To clarify: I buy the fund (LTPZ) but I quote yields in terms of the underlying bonds, typically the highest yielding (2047), which IIRC was at 1.748% that day on the WSJ page. I'm condemned for now to the fund due to 401(k) brokerage limits; I quote the bond yield because plenty of BH, as notably you, buy the bonds, and because I won't always own LTPZ.Kevin M wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 1:16 pmYou're tempting me again (have been staying short term so far). Have some cash coming from a maturing IRA CD in a few days (matures tomorrow at a credit union, IRA transfer form already in their possession), so will reconsider then. I think the likelihood of me living 20 more years is not very high, but I like the idea of a barbell, capturing the higher yields at the longer end and at the shorter end.McQ wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 5:09 pm Bought some more LTPZ at 59.25 today (2047 bond now yielding 1.75%).
I have no dog in the bonds / bond funds game; it's just that I can't easily buy TIPS in the brokerage account of the 401(k) account I am using (as I can do in my accounts at Vanguard). LTPZ is a convenience, to be revisited later.
With three purchases of LTPZ at 59 - 60 in the past few days, I guess I'm voting with my feet against the likelihood of long TIPS surging over 2.0% again on this cycle. Great if it happens; I'm still only nibbling, and could move up to bites and then gulps if rates did rise further.
Accumulating long TIPS at 1.70%+ nibble by nibble is in the spirit of "Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good." Holding off on purchases for most of the last six months was in the spirit of, "a real yield of 1.25% to 1.50% isn't good enough for me."
...
How is the fund yield 1.75% when the highest ask yield is 1.72%, and the average is 1.68%?
Kevin
PS. lovin' that meme you introduced: "he that shall not be named."