Questions about government bonds that have already matured
I am assuming that you are talking about US Savings Bonds: Here is a page that talks about maturity dates of US Savings bonds. If They aren'tSavings bonds but are another type ofUS Government Bond Assuming they are Savings bonds, here is information regarding redeeming of bonds. How do I redeem my EE/E Bonds?  Electronic bonds:     Log in to Treasury Direct and follow the directions there. The cash amount can be credited to your checking or savings account within one business day of the redemption date.  Paper bonds    You can cash paper EE/E Bonds at many local financial institutions. We don't keep a list of banks that redeem bonds, so check with banks in your area. What will I need to redeem a paper bond? Before taking in the bonds to redeem them, it's usually a good idea to check with the financial institution to find out what identification and other documents you'll need.   When you present your paper bonds, you'll be asked to show your identity. You can do this by being a customer with an active account open for at least 6 months at the financial institution that will be paying the bonds, or presenting acceptable identification such as a valid driver's license if the >redemption value of the bonds is less than $1,000. If you are not listed as the owner or co-owner on the bond, you'll have to show that you >are entitled to cash in the bond.  The treasury direct website also discusses converting bonds, rules regarding using them for education, how often they are credited with interest
When the laws allow for bonds to be issued for anything other than infrastructure projects, you end up in financial ruin.   Politicians can't help themselves, and spend future money, today on day to day expenses.      Then future residents, are paying off bonds for items they see no current benefit on.  It makes taxes appear high.       Look at cities like Chicago as an example. This is something you are going to have to work out with the leasing company because your goal is to get them to make an exception to their normal rules. I'm a little surprised they wouldn't take 6 months pre-payment, plus documentation of your savings. One option might be to cash in the bonds (since you said they are mature), deposit them in a savings account, and show them your account balance. That documentation of enough to pay for the year, plus an offer to pay 6 months in advance would be pretty compelling. Ask the property manage if that's sufficient. And if the lease is for one year and you're willing to pay the entire year in advance, I can't see how they would possibly object. If your employment prospects are good (show them your resume and explain why you are moving and what jobs you are seeking) a smart property manager would realize you'll be an excellent, low-risk tenant and will make an effort to convince the parent company that you should live there. Not really. You can have two bonds that have identical duration but vastly different convexity.   Pensions and insurance portfolio managers are most common buyers as they're trying to deal with liability matching and high convexity allows them to create a barbell around their projected liabilities. To my knowledge, the only bond ever issued by a notable state into perpetuity was the Bank of England...and it was a miserable mess for all the obvious reasons.  Edit : They were called consuls, and it appears i was wrong about them being catastriphic for the BOE. I'm sorry, i guess i must be cruising the permabear backwoods or something. Here's some interesting links i found.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consols  http://www.immediateannuities.com/annuitymuseum/annuitycertificatesofthebankofengland/consolidatedannuities/  http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/03/debt-crisis-0?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/hundredyearsofsolvency Well, define shitty.   The assumption of perfect competition should imply that only the firms that can manage to breakeven while still owing outstanding bonds will continue to issue bonds in the first place, as the competing monetary systems themselves will become a competitive market of their own.  Information on the specific bond you're using as a medium of exchange/legal tender should be easily be easy to find or public information.  If it's kind of bondnote has existed for five years with no substantial changes, my safe bet is on that bond being worth something. Savings accounts have limitations in case a bank goes belly up and you have a higher amount in the account (more than the insured amount). Mostly big corporations or pension funds cannot rely on a bank to secure their cash but a government bond is secured (with some fine print) and hence they are willing to take negative interest rates. "Hey guys I have a quick question about a financial accounting problem although I think it's not really an ""accounting"" problem but just a bond problem.  Here it goes    GSB Corporation issued semiannual coupon bonds with a face value of $110,000 several years ago. The annual coupon rate is 8%, with two coupons due each year, six months apart. The historical market interest rate was 10% compounded semiannually when GSB Corporation issued the bonds, equal to an effective interest rate of 10.25% [= (1.05 × 1.05) – 1]. GSB Corporation accounts for these bonds using amortized cost measurement based on the historical market interest rate. The current market interest rate at the beginning of the current year on these bonds was 6% compounded semiannually, for an effective interest rate of 6.09% [= (1.03 × 1.03) – 1]. The market interest rate remained at this level throughout the current year. The bonds had a book value of $100,000 at the beginning of the current year. When the firm made the payment at the end of the first six months of the current year, the accountant debited a liability for the exact amount of cash paid. Compute the amount of interest expense on these bonds for the last six months of the life of the bonds, assuming all bonds remain outstanding until the retirement date.  My question is why would they give me the effective interest rate for both the historical and current rate?  The problem states that the firm accounts for the bond using historical interest which is 10% semiannual and the coupon payments are 4400 twice per year.  I was just wondering if I should just do the (Beginning Balance (which is 100000 in this case) x 1.05)-4400=Ending Balance so on and so forth until I get to the 110000 maturity value. I got an answer of 5474.97 and was wondering if that's the correct approach or not." "According to Wikipedia, Treasury bills mature in 1 year or less to a fixed face value: Treasury bills (or T-Bills) mature in one year or less. Regular weekly T-Bills are commonly issued with maturity dates of 28 days (or 4 weeks, about a month), 91 days (or 13 weeks, about 3 months), 182 days (or 26 weeks, about 6 months), and 364 days (or 52 weeks, about 1 year). Treasury bills are sold by single-price auctions held weekly. The T-bills (as Wikipedia says, like zero-coupon bonds) are actually sold at a discount to their face value and mature to their face value. They do not return any interest before the date of maturity.  Because the amount earned is fixed at purchase, ""return"" is a more accurate term than ""rate"" when referring to a specific T-bill. The ""rate"" is the difference between this return and the discount value you purchased it at. So, yes, your rate of return is guaranteed. T-notes (1-10 year) and T-bonds (20-30 year) also have an interest rate guaranteed, but have coupon payments (usually every 6 months), paying out a fixed amount of interest on the principal.  (See more info on the same Wikipedia page.) Because those bonds are not compounding the interest it pays out, but instead paying out every 6 months, you'd have to purchase new securities to create a compound return, changing your rate of return over time slightly as the rates for new treasury securities changes." "The only party that can pay back a government bond is the government that issued it itself. In the case of Argentina, US vulture funds have won cases against it, but it has yet to pay.  The best one can do to collect is to sue in a jurisdiction that permits and hope to seize the defaulted government's assets held in such jurisdiction. One could encourage another state to go to war to collect, but this is highly unlikely since a state that doesn't repay is probably a poor state with nothing much to loot; besides, most modern governments do not loot the conquered anymore.  Such a specific eventuality hasn't happened in at least a lifetime, anyways.  It is highly unlikely that any nation would be foolish enough to challenge the United States considering its present military dominance. It is rare for nations with medium to large economies to spurn their government obligations for long with Argentina as the notable exception.  Even Russia became current when they spontaneously disavowed their government debt during the oil collapse of 1998. Countries with very small economies such as Zimbabwe are the only remaining nations that try to use their central banks to fund debt repayments if they even repay at all, but they quickly see that the destruction caused by hyperinflation neither helps with government debt nor excessive government expenditure. Nevertheless, it could be dangerous to assume that no nation would default on its debt for any period of time, and the effects upon countries with defaulted government debt show that it has far reaching negative consequences. If the US were to use its central bank to repay its government obligations, the law governing the Federal Reserve would have to be changed since it is currently mandated to ""maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates."" The United States Treasury has no power over the Federal Reserve thus cannot force the Federal Reserve to betray its mandate by purchasing government debt. It should be noted that while Japan has a government debt twice its GDP, it also has a persistent slight deflation which has produced incredibly low interest rates, allowing it to finance government debt more easily, a situation the US does not enjoy. For now, the United States seems to be able to pay expenditures and finance at low interest rates.  At what ratio of government debt to GDP that would cause interest rates to climb thus put pressure on the US's ability to repay does not seem to be well known." Historically when short term treasuries (maturity less than 5 years) have a higher yield than long term treasuries (10+ years) a recession has followed within a year or so.  Don't quote me on the bond maturities and how quickly a recession occurs but it's basically accurate.    Edit: we are not there right now but that seems to be the trending direction. "A bond fund will typically own a range of bonds of various durations, in your specific fund: The fund holds high-quality long-term New York municipal bonds with an   average duration of approximately 6–10 years So through this fund you get to own a range of bonds and the fund price will behave similar to you owning the bonds directly.  The fund gives you a little diversification in terms of durations and typically a bit more liquidity.  It also may continuously buy bonds over time so you get some averaging vs. just buying a bond at a given time and holding it to maturity.  This last bit is important, over long durations the bond fund may perform quite differently than owning a bond to maturity due to this ongoing refresh.  Another thing to remember is that you're paying management fees for the fund's management. As with any bond investment, the longer the duration the more sensitive the price is to change in interest rates because when interest rates change the price will track it. (i.e. compare a change of 1% for a one year duration vs. 1% yearly over 10 years) If I'm correct, why would anyone in the U.S. buy a long-term bond fund   in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically   bottomed out? That is the multi-trillion dollar question.  Bond prices today reflect what ""people"" are willing to pay for them.  Those ""people"" include the Federal Reserve which through various programs (QE, Operate Twist etc.) has been forcing the interest rates to where they want to see them.  If no one believed the Fed would be able to keep interest rates where they want them then the prices would be different but given that investors know the Fed has access to an infinite supply of money it becomes a more difficult decision to bet against that.  (aka ""Don't fight the Fed"").  My personal belief is that rates will come up but I haven't been able to translate that belief into making money ;-)  This question is very complex and has to do not only with US policies and economy but with the status of the US currency in the world and the world economy in general.  The other saying that comes to mind in this context is that the market can remain irrational (and it certainly seems to be that) longer than you can remain solvent." Maximizing income could mean a lot of things.  What you really want is to maximize wealth.  Doesn't matter if it comes from your bond appreciating in value or as dividends. In order to maximize your wealth (that's today's wealth), you need to make decisions based on the net present value of these bonds. The market is fairly priced, especially for a tight market like government bonds.  That means if your bond falls in price, it has fallen by precisely the amount necessary so that an investor would be indifferent between purchasing it now, at its current price, and purchasing a new bond with a higher dividend.  The bonds with higher dividends will simply have a higher price, so more of the money comes as dividends than as price appreciation (at maturity it will sell for face value).  In other words, the animals are out of the barn and you have lost (or made) money already.  Changing from one bond to another will not change your wealth one way or the other. The only potential effect of changing bonds will be changing the risk of your portfolio.  If you buy a bond that matures later or has a lower dividend than your current bond, you will be adding additional interest rate risk to your portfolio.  That risk should be compensated, so you will have a higher expected return as well.  But regardless of your choice you will not be made wealthier or less wealthy by changing from one bond to another. Should you buy bonds that will earn you the most possible?  Sure, if you are below your risk tolerance.  Even among default free bonds, the longer the maturity and the lower the dividend, the greater the effect of future changes in interest rates on your bond.  That makes them riskier, but also makes them earn more money on average. TL;DR: In terms of your wealth, which is what matters, it doesn't matter whether you hold your bond or buy a new one. "What could happen to bonds such as these because of Detroit filing for   bankruptcy? Depending on how the courts process Detroit's situation, there could be that some bonds become worthless since they are so low and the city can't pay anything on those low priority debts.  Others may get pennies on the dollar.  There could also be the case that some bailout comes along that makes the bonds good though I'd say that is a long shot at this point. Are these bonds done for, or will bondholders receive interest   payments and eventual payment? I wouldn't suspect that they are done for in the sense of being completely worthless though at the same time, I'd be very careful about buying any of them given that they are likely to be changed a great deal. Could these bonds tend to rise over time after the bankruptcy?  Yes, it is possible.  If there was some kind of federal or state bailout that is done, the bonds could rise.  However, that is one heck of an ""if"" as you'd need to have someone come to guarantee the bonds in a sense. What similar situations from the past might support this idea? Not that many as this is the biggest municipal bankruptcy ever, but here are a few links that may be useful as a starting point, though keep in mind Detroit's scale is part of the story as it is such a big amount being defaulted:" "Still waiting, still not seeing any that have..  When you debate someone, in a forum or somewhere other than your armchair, I suggest you forget about trying to demand a opposite answer from someone as an answer to a question. Its not only childish, its really quite silly. You are, by all definitions, a troglodyte. If you think of those ignorant ""republican christians"", thats how you are acting now. No country in the past has ever sold and bought there own debt at the same time I can promise you  I worked in finance, for a large highly rated company, then got rich building a business. I know this hurts, but honestly, when you are wrong, just admit it and move on. Ignorance is just so sad to display and probably keeps you held back in life anyways.  Im off to bed though I am sure you'll declare yourself victor of not naming a single country that bought and sold its own debt in history. But, maybe its ANY victory in your head you need right now. Who knows.  ------------------------------------------- Update 1 * lol I see you changed your answer, let me do the same. The fact that the ""bank of england"" in 1694 is the model of ""modern"" central banks STILL doesn't show that they BOUGHT THERE OWN DEBT. Do you still not understand this yet? Modern central banking has NOTHING TO DO with buying your own debt. You really are clueless as to how ""economics"" works aren't you?   ------------------------------------------- Update 2 * I think you keep changing them, because for some reason you just won't admit you have no understanding of modern/classical banking. Once again:  &gt;In order to induce subscription to the loan, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The bank was given exclusive possession of the government's balances, and was the only limited-liability corporation allowed to issue bank-notes.[12] The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and also issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again. The £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy.  This statement still DOES NOT show that the government here simultaniously purchased its own bonds it issued. It issued debt, yes, no one is debating this. The bank, for all purposes, acted as the Treasury for England.  But honestly, you are a fucking piece of work. I have watched you lie, change your answers, and pretty much do every childish thing in the book to try to win an arguement on Reddit. You are a little person, honestly. I know not of what world you live in, but it isn't this one. Seriously, get better, the world is alot more fun when you don't suck so bad at it." There are PABs (Private Activity Bonds) for the smaller market issues, but you basically need a local government to act as the conduit issuer. There are a whole host of other requirements but it is a way to potentially get tax-exempt rates or get access to the taxables market.