Who sets the prices on government bonds?
"Who sets the prices? Effectively the market does, like basically all openly traded things. The Greek government could well have said ""5% is as high as we will go"".  As a result, investors may not have chosen to buy the securities.  The global bond market is highly liquid, and investors who have a choice could well then choose to go elsewhere. The reasons could well be varied, but primary among them would be that investors view Greek investments as more than 5% risky.  If I can get 5% from a country that I deem less risky than from Greece, my choice is clear.  Therefore to be compensated for loaning them my money, I am expecting a return of 7% because there is the possibility that they will default. As for not selling them at all, if they could avoid issuing bonds, most governments would.  They may not have had much of a choice.  If they just print more money, that does other potentially bad things to the economy.  The government needs funds to operate, if they are not collecting enough in taxes, for example, and do not want to print money as I mentioned, then bonds are one other common way to raise cash. Notwithstanding that in your example you are referring to the interest rate, not the price, the principal is the same."
The SEC 30-Day Yield you're seeing is a standardized yield calculation set out by the Securities & Exchange Commission.  It can be useful for comparing bond funds, but it doesn't guarantee what you'll actually earn from a fund. IMPORTANT: The SEC 30-day yield represents a bond fund's returns from the previous 30 days expressed as an annual percentage of the current fund price — yes, an annual percentage. In other words, don't expect 1.81% return on your money every 30 days!  Such a return is too-good-to-be-true return in today's low rate environment.  1.81% per year?  More reasonable. Even then, the 1.81% you see is merely an estimate, one based on assumptions, of what you might expect to earn if you keep your money in place for the next year.  The estimate is based on the assumptions that: These aren't reliable assumptions.  BIV's price does fluctuate.  You are not promised to get your principal back with a bond fund.  Only an individual bond promises your principal back, and only at maturity. So, earning $181 on $10,000 invested for a full year while taking on interest-rate and other risks might not be worth the trouble of putting your money in a brokerage account. You'll need to transfer the money in and out, and there are potential trading fees to take into account.  (How much to buy/sell units?) An FDIC-insured high interest savings account makes more sense. "Sure. For starters, you can put it in a savings account. Don't laugh, they used to pay noticeable interest. You know, back in the olden days.  You could buy an I-bond from Treasury Direct. They're a government savings bond that pays a specified amount of interest (currently 0%, I believe), plus the amount of the inflation rate (something like 3.5% currently, I believe). You don't get paid the money -- the I-bond grows in value till you sell it. You can open a discount brokerage account, and buy 1 or more shares of stock in a company you like. Discount brokerages generally have a minimum of $500 or so, but will waive that if you set the account up as an IRA. Scot Trade, for instance. (An IRA, in case you didn't know, is a type of account that's tax free but you can't touch it till you turn 59 1/2. It's meant to help you save for retirement.) Incidentally, watch out of ""small account"" fees that some brokerages might charge you. Generally they're annual or monthly charges they'd charge you to cover their costs on your account -- since they're certainly not going to make it in commissions. That IRA at Scot Trade is no-fee. Speaking of commissions, those will be a big chunk of that $100. It'll be like $7-$10 to buy that stock -- a pretty big bite. However, many of these discount brokerages also offer some mutual funds for no commission. Those mutual funds, in turn, have minimums too, but once again if your account's an IRA many will waive the minimum or set it low -- like $100." Bonds can increase in price, if the demand is high and offer solid yield if the demand is low.  For instance, Russian bond prices a year ago contracted big in price (ie: fell), but were paying 18% and made a solid buy.  Now that the demand has risen, the price is up with the yield for those early investors the same, though newer investors are receiving less yield (about 9ish percent) and paying higher prices.   I've rarely seen banks pay more variable interest than short term treasuries and the same holds true for long term CDs and long term treasuries.  This isn't to say it's impossible, just rare.  Also variable is different than a set term; if you buy a 10 year treasury at 18%, that means you get 18% for 10 years, even if interest rates fall four years later.   Think about the people buying 30 year US treasuries during 1980-1985.  Yowza. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. Less likely?  I don't know about your bank, but my bank doesn't owe $19 trillion. Sure thing -  Treasuries Bonds/Bills are what the US Gov uses to borrow. However it's slightly different than taking out a loan. It's basically an agreement to give (repay) a set sum of money at a certain time in the future in exchange for a sum of funding that's determined by market forces (supply &amp; demand). The difference between today's price and the payment in the future is the interest.   For example (completely made up numbers):  - Today is 08/05/2017 - The government issues a bond that say it will pay who ever owns this bond $105 on 08/05/**2018** - The market decides that $105 from the US government paid a year from now is worth $100 today.   In other words the US Government is borrowing for one year at a rate of 5%       (105 - 100) / 100 = .05 = 5%  Now consider Saudi Arabia's petroleum company, Aramco.  Because petroleum is traded in dollars, when Aramco makes a sale, its paid in USD. Some of that is going to be reinvested into the company, some paid out in dividends to share holders but inevitably some of that will be saved someplace where it can make interest. Because treasuries are traded/issued in dollars and because Aramco's businesses deals primarily in dollars, treasuries are the natural place to store that savings, especially because the market considers them extremely safe.   If they exchange the USD into the Saudi currency to store the money in Saudi assets, Aramco is subject to  *exchange rate risk*. If the riyal depreciates relative to the dollar, Aramco will lose wealth on the exchange back to dollars when they go to move those funds back into their business. It's in their interest to deal with assets denominated in USD (i.e. T-Bonds) in order to avoid this.  So now because the Saudis want T-Bonds as well, the additional demand pushes the market price of our bond from $100 to $102. And the effective one year borrowing rate for the Government goes from 5% to 2.9%.      (105 - 102)/102 = .029411 = 2.9%  And there you have it, cheaper borrowing. It's also worth noting how this encourages business around the world to deal in dollars which are directly controlled by the federal reserve. This makes the US's position extremely powerful. Long term gov't bonds fluctuate in price with a seemingly small interest rate fluctuation because many years of cash inflows are discounted at low rates.  This phenomenon is dulled in a high interest rate environment. For example, just the principal repayment is worth ~1/3, P * 1/(1+4%)^30, what it will be in 30 years at 4% while an overnight loan paying an unrealistic 4% is worth essentially the same as the principal, P * 1/(1+4%)^(1/365). This is more profound in low interest rate economies because, taking the countries undergoing the present misfortune, one can see that their overnight interest rates are double US long term rates while their long term rates are nearly 10x as large as US long term rates.  If there were much supply at the longer maturities which have been restrained by interest rates only manageable by the highly skilled or highly risky, a 4% increase on a 30% bond is only about a 20% decline in bond price while a 4% increase on a 4% bond is a 50% decrease. The easiest long term bond to manipulate quantitatively is the perpetuity where p is the price of the bond, i is the interest payment per some arbitrary period usually 1 year, and r is the interest rate paid per some arbitrary period usually 1 year.  Since they are expressly linked, a price can be implied for a given interest rate and vice versa if the interest payment is known or assumed. At a 4% interest rate, the price is At 4.04%, the price is , a 1% increase in interest rates and a 0.8% decrease in price . Longer term bonds such as a 30 year or 20 year bond will not see as extreme price movements. The constant maturity 30 year treasury has fluctuated between 5% and 2.5% to ~3.75% now from before the Great Recession til now, so prices will have more or less doubled and then reduced because bond prices are inversely proportional to interest rates as generally shown above. At shorter maturities, this phenomenon is negligible because future cash inflows are being discounted by such a low amount.  The one month bill rarely moves in price beyond the bid/ask spread during expansion but can be expected to collapse before a recession and rebound during. There are a few other factors possible here: Taxes - Something you don't mention is what are the tax rates on each of those choices.  If the 4% gain is taxed at 33% while the 3% government bond is taxed at 0% then it may well make more sense to have the government bond that makes more money after taxes. Potential changes in rates - Could that 4% rate change at any time?  Yield curves are an idea here to consider where at times they can become inverted where short-term bonds yield more than long-term bonds due to expectations about rates.  Some banks may advertise a special rate for a limited time to try to get more deposits and then change the rate later.  Beware the fine print. Could the bond have some kind of extra feature on it?  For example, in the US there are bonds known as TIPS that while the interest rate may be low, there is a principal adjustment that comes as part of the inflation adjustment that is part how the security is structured. 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 Yeah my question was just out of curiosity. Though I do wonder, given that bond prices are so low, they inevitably will have to go up right? So why does anyone bother to buy them in the first place?