U.S. inflation holds at 3.4% for August. Will that lead to a rate hike?

Plus, what’s ahead for investors in TIPS and I Bonds?

By David Enna, Tipswatch.com

U.S. all-items inflation rose 0.4% on a seasonally adjusted basis in August, up from 0.1% in July. The annual rate held at 3.4%, matching expectations, the BLS reported today.

Core inflation, which strips out food and energy, increased 0.3% for the month, higher than expectations. Annual core inflation came in at 2.4%, falling from 2.5% in July and matching expectations. None of this looks like market-shaking news, except that U.S. inflation remains too high, especially for U.S. consumers who drive cars, travel by plane, and need a place to live.

The price index for gasoline rose 3.9% in August, accounting for more than one third of the monthly all-items increase, the BLS said. Gas prices are up 27.4% over the last year. More troubling is the price of fuel oil, up 10.1% for the month and 52% for the year. Also in the report:

  • Shelter costs rose 0.3% in August, after rising only 0.1% in each of the prior two months. These costs are up 3% year over year.
  • Food at home prices were flat for the month and up 2.2% for the year.
  • Costs of apparel were flat for the month but up 3.6% for the year.
  • New vehicle costs rose 0.3% for the month, but only 0.6% for the year.
  • Used vehicle costs rose 0.4% in August but are down 2.3% for the year.
  • Airline fares rose 2.2% for the month and 23.4% for the year.
  • Costs of motor vehicle insurance fell 0.3% for the month and are down 5.1% for the year.
  • Costs of wireless telephone services jumped 5.9% in August. This seems to be an oddball rise that happens once or twice a year and may not effect that many customers, immediately.

Inflation analyst Michael Ashton noted the wireless increase (which is 1.47% of CPI) and said:

That basically adds up to the miss on core CPI. Do you think the Fed is going to hike rates because cell phone service prices jumped? That’s the bet you’re making if you think the high core CPI forces the Fed to hike.

A key takeaway is that energy and shelter were strong elements in the rise in August inflation. Food prices remain a moderating force. Here is the trend in all-items and core inflation over the last 12 months, showing the obvious effects of the war with Iran, which began in late February:

What this means for TIPS and I Bonds

Investors in Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities and Series I Savings Bonds are also interested in non-seasonally adjusted inflation, which is used to adjust principal balances of TIPS and set future interest rates for I Bonds. For August, the BLS set the CPI-U inflation index at 334.980, an increase of 0.32% over the July number.

For TIPS. The August number means that principal balances for all TIPS will increase 0.32% in October, after falling 0.01% in September. For the year ending in October, principal balances will have increased 3.4%. Here are the new October Inflation Indexes for all TIPS.

For I Bonds. August marks the fifth month of a six-month string that will determine the I Bond’s next inflation-adjusted variable rate, to be reset November 1 based on inflation from April to September 2026. After five months, inflation has increased 1.44%, which translates to a variable rate of 2.88%. One month remains and it looks likely the variable rate will end up around 3.4% to 3.5%, higher than the current 3.34%. Here are the data:

View historic data on my Inflation and I Bonds page.

Also, it continues to look likely that the I Bond’s fixed rate will rise to 1.30% at the November reset, up from the current 0.90%. I’ll be writing about that next month.

The Social Security COLA

The Social Security cost-of-living adjustment is based on an unusual inflation index – CPI-W – and is determined by averaging the indexes for July, August, and September and comparing that number to the same average for the year before. For August, the BLS set the CPI-W index at 328.481, up 0.4% from July.

The key is to compare the third-quarter averages — 2026 versus 2025, currently showing an increase of 3.3%. My projection was for an increase of 3.6%, which might have been too high. But we might still get there.

What this means for future interest rates

A week ago Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller moved markets by saying he was inclined to support holding interest rates steady at next week’s Fed meeting, but the decision would depend on the August inflation report.

So we’ve seen the report: What do we think? The numbers mostly matched expectations, except that monthly core was a tick high at 0.3%. Annual core fell a notch to 2.4%. Some of that price moderation could be caused by the effects of higher gas prices, which deplete other consumer spending.

This morning’s Bloomberg headline says: “Hotter Core CPI Adds Pressure for Fed to Hike Rates.” I think I prefer the Wall Street Journal headline: “Firm Inflation Reading Pushes Fed Closer to Rate Increase.” This wasn’t a blazing hot inflation report, but it did indicate that even core inflation, minus the effect of gas prices, isn’t waning. From Bloomberg:

Economists said the report adds to the case for the Fed to raise interest rates on Sept. 16. Initial calculations suggested that the proportion of categories showing elevated increases – a metric that Chairman Kevin Warsh has put a spotlight on – failed failed to retreat in the month. …

The Fed prefers the PCE inflation gauge. So Citigroup economists calculate that after today’s CPI and yesterday’s PPI, the core PCE for August is tracking a 0.29% month-on-month increase. That would be a three-month high for that rate. Too hot to be consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation annual inflation target. …

Looking ahead, there’s more inflationary pressure in the pipeline. The average retail price of diesel fuel just topped $6 a gallon, according to this morning’s AAA report.

Inflation analyst Ashton had this to say:

Don’t get me wrong. This isn’t a beautiful inflation number. But if the FOMC is being honest, it shouldn’t move the needle.

The Fed is powerless to have much of an effect on energy prices, which have shot higher because of the effects of the war with Iran. But as a symbolic move, both to the markets and the White House, a 25-basis point increase seems appropriate next week. That would back up Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh’s recent hawkish statements.

Plus, if Warsh decides to favor holding rates steady, he could face major dissent on the Fed’s Open Market Committee. It would be better to look unified. I’d say a rate increase is coming.

—————————

Donate? This site is free and I hope to keep it that way. Some readers have suggested having a way to contribute. I welcome donations, any amount. And FYI, ads on this site pay for about one visit to Costco.

PayPal link / Venmo link

—————————

Follow Tipswatch on X for updates on daily Treasury auctions and real yield trends (when I am not traveling).

Feel free to post comments or questions below. If it is your first-ever comment, it will have to wait for moderation. After that, your comments will automatically appear. Please stay on topic and avoid political tirades. NOTE: Comment threads can only be three responses deep. If you see that you cannot respond, create a new comment and reference the topic.

David Enna is a financial journalist, not a financial adviser. He is not selling or profiting from any investment discussed. I Bonds and TIPS are not “get rich” investments; they are best used for capital preservation and inflation protection. They can be purchased through the Treasury or other providers without fees, commissions or carrying charges. Please do your own research before investing.

Posted in Federal Reserve, I Bond, Inflation, Investing in TIPS, Social Security | Tagged , , | 9 Comments

TreasuryDirect provides more guidance on ID.me transition

By David Enna, Tipswatch.com

The Treasury sent an updated email over the weekend again alerting investors that TreasuryDirect will soon require using ID.me for login verification.

This change has become quite contentious, accelerating since my August 17 post on this topic. That article now has 205 reader comments (and rising).

ID.me will go live with a soft launch on September 13 and then become the sole login allowed on October 28. The email says:

You can still use your traditional TreasuryDirect login until October 28, 2026. At that time, ID.me will replace your traditional TreasuryDirect login. If you don’t set up ID.me, your account, funds, and investments will remain safe, and you can easily restore online access at any time after October 28, 2026, by completing the ID.me setup process and linking your TreasuryDirect account(s).

Treasury also updated its FAQ page on this transition with some new information that raises new questions. Here is the link to the FAQ. Let’s talk about some of the new details.

Logging in

Will I be required to use ID.me to access my TreasuryDirect account after October 28, 2026?

Yes. After October 28, 2026, ID.me will be the only method to log in to your TreasuryDirect account. You will have the option to use your traditional TreasuryDirect login between September 13, 2026, and October 28, 2026.

If you do not sign up and/or connect your TreasuryDirect account(s) to ID.me by October 28, 2026, you can easily restore online access at any time by completing the ID.me setup process and linking your TreasuryDirect account(s).

Thoughts. It is interesting that Treasury uses the (s) after the word account, which implies it might be possible to access multiple personal accounts with one login. That is not likely. The reference likely applies to people who manage trust and entity accounts.

Will I be permanently locked out of my account on October 28, 2026, if I haven’t set up ID.me yet?

No. After October 28, 2026, only your online access to your TreasuryDirect account will be restricted until you complete the ID.me verification. If you choose not to verify your identity with ID.me by that date, you will not be able to access TreasuryDirect online, but your funds will not be permanently frozen or seized after the deadline. Your funds and investments will remain safe, and you can easily restore access at any point in the future by simply going through the ID.me setup process.

Thoughts. You have only one option: Set up ID.me for access to your account.

What if I don’t want to sign up for ID.me? Can I still use my traditional TreasuryDirect login to access TreasuryDirect?

Temporarily. Your traditional TreasuryDirect login can be used up until October 28, 2026, throughout the optional period for signing up for ID.me. If you do not have an ID.me Wallet after October 28, 2026, you will not be able to log in to TreasuryDirect.

How will I access my tax documents if I am locked out of my account due to ID.me verification issues or do not sign up for ID.me?

ID.me will be the simplest way to access TreasuryDirect for online retrieval of your tax documents for the current tax year. However, you may request 1099 tax forms for the current tax year be mailed to by contacting TreasuryDirect Customer Support at 844-284-2676 (toll-free) after TreasuryDirect makes those forms available in January of the following tax year.

Thoughts. This is new information, and should be reassuring for people worried about next year’s tax documents. Even if you unload all TreasuryDirect investments this year, you will need those 1099s next year.

Privacy and security

Will ID.me have access to my financial data or know the balance of my TreasuryDirect investments?

No. ID.me is used strictly for online digital identity verification and single sign on (SSO) to TreasuryDirect. ID.me does not have access to your TreasuryDirect account balances, your transaction history, or your linked personal bank account information. Once ID.me verifies that you are the correct individual, they pass a secure digital security key to TreasuryDirect to log you in. Your personal assets remain completely private and isolated inside the secure Treasury system.

Your data is accessible only by the authorized identity verification system and personnel bound by strict confidentiality obligations.

Your data is never sold. Neither TreasuryDirect nor ID.me sells, rents, or shares your personal information with third parties for marketing or advertising purposes. ID.me acts solely as an identity provider.

Thoughts. Again, this is new information. It will require some “trust” from investors. I’ll point out that once you set up your ID.me Wallet, you will probably be exposed to some shopping opportunities on the company’s site.

What information is shared between ID.me and TreasuryDirect?

To keep your account secure, ID.me securely shares your full name, SSN, date of birth, mailing address, e-mail, and phone number with TreasuryDirect. ID.me does not have access to your TreasuryDirect account balances, your transaction history, or your linked personal bank account information.

Thoughts. That is a lot of personal information stored with a private company, and the reason a lot of investors are objecting.

Why is TreasuryDirect not using Login.gov instead of ID.me?

TreasuryDirect is using ID.me because it aligns with Treasury security requirements and those used by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), ensuring it meets the highest Federal identity verification and fraud-prevention standards. … If you already have a Login.gov account, you will still need to verify your identity through ID.me for TreasuryDirect access.

Thoughts. This squashes speculation that Login.gov will be another alternative, as it is on the Social Security site and others.

Account setup questions

Important things to watch out for when setting up ID.me.

After signing in or completing your ID.me setup, you’ll be returned to TreasuryDirect and can continue using your account as usual. You won’t need your TreasuryDirect account number for this process, although it’s helpful to keep it handy for future support needs.

Do not try to use your old login: Attempting to type in your traditional TreasuryDirect login information after linking to ID.me will result in an error. Always use the “Secure Sign In” button.

Check your ID.me details first: Make sure the name on your ID.me Wallet matches the name on your TreasuryDirect account exactly to avoid delays.

Once you link your TreasuryDirect account to ID.me, your traditional TreasuryDirect login and personalized security image are retired.

RED FLAG. A couple things are alarming here: 1) Once you use ID.me to log in, even during the ramp-up period, you will be locked out of using the legacy system. ID.me will be your only way in. 2) What about the many users who use one email to log in to two accounts, for example for a married couple? The ID.me Wallet is not likely to match the name on both accounts.

What this means. Do not rush to use ID.me on September 13. Let’s let other brave souls try it and report back. I really don’t want to use two ID.me accounts (and two 2-step verification systems) to log into our two accounts. Many of you also have trust and entity accounts. Who wants to volunteer?

Additional security steps?

ID.me has different levels of security for different purposes. Your existing ID.me Wallet may not meet the security level requirements for TreasuryDirect, so you may be required to complete additional identity verification to meet these requirements before you can use ID.me to log in to TreasuryDirect.

Thoughts. No real information here, so the brave souls who go first can report back on the “additional” verification needs.

Can I use the same ID.me Wallet for multiple TreasuryDirect accounts?

Yes, if you manage other accounts, you will have a single login to access them.

Thoughts. If true, this is very good news for investors with trust or entity accounts. But then we get the bad news …

Can my spouse and I use the same ID.me Wallet or the same email address?

No. ID.me is a personal identity verification service so each person must have their own unique ID.me Wallet tied to their own unique e-mail address. You cannot share an ID.me Wallet or use the same e-mail address for multiple verified identities, even if you share a household or bank account.

Thoughts. In my case, my usual log in is to the account with my wife as the primary owner (and me as secondary). Both of our accounts are connected to my email. I have no idea if I will still be able to access the main account. If I have to use her ID.me login, then she will need to be standing by every time to provide two-step verification. Also, is there a high chance that her ID.me login will glitch because of the mismatched emails?

I manage an entity account, such as a corporation, trust, or estate. How will ID.me verification work for entity account managers?

For entity accounts like businesses or trusts, ID.me verifies the individual account manager (using their government-issued information) rather than the entity itself. The person in charge of the entity (such as the POA, manager or trustee) must verify their personal identity through ID.me first. While your personal details will be kept safe, private, locked, and managed by ID.me, the business or trust details can still be updated with help from TreasuryDirect Customer Support.

Thoughts. Seems like this is a solution for those asking about trust and entity accounts.

Final thoughts

Read through the entire FAQ page, which does provide additional information. I have submitted a series of additional questions to ID.me, but have not yet gotten answers. If I do, I will publish those before September 13, if I can.

My key takeaway: If you intend to continue using TreasuryDirect, go ahead and complete the ID.me verification process. But do not rush to log in during the September 13 to October 28 “trial period.” Use that time to log in conventionally and get your account(s) in order, canceling reinvestments if need be, redeeming savings bonds, etc. Plus, verify your holdings at TreasuryDirect.

Maybe the ID.me transition process will be smooth. I suspect not.

—————————

Donate? This site is free and I hope to keep it that way. Some readers have suggested having a way to contribute. I welcome donations, any amount. And FYI, ads on this site pay for about one visit to Costco.

PayPal link / Venmo link

—————————

Follow Tipswatch on X for updates on daily Treasury auctions and real yield trends (when I am not traveling).

Feel free to post comments or questions below. If it is your first-ever comment, it will have to wait for moderation. After that, your comments will automatically appear. Please stay on topic and avoid political tirades. NOTE: Comment threads can only be three responses deep. If you see that you cannot respond, create a new comment and reference the topic.

David Enna is a financial journalist, not a financial adviser. He is not selling or profiting from any investment discussed. I Bonds and TIPS are not “get rich” investments; they are best used for capital preservation and inflation protection. They can be purchased through the Treasury or other providers without fees, commissions or carrying charges. Please do your own research before investing.

Posted in Cash alternatives, Estate planning, I Bond, Savings Bond, TreasuryDirect | Tagged , , , , , | 60 Comments

Wise advice: ‘Don’t die with I Bonds’

Avoid creating a complex, frustrating estate process.

AI-generated image. Perchance.org

By David Enna, Tipswatch.com

TreasuryDirect, the only source for buying and holding Series I Savings Bonds, is having quite a moment: Its customers, after years of contending with mediocre service, are enraged by the Treasury’s decision to move very quickly to a new login verification system through a private company, ID.me.

Read about that here: “TreasuryDirect is launching a controversial login system.”

But that isn’t the point of this article. Here is my message today: It makes absolutely no sense to hold I Bonds until death. The reason? Your surviving beneficiaries or estate will face months, maybe even years, of delays in distributing the account assets. Plus they may have to deal with multiple forms (long processing times) and required medallion signature guarantees (nearly impossible to get at most banks).

This is not a new issue, but it gets more pressing because we all are aging. Admit it!

I am hearing from a lot of readers who are planning to redeem or transfer all holdings at TreasuryDirect because of the ID.me transition. I am not recommending that, but I am recommending that you have a plan to exit TreasuryDirect before you die. (If that is at all possible.)

I am not an expert on this topic and have never had to deal with the death of an account holder. But I am sure many of you have, and I hope you will contribute advice in the comments section below.

A tangled bureaucracy

I have a friend who is executor for a relative’s estate. The relative, who recently died in her 90s, had a fairly large amount of converted I Bonds from 2000 and 2001, which have more than quadrupled in value.

The executor had access to the TreasuryDirect account, but had questions. She called TreasuryDirect and asked, “Can you tell me if these I Bonds have a co-owners or beneficiaries?” The answer: “No, I cannot answer that.” And then TreasuryDirect immediately locked the account, as is its standard practice after a death. This is noted here: “Death of a savings bond owner.”

TreasuryDirect does not allow joint accounts, but it does allow “co-ownership” of savings bonds. That should make things easier for a surviving spouse. TreasuryDirect says:

If a surviving co-owner or beneficiary is named on the savings bond, the bond goes directly to that person. It does not become part of the estate of the person who died.

But the actual advice is “contact us” and not much else.

See more here: “Inheriting savings bonds as a named co-owner or beneficiary

Question: I would love to hear feedback from surviving co-owners on how this process worked. Were there delays? Multiple forms to fill out? Or could you simply continue to maintain or transfer that account to your own, with little hassle? If so, there is no pressing need to redeem all I Bonds (even if you are at death’s door) if you have a co-owner who can take over the account with little complexity.

Sole owner: What happens next?

Let’s focus on the death of the sole owner of the savings bonds (which is the case when a co-owner died earlier). This most likely applies to my executor friend’s situation. She needs to know if the savings bonds had any beneficiaries, because that determines the next step.

Assuming there was no co-owner or beneficiary, TreasuryDirect will look to a state court to recognize the executor who will eventually be able to distribute or redeem the savings bonds. This triggers automatically if the holdings exceeded $100,000, as was the case for my friend. (Also, my friend believes there were no named beneficiaries on these converted I Bonds, but isn’t sure since Treasury Direct will not tell her if there are beneficiaries without opening a “case” which could take up to 10 months to get the answer.)

The executor will need a death certificate, plus a court-issued “Letter of Testamentary” that certifies this person has been named executor of the estate. Those forms must be sent to TreasuryDirect, which will then consider allowing the executor to control the assets. Other forms may be needed, including these:

  • Form 1455, Request by Fiduciary for Distribution.
  • Form 5512, Redemption and/or Bank Change Request
  • Form 5511, Transfer Request, for distribution to beneficiaries.

The forms may say “notary certification is NOT acceptable,” but it appears that TreasuryDirect may be willing to waive that requirement, since medallion signature guarantees are very difficult to achieve. More on this.

The process of reviewing these forms can take up to 10 months.

Every single stage of this process can take months. If the executor decides to redeem the I Bonds inside the estate, that decision could take months. And then the eventual distribution of assets to a matching estate account outside TreasuryDirect could take additional months.

Delays are also likely if the savings bonds are going to a beneficiary, as detailed in this article at MyMoneyBlog.com, “TreasuryDirect Customer Service Delays and Estate Planning Concerns“:

My dad’s I bonds were transferred to me around the 4-5 month mark.

After that experience, I decided to liquidate all of my TD accounts, and will encourage my husband to do the same. I personally don’t want a repeat of this experience, or make my heirs go through such a lengthy process in resolving my estate.

What I learned from this experience is to not discount how much stress and mental bandwidth it takes to deal with TD when you’re also grieving the loss of a family member, and trying to settle the estate so you can move on financially.

A similar story was told in an October 2024 Bogleheads post:

An ongoing horror story. Learn something from this. Please don’t do this to your family. My sister passed away in April 2024. While going through her papers, we found a business card with an account number for Treasury Direct. (TD) Since there is no paper trail, it was a piece of luck that we found the card and then found the account.

We completed paperwork in July. We called TD and was told that everything we needed to file and created has been completed and that a TD auditor would review our claim. We were told the timeline would be about a year. …

So here we are in October 2024; six months later. We call TD monthly just to log a call. We still don’t know what’s in the account. We were hoping to close the estate by the end of the year. The TD account is the last item to be closed and TD is holding us up. Thanks to TD, we are looking at interest and penalties because we don’t have the information to file a final tax return.

In my friend’s case, she won’t have access to the relative’s account until TreasuryDirect receives and reviews the death certificate and Letter of Testamentary. And most likely she will never have actual “access” to the account. Once she is recognized as the executor, she could direct TreasuryDirect to redeem the I Bonds and deliver the proceeds to an estate account at a financial institution. But that could take months.

Eventually, the estate will owe taxes on that redemption. How much? She might know in early 2028 when 2027 taxes are filed, which means complete distribution of assets could take a very long time.

Plus, the addition of the ID.me verification layer could cause future problems in accessing account information, such as finding 1099s for 2026, to be issued in late January 2027.

Needless to say, there are only two investments a sole-owner elderly person should own at TreasuryDirect: 1) Savings bonds, because TreasuryDirect is the sole source, and 2) T-bills up to about 26 weeks, because those will mature and pay out. If you are elderly, don’t purchase Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities at TreasuryDirect. Do it at a brokerage to avoid potential estate hassles.

The I Bond strategy

My advice for TIPS is to hold to maturity, if at all possible. TIPS can be held in a tax-deferred account, with a beneficiary, or in a taxable account, where taxes are kept current on the inflation accruals. There is no big deal — tax-wise — at maturity.

This isn’t the case with I Bonds. No I Bond has ever matured; that process will begin in 2028 and beyond. There is no overriding reason to hold I Bonds to maturity. I Bonds are a cash-equivalent investment and should be redeemed when you need the money. They can never go down in value. When the time comes, cash in and enjoy life.

The ideal holding period for an I Bond is 5+ years until … you need the money.

What about taxes?

My recommendation is going to be difficult to hear: If you are a sole owner of savings bonds at TreasuryDirect and know your life is nearing an end, immediately redeem every holding and transfer the money out of TreasuryDirect. You will then be responsible for the taxes owed on the interest, to be paid when your executor files that return in the next year. Your estate and heirs will get less money, but will be free of that tax burden and the lingering hassle of TreasuryDirect after death.

I am NOT a tax expert and I am sure many readers know more about this than I do. Here is what the IRS says for savings bonds with accrued interest collected over years:

If the bonds transferred because of death were owned by a cash method taxpayer who chose not to report the interest each year and had purchased the bonds entirely with personal funds, interest earned before death must be reported in one of the following ways.

  1. The person (executor, administrator, etc.) who is required to file the decedent’s final income tax return can elect to include all of the interest earned on the bonds before the decedent’s death on the return. The transferee (estate or beneficiary) then includes only the interest earned after the date of death on its return.
  2. If the election in (1) above wasn’t made, the interest earned to the date of death is income in respect of the decedent and isn’t included on the decedent’s final return. In this case, all of the interest earned before and after the decedent’s death is income to the transferee (estate or beneficiary). A transferee who uses the cash method of accounting and who has chosen not to report the interest annually may defer reporting any of it as income until the bonds are either cashed or reach the date of maturity, whichever is earlier. In the year the interest is reported, the transferee may claim a deduction for any federal estate tax paid that arose because of the part of interest (if any) included in the decedent’s estate.

The IRS includes a few examples on that page, but I think the core is this:

  1. The executor can include interest earned up to the date of death on the sole owner’s tax return, and in that case the beneficiary (or the estate) will pay taxes on interest earned after the date of death.
  2. Or if not option 1, then the person (or the estate) receiving the savings bonds will accept the full tax burden at redemption, which could be sizable.
  3. A variation on option 1 is for the executor to have TreasuryDirect redeem all the savings bonds, deliver the cash to a related estate account, reserve money for future taxes on tax returns for the sole owner and estate, and … eventually … deliver the remaining cash to beneficiaries. That will take time, but the estate will carry the tax load.

I suspect CPAs could argue about this for hours.

The better option: Redeem all I Bonds before the sole owner’s death.

I am sure many of you have different opinions. My expertise in this area is extremely limited. I believe I have only scratched the surface of these difficult issues. Please share your thoughts.

—————————

Donate? This site is free and I hope to keep it that way. Some readers have suggested having a way to contribute. I welcome donations, any amount. And FYI, ads on this site pay for about one visit to Costco.

PayPal link / Venmo link

—————————

Follow Tipswatch on X for updates on daily Treasury auctions and real yield trends (when I am not traveling).

Feel free to post comments or questions below. If it is your first-ever comment, it will have to wait for moderation. After that, your comments will automatically appear. Please stay on topic and avoid political tirades. NOTE: Comment threads can only be three responses deep. If you see that you cannot respond, create a new comment and reference the topic.

David Enna is a financial journalist, not a financial adviser. He is not selling or profiting from any investment discussed. I Bonds and TIPS are not “get rich” investments; they are best used for capital preservation and inflation protection. They can be purchased through the Treasury or other providers without fees, commissions or carrying charges. Please do your own research before investing.

Posted in Cash alternatives, EE Bonds, Estate planning, I Bond, Taxes | 99 Comments

Schwab analysts weigh in on bond-market disruptions

By David Enna, Tipswatch.com

I am posting this Schwab podcast as an add-on to my Friday article, “Secretary Bessent, take note: Treasury yields are not ‘too high’.”

Note that the podcast focuses on Bessent’s actions and the bond market’s reaction. It was recorded before Kevin Warsh spoke Friday in Jackson Hole.

The podcast was recorded Wednesday and posted Friday. It reinforces several of the ideas I presented in my Friday article. A few excerpts:

Collin Martin, Schwab’s head of fixed income research and strategy:

So what Bessent is proposing is an increase in the size of the liquidity buyback operations that are already underway. But it seems like the increase in the buyback operation is less about managing liquidity and more about the Treasury just trying to buy more bonds in an attempt to lower yields. …

Is a fix even necessary? So the question is, are yields high? If we look at the last 15 years or so or 16 years, yes, they are high. You know, the 30-year Treasury yield touched 5.3%. That’s, I think, what probably resulted in the intervention. The 10-year Treasury yield has been touching 4.7% for the past few weeks. That’s high relative to the past handful of years. It’s not high relative to history.

The real fix, if we want to really rein in Treasury yields, a lot of it comes down to fiscal issues. And that doesn’t appear to be anything that either side of the aisle wants to address. … That’s not something that Bessent can fix. That’s something that Congress needs to fix.

Liz Ann Sonders, Schwab’s chief investment strategist:

Doesn’t this throw a wrinkle into the way the Fed needs to think about their monetary policy? … Is the Treasury now doing something that’s a bit at odds with what the Fed’s goals are?

Martin:

There’s been a discussion first with the Fed about a potential credibility issue. And I don’t think we’re there yet, because we know that there’s members that think they might need to hike rates to bring inflation in. But if the data say the Fed should hike, and it doesn’t, I think the Fed risks losing credibility. …

And if the markets think that Treasury is losing credibility, if they’re doing this kind of as a rash decision … then there is a Treasury credibility issue. And do long-term yields rise because investors need to demand or want higher yields to compensate for all that uncertainty?

…. Give it a listen.

—————————

Donate? This site is free and I hope to keep it that way. Some readers have suggested having a way to contribute. I welcome donations, any amount. And FYI, ads on this site pay for about one visit to Costco.

PayPal link / Venmo link

—————————

Follow Tipswatch on X for updates on daily Treasury auctions and real yield trends (when I am not traveling).

Feel free to post comments or questions below. If it is your first-ever comment, it will have to wait for moderation. After that, your comments will automatically appear. Please stay on topic and avoid political tirades. NOTE: Comment threads can only be three responses deep. If you see that you cannot respond, create a new comment and reference the topic.

David Enna is a financial journalist, not a financial adviser. He is not selling or profiting from any investment discussed. I Bonds and TIPS are not “get rich” investments; they are best used for capital preservation and inflation protection. They can be purchased through the Treasury or other providers without fees, commissions or carrying charges. Please do your own research before investing.

Posted in Federal Reserve, Inflation, Tariffs | Tagged , , , , , , | 18 Comments

Secretary Bessent, take note: Treasury yields are not ‘too high’

Plus: Reaction to Kevin Warsh’s speech at Jackson Hole.

By David Enna, Tipswatch.com

A week ago, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced plans to double the Treasury’s buy-back of long-term U.S. debt, up from $2 billion to $4 billion a week through the fall. And bigger buy-backs could be coming.

Bessent

The announcement, coming one day before the Treasury’s auction of a reopened 30-year TIPS, managed to drop long-term yields by 9 or 10 basis points. The effect lasted a few hours. The market quickly noticed the “drop in the bucket” amount and moved yields higher.

Why would the Treasury do this? In my opinion, it was an attempt to shift borrowing costs from the long-term (5.18%) to short-term (3.80%) to help the U.S. finance a massive (and fast-growing) federal deficit. The fiscal 2025 federal deficit was $1.75 trillion and that will grow to about $1.9 trillion in fiscal 2026.

And, in theory, the buy-backs could nudge long-term yields a bit lower, a long-time goal of the Trump administration.

This led to a savage analysis from renowned investor Stanley Druckenmiller in a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled, “Let the Bond Market Speak.” (Gift link.) Druckenmiller, it should be noted, has been a mentor to both Bessent and Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh. I advise reading the entire op-ed, but here are some excerpts:

The market’s verdict was swift and correct: This wasn’t liquidity management, it was price management—and a mistake far larger than $4 billion suggests. …

Inflation is 3% to 4% and has been above the Fed’s target since 2021. Unemployment is 4.1%, full employment by any definition. The deficit is running near 6% of gross domestic product, a number America has never before produced in peacetime at full employment. The national debt crossed $40 trillion the same week Treasury intervened. Net interest will exceed $1.1 trillion this fiscal year, more than the defense budget. …

The long-term Treasury yield is the most important price in the world. It is also the only fiscal disciplinarian the U.S. has left. …

Governments defending prices against fundamentals always lose. The only variable is how much they spend before conceding. The U.S. shouldn’t put itself on the wrong side of that trade.

Please, no more manipulation

I started writing Tipswatch in March 2011, just before the Federal Reserve launched into a decade of on-and-off bond-buying known as quantitative easing. QE is outright bond-market manipulation. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is the admitted goal of QE — to force interest rates down (and spur the economy higher).

What was the effect of this QE? It pushed real yields deeply negative and nominal yields down to as low as 0.52% on the 10-year note in August 2020. This manipulation, combined with supply shortages, lavish government spending, and generous U.S. stimulus checks, sent U.S. inflation soaring to a 40-year high less than two years later.

Here is the trend in the 10-year nominal yield over the last 56 years.

Click on image for larger version.

Note that the current 10-year yield of around 4.7% is actually historically low, if you remove the decade of quantitative easing. To make this perfectly clear, I created these charts of 5-, 10-and 30-year nominal yields removing the decade-plus of QE manipulation:

Click on the images for a larger version.

These three charts demonstrate that the mid-2026 longer-term nominal yields are solidly in the “normal” range, especially at a time of eternally increasing federal deficits, along with a relatively solid U.S. economy and strong demand for corporate financing for the AI buildout.

This is not the time for the Treasury to interfere, unless the real motive is to lower U.S. borrowing costs to pay for even higher deficit spending.

As a side note, Bessent’s move struck at the world’s confidence in the U.S. dollar, with the dollar index losing about 0.5% of its value since Aug. 18. More significantly, the buy-back announcement caused a surge in alternative currencies like Bitcoin, up 24% since Aug. 18.

If anyone wants to offer a conspiracy theory on this, I am willing to listen.

Is inflation a factor?

Certainly. Those very high interest rates of the 1980s brought the pain needed to bring down exceptionally high inflation after the oil shock of 1973. Annual U.S. inflation rose to 13.5% in 1980. The high interest rates imposed by Fed Chairman Paul Volcker (he took that role in late 1979) broke the inflation trend, with the annual rate falling to 3.2% by 1983. Here is the trend in July-to-July annual inflation from 1971 to 2026:

The main point of this chart is to show that today’s annual inflation rate of 3.4% is certainly not “low” and the bond market reflects this in the cost of borrowing.

Chairman Warsh’s dilemma

At his last news conference on July 25, Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh said he wants to limit the Fed’s forward guidance and let the financial markets set the way. He said:

Monetary policy matters not just by what we say or even what we do; monetary policy matters by how it affects the real economy. And these prices that we see in financial markets is one of the many ways in which it affects the real economy. We’ll be continuing to watch that market information, see how it responds to incoming events, and that can help inform our decision-making when we meet in seven or eight weeks. …

I was comforted that markets in the inter-meeting period weren’t reacting to us. They weren’t reacting to dots or to speeches. They appeared more than ever to be reacting to real-time events.

Warsh also wants to reduce the Fed’s balance sheet built through years of aggressive QE, and that means the Treasury buy-backs are working in the opposite direction from his goal.

The problem for Warsh is that Bessent’s initiative came without any actual “market” justification, except to benefit the Treasury by moving borrowing costs to lower-yielding T-bills, where the Federal Reserve has control over rates.

And there is the problem. Is Warsh now facing pressure to hold short-term rates stable, or even to lower them, to accommodate the Treasury’s gambit? From a Reuters report today:

Many investors say Bessent is fighting the wrong fight. They say strong growth, sticky inflation, likely Fed hikes and heavy bond supply, including from AI-driven corporate borrowing, are what’s pushing yields up, along with a widening fiscal premium tied to the deficit — ⁠not market dysfunction. …

Warsh has long criticized the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases, arguing such interventions should be reserved for genuine market dysfunction, ​with rate policy driving the employment and inflation mandates.

Update: Warsh at Jackson Hole

I just finished watching Kevin Warsh speaking at the Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium. My immediate reaction was that this was a good speech: somewhat specific, somewhat hawkish, and a strong statement that fighting inflation is the priority. Read the full text here.

For example, Warsh was very specific about the Fed’s favored measure of inflation (as opposed to his past attractions to alternative measures):

The Fed’s price-stability objective of 2 percent, as measured by the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, is a firm, fixed target.” …

And he added this:

“The Fed’s preferred measure of inflation, the 12-month change in the PCE price index, stands at 3.7 percent, while the six-month change is 4.1 percent. … And while this summer’s PCE and CPI readings were better than expected, they do not tell me that underlying trends have meaningfully improved.”

And that the economy can handle higher interest rates:

Credit and loan markets are showing few signs of policy restraint. Certain sectors—like housing and agriculture—are showing strains. But, on balance, I would be hard pressed to describe broad financial conditions as restrictive.

Maybe I am reading too much into this, but did he give Bessent a soft slap in the face with this?

“Short-term interest rates are the predominant tool to achieve the dual mandate. Unconventional policies to spur economic activity may suit genuine crises but should otherwise be used sparingly, if at all.”

And concluded with this:

There is one signal nobody can miss: The responsibility for 65 months of sustained, elevated inflation sits squarely with the central bank. And that is where it belongs.

Here is my standard: We must be confident that underlying inflation is moving to our objective, clearly and at sufficient speed. Otherwise, we have work to do. That’s our job . . . our mandate . . . and our charge to keep.

If the stock and bond markets were looking for “future guidance,” they didn’t get it. But they did get the specific and strongly-stated goal of hitting the Fed’s inflation goal.

Conclusion

Even though longer-term Treasury yields are reaching 15- to 20-year highs, those yields can be considered “normal” if you remove 10-plus years of bond market manipulation by the Federal Reserve.

What Bessent is planning is not quantitative easing; it is shifting U.S. debt from long-term to short-term, and an attempt to nudge long-term yields down.

This is not the time for a new course of manipulation by the Treasury. It is the time for Congress and the president to get serious about reducing the upward trend in the federal deficit, whether by spending cuts, tax increases, or more probably … both.

And that won’t happen in 2026.

Also read: Federal Reserve is losing credibility, at the worst possible time

—————————

Donate? This site is free and I hope to keep it that way. Some readers have suggested having a way to contribute. I welcome donations, any amount. And FYI, ads on this site pay for about one visit to Costco.

PayPal link / Venmo link

—————————

Follow Tipswatch on X for updates on daily Treasury auctions and real yield trends (when I am not traveling).

Feel free to post comments or questions below. If it is your first-ever comment, it will have to wait for moderation. After that, your comments will automatically appear. Please stay on topic and avoid political tirades. NOTE: Comment threads can only be three responses deep. If you see that you cannot respond, create a new comment and reference the topic.

David Enna is a financial journalist, not a financial adviser. He is not selling or profiting from any investment discussed. I Bonds and TIPS are not “get rich” investments; they are best used for capital preservation and inflation protection. They can be purchased through the Treasury or other providers without fees, commissions or carrying charges. Please do your own research before investing.

Posted in Federal Reserve, Inflation, Treasury Bills | Tagged , , | 24 Comments