How does a 2 year treasury note work?
There is a large market where notes/bills/bonds are traded, so yes you can sell them later.  However, if interest rates go up, the value of any bond that you want to sell goes down, because you now have to compete with what someone can get on a new issue, so you need to 'discount' the principal value of your bond in order for someone to want to buy it instead of a new bond that has a higher interest rate. The reverse applies if interest rates fall (although it's hard to get much lower than they are now).  So someone wanting to make money in bonds due to interest rate changes, generally wants to buy at higher interest rates, and then sell their bonds after rates have gone down.  See my answer in this question for more detail Why does interest rate go up when bond price goes down? To answer 'is that good' the answer depends on perspective: Look at this question here. In my answer there, I put a link to an Investopedia article about the bond prices. Keep in mind that speculating over a short term period is pretty dangerous, even with the Treasury notes, and the prices may be affected temporary but greatly by the ordeals like the latest Republican shenanigans in Washington. Notes and Bonds sell at par (1.0). When rates go up, their value goes down. When rates go down, their value goes up. As an individual investor, you really don't have any business buying individual bonds unless you are holding them to maturity. Buy a short-duration bond fund or ETF.
I would encourage you to read The Warren Buffett Way.  Its a short read and available from most libraries as an audio book.  It should address most of the ignorance that your post displays.   Short term prices, offered in the market, do not necessarily reflect the future value of a company.  In the short term the market is a popularity contest, in the long run prices increases based on the performance of the company.  How much free cash flow (and related metrics) does the company generate.  You seem way overly concerned with short term price fluctuations and as such you are more speculating. Expecting a 10 bagger in 2-3 years is unrealistic.  Has it happened, sure, but it is a rare thing.  Most would be happy to have a 2 bagger in that time frame. If I was in your shoes I'd buy the stock, and watch it.  Provided management meet my expectations and made good business decisions I would hold it and add to my position as I was able and the market was willing to sell me the company at a good price.   It is good to look at index funds as a diversification.   Assuming everything goes perfectly, in 2-3 years, you would have an extra 1K dollars.  Big deal.  How much money could you earn during that time period?  Simply by working at a fairly humble job you should be able to earn between 60K and 90K during that time.  If you stuck 10% of that income into a savings account you would be far better off (6K to 9K) then if this stock actually does double.  Hopefully that gets you thinking. Staring out is about earning and saving/investing.  Start building funds that can compound.  Very early on, the rate of return (provided it is not negative) is very unimportant.  The key is to get money to compound! "You got some answers that essentially inform you that CEOs that have £200k written on their paysheet may in fact get much more. I'll take the opposite point of view and talk about people who (according to whatever definition) have a £200k/year income.  How can they afford it Guess no 1: not all of them can (in the sense that it is quite possible to end up with negative net worth at £200k/year income - particularly if you immediately want to show off with brand new luxury cars, luxury holidays and a large house in a very representative region).  Guess no 2: not all of the £200k/year CEOs are equally visible. There is a trade-off between going for wealth, large house, and luxury car. I deliberately ordered the three points according to increased display of ""wealth"". However, display of wealth usually comes at a cost (in a very monetary sense). And there are ways to get much display without having much wealth (see below: lease the car, also the mortgage on the house usually isn't displayed on the outside).   You also need to take into account how long they are already building up wealth. I guess the typical CEO with £200k/year you're asking about did not just finish school and enter his work life in this position. It would be very interesting to see how income, accumulating wealth (and possibly ""displayed wealth"") correlate. My guess is that the correlation between income and accumulated wealth isn't that high, and the correlation between displayed and actual wealth is probably even lower. they possess luxury cars, large house and huge savings Are you sure these are the same managers? E.g. the ones with the huge savings  are and the ones with the luxury cars? I'm asking particularly about the luxury cars, because such cars loose value very quickly and/or are often not owned by the driver but rather by the bank or leasing company. Which on the other hand offers the more savings-oriented CEO who is not that much interested in having a brand new luxury car the possibility to go for a one-year-old and save the rest. Knowing that, your CEO should be able to buy a one-year-old Mercedes SL 350 / year. Or a new one every 1 1/2 years (without building up savings or buying a house). However, building up wealth will be much faster with the CEO going for the one-year-old as the brand-new car option amounts to loosing ca. £20 - 30k within a year. An even-more-savings-oriented CEO who keeps his existing Mercedes 300 TD for another few years, thinking that this conservative choice of car will be trust-inspiring to the customers. Or goes for the SLK thinking that most people anyways don't know that the K between SL and SLK halves the price...  However, if you just want to be seen with the car: after an initial payment of say £8-10k, you can get a decent SLK 350 (not the base model, either) at a monthly rate of ca. 600£/month or less than £7k/year. Note however, that this money does not count towards any kind of wealth, it's just renting a nice car.  In other words: If driving the SLK 350 is your absolute goal, you could in theory have that with a net salary of £25k/year (according to your tax calculation, that should be somewhere around £35k / year gross), if you have the savings for the initial payment (being able to make the initial payment may also help convincin the leasing company that you're serious about it and able to pay your rates).   There are also huge differences in value between large houses, compare e.g. these 2: And, last but not least, there is a decided one-way component in the timing of priorities here: it is much easier to go and get a luxury car when you have savings than first going for the luxury car and then trying to make up with the savings...    I forgot to answer the question in the caption of your question: How do I build wealth By going on to live as if your income were only £50k (as far as that is compatible with your job) - I gather the median gross income in the UK is about £30k, so aiming at £50k leaves you a very comfortable budget for luxury spending.  If you want to build up wealth faster, adjust that. In general, if you can manage to withhold much of any income increase from spending, that will help (trivial but powerful truth). From the leasing calculation you can conclude that you basically have no chance to show off your wealth by luxury cars. That is, you'd need to go for luxury cars that are completely incompatible with with building if you want to show your built up wealth by the car: there are too many people who even destroy their existing wealth in order to display luxury.  At least if anyone is around who has either a correct idea what luxury cars cost (or don't cost) or will look that up in the internet. Also, people who know such things may also have the idea that the probability that such a car was downright paid (wealth) is small compared to the probability of meeting a  leased or (mortgaged) car. Which means, the plan to show off doesn't work out that well with the people you'd want to impress. As for the other people: just a bit of display you can get far cheaper: If you really want to drive the SLK, rent it for an occasion (weekend) rather than for years. I met a sales manager who told me which rental cars they get when important customers from far east are visiting. The rest of the year they drive normal business cars. You may want to choose a rental company that doesn't write their name on the license plate. Apply the same ideas to the decision of buying a house. Think about what you want for yourself, and then look where you can get how much of that for how much money. Oh, and by the way: if I understand correctly, the average UK CEO wage is  £120k, not £200k." "The simple answer is that, even though mortgages can go for 10, 15, 20 and 30 year terms in the U.S., they're typically backed by bonds sold to investors that mature in 10 years, which is the standard term for most bonds. These bonds, in the open market, are compared by investors with the 10-year Treasury note, which is the gold standard for low-risk investment; the U.S. Government has a solid history of always paying its bills (though this reputation is being tested in recent years with fights over the debt ceiling and government budgets). The savvy investor, therefore, knows that he or she can make at least the yield from the 10-year T-note in that time frame, with virtually zero risk. Anything else on the market is seen as being a higher risk, and so investors demand higher yields (by making lower bids, forcing the issuer to issue more bonds to get the money it needs up front). Mortgage-backed securities are usually in the next tier above T-debt in terms of risk; when backed by prime-rate mortgages they're typically AAA-rated, making them available to ""institutional investors"" like banks, mutual funds, etc. This forms a balancing act; mortgage-backed securities issuers typically can't get the yield of a T-note, because no matter how low their risk, T-debt is lower (because one bank doesn't have the power to tax the entire U.S. population). But, they're almost as good because they're still very stable, low-risk debt. This bond price, and the resulting yield, is in turn the baseline for a long-term loan by the bank to an individual. The bank, watching the market and its other bond packages, knows what it can get for a package of bonds backed by your mortgage (and others with similar credit scores). It will therefore take this number, add a couple of percentage points to make some money for itself and its stockholders (how much the bank can add is tacitly controlled by other market forces; you're allowed to shop around for the lowest rate you can get, which limits any one bank's ability to jack up rates), and this is the rate you see advertised and - hopefully - what shows up on your paperwork after you apply." "There are a number  of federal tax deductions and credits available for education expenses.  They are too numerous to describe here, but the place to get full details is IRS Pub 970.  Note that many, but not all, of them require that you be enrolled in a degree program; since this does not seem to be the case for you, you would not be eligible for those programs. None of them is as simple / generous as ""deduct the full amount of your tuition with no limits"".  Also note that there are restrictions on using more than one of these deductions or credits in any given tax year. You might pay special attention to Chapter 12, ""Business Deduction for Work-Related Education"".  In particular, this program allows you to deduct transportation expenses under some conditions, which does not seem to be the case for the other programs.  But also note carefully the restrictions.  In particular, ""Education that is part of a program of study that will qualify you for a new trade or business is not qualifying work-related education.""  So if you are not already working in the field of IT, you may not be eligible for this deduction." "The short of it is that bonds are valued based on a fundamental concept of finance called the ""time value of money"". Stated simply, $100 one year from now is not the same as $100 now. If you had $100 now, you could use it to make more money and have more than $100 in a year. Conversely, if you didn't invest it, the $100 would not buy as much in a year as it would now, and so it would lose real value. Therefore, for these two benefits to be worth the same, the money received a year from now must be more than $100, in the amount of what you could make with $100 if you had it now, or at least the rate of inflation. Or, the amount received now could be less than the amount recieved a year from now, such that if you invested this lesser amount you'd expect to have $100 in a year. The simplest bonds simply pay their face value at maturity, and are sold for less than their face value, the difference being the cost to borrow the cash; ""interest"". These are called ""zero-coupon bonds"" and they're around, if maybe uncommon. The price people will pay for these bonds is their ""present value"", and the difference between the present value and face value determines a ""yield""; a rate of return, similar to the interest rate on a CD. Now, zero-coupon bonds are uncommon because they cost a lot. If I buy a zero-coupon bond, I'm basically tying up my money until maturity; I see nothing until the full bond is paid. As such, I would expect the bond issuer to sell me the bond at a rate that makes it worth my while to keep the money tied up. So basically, the bond issuer is paying me compound interest on the loan. The future value of an investment now at a given rate is given by FV = PV(1+r)t. To gain $1 million in new cash today, and pay a 5% yield over 10 years, a company or municipality would have to issue $1.629 million in bonds. You see the effects of the compounding there; the company is paying 5% a year on the principal each year, plus 5% of each 5% already accrued, adding up to an additional 12% of the principal owed as interest. Instead, bond issuers can offer a ""coupon bond"". A coupon bond has a coupon rate, which is a percentage of the face value of the bond that is paid periodically (often annually, sometimes semi-annually or even quarterly). A coupon rate helps a company in two ways. First, the calculation is very straightforward; if you need a million dollars and are willing to pay 5% over 10 years, then that's exactly how you issue the bonds; $1million worth with a 5% coupon rate and a maturity date 10 years out. A $100 5% coupon bond with a 10-year maturity, if sold at face value, would cost only $150 over its lifetime, making the total cost of capital only 50% of the principal instead of 62%. Now, that sounds like a bad deal; if the company's paying less, then you're getting less, right? Well yes, but you also get money sooner. Remember the fundamental principle here; money now is worth more than money later, because of what you can do with money between now and later. You do realize a lower overall yield from this investment, but you get returns from it quickly which you can turn around and reinvest to make more money. As such, you're usually willing to tolerate a lower rate of return, because of the faster turnaround and thus the higher present value. The ""Income Yield %"" from your table is also referred to as the ""Flat Yield"". It is a very crude measure, a simple function of the coupon rate, the current quote price and the face value (R/P * V). For the first bond in your list, the flat yield is (.04/114.63 * 100) = 3.4895%. This is a very simple measure that is roughly analogous to what you would expect to make on the bond if you held it for one year, collected the coupon payment, and then sold the bond for the same price; you'd earn one coupon payment at the end of that year and then recoup the principal. The actual present value calculation for a period of 1 year is PV = FV/(1+r), which rearranges to r = FV/PV - 1; plug in the values (present value 114.63, future value 118.63) and you get exactly the same result. This is crude and inaccurate because in one year, the bond will be a year closer to maturity and will return one less coupon payment; therefore at the same rate of return the present value of the remaining payout of the bond will only be $110.99 (which makes a lot of sense if you think about it; the bond will only pay out $112 if you bought it a year from now, so why would you pay $114 for it?). Another measure, not seen in the list, is the ""simple APY"". Quite simply, it is the yield that will be realized from all cash flows from the bond (all coupon payments plus the face value of the bond), as if all those cash flows happened at maturity. This is calculated using the future value formula: FV = PV (1+r/n)nt, where FV is the future value (the sum of the face value and all coupon payments to be made before maturity), PV is present value (the current purchase price), r is the annual rate (which we're solving for), n is the number of times interest accrues and/or is paid (for an annual coupon that's 1), and t is the number of years to maturity. For the first bond in the list, the simple APY is 0.2974%. This is the effective compound interest rate you would realize if you bought the bond and then took all the returns and stuffed them in a mattress until maturity. Since nobody does this with investment returns, it's not very useful, but it can be used to compare the yield on a zero-coupon bond to the yield on a coupon bond if you treated both the same way, or to compare a coupon bond to a CD or other compound-interest-bearing account that you planned to buy into and not touch for its lifetime. The Yield to Maturity, which IS seen, is the true yield percentage of the bond in time-valued terms, assuming you buy the bond now, hold it to maturity and all coupon payments are made on time and reinvested at a similar yield. This calculation is based on the simple APY, but takes into account the fact that most of the coupon payments will be made prior to maturity; the present value of these will be higher because they happen sooner. The YTM is calculated by summing the present values of all payments based on when they'll occur; so, you'll get one $4 payment a year from now, then another $4 in two years, then $4 in 3 years, and $104 at maturity. The present value of each of those payments is calculated by flipping around the future value formula: PV = FV/(1+r)t. The present value of the entire bond (its current price) is the sum of the present value of each payment: 114.63 = 4/(1+r) + 4/(1+r)2 + 4/(1+r)3 + 104/(1+r)4. You now have to solve for r, which is difficult to isolate; the easiest way to find the rate with a computer is to ""goal seek"" (intelligently guess and check).  Based on the formula above, I calculated a YTM of .314% for the first bond if you bought on Sept 7, 2012 (and thus missed the upcoming coupon payment). Buying today, you'd also be entitled to about 5 weeks' worth of the coupon payment that is due on Sept 07 2012, which is close enough to the present day that the discounted value is a rounding error, putting the YTM of the bond right at .40%. This is the rate of return you'll get off of your investment if you are able to take all the returns from it, when you receive them, and reinvest them at a similar rate (similar to having a savings account at that rate, or being able to buy fractional shares of a mutual fund giving you that rate)." How does compounding of annual interest work? answers this question. It's not simple compound interest. It's a time value of money calculation similar to mortgage calculations. Only the cash flow is the other way, a 'deposit' instead of 'payment'. When using a finance calculator such as the TI-BA35 (Note, it's no longer manufactured, but you can find secondhand. It was the first electronic device I ever loved. Seriously) you enter PV (present value) FV (future value) Int (the interest rate) nPer (number of periods) PMT (payment).  For a mortgage, there's a PV, but FV = $0. For you, it's reversed. PMT on this model is a positive number, for you it's negative, the amount you deposit. You also need to account for the fact that a mortgage is paid on day 31, but you start deposits on Day 1. See the other answer (I linked at start) for the equations. The Government doesn't borrow money. It in fact simply prints it. The bond market is used for an advanced way of controlling the demand for this printed money. Think about it logically. Take 2011 for example. The Govt spent $1.7 trillion more than it took in. This is real money that get's credited in to people's bank accounts to purchase real goods and services. Now who purchases the majority of treasuries? The Primary Dealers. What are the Primary Dealers? They are banks. Where do banks get their money? From us.  So now put two and two together. When the Govt spends $1.7 trillion and credits our bank accounts, the banking system has $1.7 trillion more. Then that money flows in to pension funds, gets spent in to corporation who then send that money to China for cheap products... and eventually the money spent purchases up Govt securities for investments. We had to physically give China 1 trillion dollars for them to be able to purchase 1 trillion dollars in securities. So it makes sense if you think about how the math works in the real world. In the strictest sense, there are bills,notes, and bonds, named when issued based on their time to maturity. Even though it's called a bond ETF it may have a duration short enough to be made of T-bills, less than a year to maturity.  Simply put, for bonds, risk comes from the duration, time to maturity.