Using stable short-term, tax-free municipal bond funds to beat the bank?
Banks' savings interest is ridiculous, has always been, compared to other investment options. But there's a reason for that: its safe. You will get your money back, and the interest on it, as long as you're within the FDIC insurance limits. If you want to get more returns - you've got to take more risks. For example, that a locality you're borrowing money to will default. Has happened before, a whole county defaulted. But if you understand the risks - your calculations are correct. If your main goal is to avoid taxes, municipal bonds are a good strategy, it's not the best way to make more than 1-2% in gains.  And kudos for putting money back into the community.
http://www.citymayors.com/finance/bonds.html      &gt; There were approximately $3.7 trillion outstanding in municipal bonds by 2011 according to a quarterly U.S. Federal Reserve Flow of Funds release in December 2011. This amount included a $840 billion dollar amount missed from prior calculations of outstanding debt issued since 2004.(Kaske, Michelle. “Fed Agrees With Citi on $3.7 Trillion Estimate”. Bloomberg. December 8, 2011.)      Still waiting on your magic numbers.       What he did was cite a number that represents the entire muni bond market. A number that can be sourced from valid places. The muni bond market IS worth that much in total.  At least from the sources we have thus far. You've yet to actually do much of anything but bitch that his numbers (and apparently the MSRB and Fed's numbers) are wrong while good ol crotchpoozie knows the real score. Next year, the Fed plans on unwinding the Bonds and MBS.  They'll ramp up to $50 billion a month.  At the same time we'll be selling Bonds on the market to finance the debt at a rate of $70 billion a month.  I wonder who's going to have the cash to buy the Toxic MBS and the low yield Bonds they'll be unloading on top of the usual Bonds for future debt.  Those Bonds will have to pay double digit rates before anyone will buy them.  Future generations will just get even more screwed the way the Fed has it planned. 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. Distributions of interest from bonds are taxable as income by the Federal, state and municipal (if applicable) government. End of year fund distributions are subject to capital gains taxes as well. You can minimize taxation by: Note that the only bonds that are guaranteed safe are US Government obligations, as the US government has unlimited taxation powers and the ability to print money. Municipal obligations are generally safe, but there is a risk that municipal governments will default. You can also avoid taxation by not realizing gains. If you buy individual stocks or tax-efficient mutual funds, you will have minimal tax liability until you sell. Also, just wanted to point out that bonds do not equal safety and money markets do not pay sufficient interest to offset inflation, you need a diversified portfolio. Five year treasury notes are only paying 1.3% now, and bond prices drop when interest rates go up. Given the level of Federal spending and the wind-down of the war, its likely that rates will rise. There are two industrial sectors with a recent history of raising revenue and profit faster than inflation: education and health care.  While there is indeed some political risk, my assumption is these sectors would continue to beat inflation even under a theoretical socialist President Bernie Sanders. There are several such sector funds available from popular low ER mutual fund companies; I don't believe this forum likes specific commercial investment touting so I decline to name specific ones. If your mortgage interest is tax-deductible, it's generally a bad idea to pay down the principal on the mortgage because you'd be losing the tax deduction. You could instead invest it in a tax-free municipal bond fund, especially if you're in a high tax bracket (including state and local marginal tax rates). For example, if you have a 5% rate mortgage on your home, you could invest in a 3.5% municipal bond and still come out ahead when you apply the tax deduction to your income at a 44% (33% federal + 7% state + 4% city in NYC) marginal tax rate. I came up with a real way. I saw once the market be so dumb as to allow this to work. Inflation rate = 2.5%. Home interest rate = 3%. Tax deduction = 1%. Money spent on inflation-adjusted I bonds (at the time these paid 0% net, that is 2.5% gross). Result, .5% profit after accounting for inflation. The kicker: Uncle Sam's I bonds are tax free. Sure it's not possible today, but the rates occasionally drop low enough. "The muni bond business .  Are you really too dumb to understand that's how he's referencing it in the article? He's not talking about a specific company or companies numbnuts he's talking about ""The business of muni bonds...i.e the total outstanding municipal bond market."". Try some reading comprehension on for size.        To walk you through it there are multiple uses of the word 'business'.  Among them are the two you're having a real problem with in your reading comprehension.    1.  Business = Company:  I run a dry cleaning business.   2.  Business = Industry:  I am in the dry cleaning business.          What he is (clearly) referring to when he says ""a business worth $3.7 trillion""  is ""business = industry"" in the second manner listed above. You're interpreting it as if he's claiming the first manner.  That's incorrect. Factually and grammatically incorrect.   Yours is the type of ignorance that morons on Reddit rely on to make their arguments work.  I'm done here with you since you don't seem to be able to parse out rudimentary information from an article." "For real. AAA treasury bonds are used a safe investment vehicle for the reason of ""its the US government, its safe"", which is pretty similar to the ""dude, who doesnt pay their mortgage?!"" line of thinking.      You got people dumping money into these derivatives and suddenly someone goes ""oh yeah you just bought a bunch of bad debt that should be rated 'junk'. Oops.""" "One alternative to bogleheadism is the permanent portfolio concept (do NOT buy the mutual fund behind this idea as you can easily obtain access to a low cost money market fund, stock index fund, and bond fund and significantly reduce the overall cost).  It doesn't have the huge booms that stock plans do, but it also doesn't have the crushing blows either.  One thing some advisers mention is success is more about what you can stick to than what ""traditionally"" makes sense, as you may not be able to stick to what traditionally makes sense (all people differ). This is an excellent pro and con critique of the permanent portfolio (read the whole thing) that does highlight some of the concerns with it, especially the big one: how well will it do in a world of high interest rates?  Assuming we ever see a world of high interest rates, it may not provide a great return. The authors make the assumption that interest rates will be rising in the future, thus the permanent portfolio is riskier than a traditional 60/40.  As we're seeing in Europe, I think we're headed for a world of negative interest rates - something in the past most advisers have thought was very unlikely.  I don't know if we'll see interest rates above 6% in my lifetime and if I live as long as my father, that's a good 60+ years ahead. (I realize people will think this is crazy to write, but consider that people are willing to pay governments money to hold their cash - that's how crazy our world is and I don't see this changing.)" The government pays interest on its debts just like anyone else, but since it's already the government and already taking advantage of credit (your money loaned to it through the bonds), it doesn't need the extra benefit of taxing the interest it pays. **It's better off just issuing bonds at a lower interest rate and letting you keep all the interest, instead of a higher interest rate which will have some amount taxed and returned to it anyway.** The government wants a cut of private loan interest just like any other income, which is why interest on private bonds/loans is taxable.  Edit: What about municipal bonds? Wouldn't the federal government benefit from taxing interest on municipal bonds?   Municipal bonds are issued to support public infrastructure &amp; services such as construction of water supply infrastructure. Since the goal is to improve facilities for the public benefit, and government programs ostensibly aim to provide public benefits as well, it allows the full proceeds of the bonds to go to the designated projects at the lowest possible interest rate (and the public pays the interest through city rates). Taxing municipal bonds would result in a higher cost to the public for the same end result (because of higher interest rates), with the net interest going to the federal &amp; state governments via income tax on the interest. "Yes, definitely. Many municipalities and local governments issue bonds to fund various projects (schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc). You can buy these bonds and in that way invest in these things. In the US these kinds of bonds are tax-free, i.e.: the income they provide is not taxed (by the US government, may be taxed by your State, check local tax laws). There are also dedicated mutual funds that that is all they invest in, if you don't want to deal with picking individual bonds. As to mom-and-pop stores - that would not be as easy, as mom-and-pop stores are by definition family owned and you can invest in them only if you are personally acquainted with them. Instead, you can invest in small regional/local chains, that while not being mom-and-pop, still small enough to be considered ""local"", but are publicly traded so that you can easily invest in them. You'll have to look for these. You can also use social lending platforms, like Lending Club, which I reviewed on my blog, or others, where you can participate in a lending pool to other people. You can invest in a credit union by opening an account there. Credit unions are owned by their account holders." "For a two year time frame, a good insured savings account or a low-cost short-term government bond fund is most likely the way I would go. Depending on the specific amount, it may also be reasonable to look into directly buying government bonds. The reason for this is simply that in such a short time period, the stock market can be extremely volatile. Imagine if you had gone all in with the money on the stock market in, say, 2007, intending to withdraw the money after two years. Take a broad stock market index of your choice and see how much you'd have got back, and consider if you'd have felt comfortable sticking to your plan for the duration. Since you would likely be focused more on preservation of capital than returns during such a relatively short period, the risk of the stock market making a major (or even relatively minor) downturn in the interim would (should) be a bigger consideration than the possibility of a higher return. The ""return of capital, not return on capital"" rule. If the stock market falls by 10%, it must go up by 11% to break even. If it falls by 25%, it must go up by 33% to break even. If you are looking at a slightly longer time period, such as the example five years, then you might want to add some stocks to the mix for the possibility of a higher return. Still, however, since you have a specific goal in mind that is still reasonably close in time, I would likely keep a large fraction of the money in interest-bearing holdings (bank account, bonds, bond funds) rather than in the stock market. A good compromise may be medium-to-high-yield corporate bonds. It shouldn't be too difficult to find such bond funds that can return a few percentage points above risk-free interest, if you can live with the price volatility. Over time and as you get closer to actually needing the money, shift the holdings to lower-risk holdings to secure the capital amount. Yes, short-term government bonds tend to have dismal returns, particularly currently. (It's pretty much either that, or the country is just about bankrupt already, which means that the risk of default is quite high which is reflected in the interest premiums demanded by investors.) But the risk in most countries' short-term government bonds is also very much limited. And generally, when you are looking at using the money for a specific purpose within a defined (and relatively short) time frame, you want to reduce risk, even if that comes with the price tag of a slightly lower return. And, as always, never put all your eggs in one basket. A combination of government bonds from various countries may be appropriate, just as you should diversify between different stocks in a well-balanced portfolio. Make sure to check the limits on how much money is insured in a single account, for a single individual, in a single institution and for a household - you don't want to chase high interest bank accounts only to be burned by something like that if the institution goes bankrupt. Generally, the sooner you expect to need the money, the less risk you should take, even if that means a lower return on capital. And the risk progression (ignoring currency effects, which affects all of these equally) is roughly short-term government bonds, long-term government bonds or regular corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds, stock market large cap, stock market mid and low cap. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's a resonable rule of thumb." If you are in an economy which has a decent liquid debt market (corporate bonds, etc.), then you may look into investing in AA or AA+ rated bonds. They can provide higher returns than bank deposits and are virtually risk-free. (Though in severe economic downturns, you can see defaults in even very high-rated bonds, leading to partial or complete loss of value however, this is statistically quite rare). You can make this investment through a debt mutual fund but please make sure that you read through the offer document carefully to understand the investment style of the mutual fund and their expense ratio (which directly affect your returns). In any case, it is always recommended to reach out to an investment adviser who is good with local tax laws to minimize taxes and maximize returns. I would say generally, the answer is No.   There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay.  This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture.  The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed.  Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests.  Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it?  This might mean taking several part time jobs.  Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible.  However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford.   People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home.  Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan.  Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means.  If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working.  This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people.  You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt.  Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards.  If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible.  Which one gets paid first.  Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation.  They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over).  There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters).     People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first.  Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc...  Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors.  They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt.  It is there and real despite many people noticing it.  There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank.  This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life.  I can tell you it is quite liberating.