well, this isn't a huge hit on this go-around, but it does continue the downward trend of "administratively" assigned fixed rates.  If the demand for savings bonds continues to drop, as seems likely following this announcement, is it possible that either series is headed the way of HH bonds, discontinued due to lack of interest?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, this isn't a huge hit on this go-around, but it does continue the downward trend of "administratively" assigned fixed rates.  If the demand for savings bonds continues to drop, as seems likely following this announcement, is it possible that either series is headed the way of HH bonds, discontinued due to lack of interest?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Robert Ranlett</title>
		<link>http://www.savings-bond-advisor.com/new-i-bond-fixed-rate-130-ee-340/#comment-3214</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 15:13:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.savings-bond-advisor.com/new-i-bond-fixed-rate-130-ee-340/#comment-3214</guid>
					<description>It would be helpful if the Treasury Department had a "transparent" method for determining the fixed rate component for the I Bond.  It is hard to determine if this is market driven at all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It would be helpful if the Treasury Department had a "transparent" method for determining the fixed rate component for the I Bond.  It is hard to determine if this is market driven at all.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Bill Harrell</title>
		<link>http://www.savings-bond-advisor.com/new-i-bond-fixed-rate-130-ee-340/#comment-3212</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 14:34:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.savings-bond-advisor.com/new-i-bond-fixed-rate-130-ee-340/#comment-3212</guid>
					<description>Looks like they do not want Americans to buy the bonds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like they do not want Americans to buy the bonds.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
