T-Notes are 1+ to 10 year maturities.
T-Bonds are 10+ to 30 year maturities. They have high duration, so high rate sensitivity. You can have large gains or haircuts when selling before maturity. They will pay par on maturity - that is guaranteed by the US Treasury.

DT: FD, I get your position. You are not a CD investor, you will never be a CD investor, and you will continue your trading approach that does not include CDs, which requires liquidity in your holdings. My original post was directed toward existing CD investors, deciding what those particular investors will do with their maturing CDs, not directed toward investors who will never hold CDs. If you want to "convert" the rest of us CD sinners, you will do it without restraint on this thread.

I'm not trying to convert or influence anyone. I'm stating generic comments.
I don't know anyone that invests only in 100% safe CDs and treasuries, and over the years I discussed investments with many people. I also don't like callable CDs and now have to find a new solution.
This is not a judgement, just an observation.
I switched to only/mostly bond funds because I could generate more performance than allocation funds with much lower risk.
To the questions, what would you if...? My approach has been tested in a recession, high inflation, and very quick rising rates, and it went well. Why change it?
I want to control my portfolio at all times. At anytime I can own MM,CDs, Treasuries if I want, but they have to be the best idea I have in that moment based on market conditions. It already did. From 01/2022 to early 11/2020 I was at 99+% MM, except very short (hours-days) several trades.
You should do what works for you. Good luck in the future.
I just don't believe we should stay on a narrow discussion. Annuities brought up, and I believe in low-volatility bond funds that might interest some posters.

An insurer can "fail" without ever being insolvent.
Never underestimate the ignorance of the investing public.

In 1991, Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY), the stressed but solvent subsidiary of its insolvent parent, Executive Life Insurance Company of California, was placed in rehabilitation in New York to protect it from cash surrenders becoming “a run on the bank.”
...
When ELNY’s parent was placed in receivership in California, the New York Insurance Department determined that an “increase in surrenders had caused a material erosion of ELNY’s assets to the detriment of policyholders with nonsurrenderable policies, primarily structured settlement annuities.” As a result, New York’s Superintendent of Insurance sought and obtained an order of rehabilitation in April 1991

https://www.pbnylaw.com/articles/THE TROUBLE WITH ELNY.pdf
It may not have been a "run", perhaps more of a fast walk, but investors spooked by problems with the parent company created a problem with ELNY that otherwise wouldn't have existed.
New York State regulates insurers more stringently than does the rest of the country. Insurers' investments can't be as risky, capital requirements are higher, and so on. This is the reason why you often see insurers operate in 49 states with a separate subsidiary in New York. Insurance companies don't want to be held to New York's higher safety standards in the rest of the country.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/253661 (Login via library/school required)
As far as the deferred annuities were concerned,

A year later, in March 1992, ... ELNY’s traditional whole life, term life and deferred annuity books of business were transferred to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company with substantially all the supporting statutory reserve assets. ... Neither the 1991 rehabilitation order or the 1992 order approving the rehabilitation plan declared ELNY to be insolvent.

Bond rating and insurer ratings have very different criteria. And different things happen in cases of failures.
If a company issuing bond goes under, bond investors are in line with other creditors depending on where the bond is in the capital structure. They can get something or nothing.
If an insurer goes under, its state regulator works as the lead regulator with the other state regulators to come up with a rescue/rehabilitation plan.
State regulators don't have ready reserves to pay out like the (underfunded) FDIC does for banks.
So, a failed bank may be shut on Friday and account access may resume on Monday. Forget about anything like that for failed insurers.
When my 403b plan insurance MBL-NJ went under (I think with AAA rating & 150 years of existence), all of our 403b annuity accounts were frozen. We could immediately withdraw/shift at 40% haircut (i.e receive 60c for $1), or wait for things to settle. While waiting, the frozen funds earned m-mkt rates that were about half of what MBL was paying. The money was unfrozen after 4-5 years. Technically, there was no loss, but only the lost opportunity. In my asset allocation at the time, I treated this frozen money as forced-cash.

I have followed this thread, but had only 2 short posts on T-Note quotes & FRN USFR.
IMO, good CD alternatives are T-Bills/Notes (noncallable). All these can be held to maturity without incurring losses. The CD & Treasuries investors are quite different from fund investors because funds have duration and they never mature, so there may be gains or losses at sale.
As for annuities, there are basic fixed-term and lifetime SPIA that have low-costs and may be fine for many. Any guarantees are from the insurance company, so stick with highly rated companies.
TIAA offers many low-cost annuities - for retirement or taxable accounts.
A big issue with annuities is that one is stuck with annuity rules - while tax-deferral is good, withdrawal penalties apply before 59.5. Taxes also apply on withdrawals.
Insurers know that & can offer attractive rates to captive clients. They also publicize those offers aggressively along with luring initial incentives.
One can do 1035 exchanges between annuities, but it isn’t a simple online process.
IMO, first exhaust all other tax-deferral options - IRAs, 401k/403b, 529, etc. When these options weren’t available, annuities were very popular.

I've invested in so many cash, short term, and fixed rate vehicles that I've lost count. The ones that come to mind are: prime MMFs, government MMFs, Treasury only MMFs, national tax free MMFs, single state MMFs, ultra short bond funds, short term bond funds, short term national muni bond funds, short term single state bond funds, short term government funds, short-intermediate national muni funds, T-bills, short and intermediate CDs, liquid CDs, callable CDs, short term muni bonds, callable muni bonds, SPDAs, and GICs (stable value).
I've used some of these when the idea of losing even a single penny was an anathema to me, and I've used some when I was seeking a better multi-year return. So I appreciate different objectives, especially the concern about share prices declining. (What, you mean I could actually lose money? I've had those thoughts.)
Some people here have said that they would not use a prime MMF - too much risk for the small additional return. Actually, the risk goes further - scores of MMFs have been propped up by their sponsors over the years, including several that would otherwise have broken a buck. Regulations have changed since then; still, prime MMFs remain more risky.
https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2013/10/twenty-eight-money-market-funds-that-could-have-broken-the-buck-new-data-on-losses-during-the-2008-c/
One used to see SNGVX mentioned as a safe short term fund (see, e.g. here) - it never had a losing year. That was before 2021, when it lost almost 1% followed by 2022 when it lost nearly 4.5%. So when it comes to OEF bond fund risks, your concerns are understandable.
ISTM David Sherman manages his short term funds in an unusual if not unique way, resulting in his CrossingBridge funds as well as RPHIX never having had a losing calendar year over their lifetimes. Admittedly, they are not without some volatility as your 2020 experience attests. That you pulled the trigger so quickly then also attests to the great importance you place on preservation of principal.
@stillers wrote: "4% guaranteed interest is our threshold vs bond OEFs. 5+% is pretty much nirvana." That seems to be your thinking as well: "I want to lowest risk option to produce 'at least' 4%." Further, you seem willing to make a multi-year commitment (you're considering callable CDs that if not called, will take several years to mature).
Based on that, welcome to nirvana. Another poster mentioned MYGAs, aka fixed rate SPDAs.
https://www.blueprintincome.com/fixed-annuities-cd-comparison (fixed annuities vs. CDs)
You can get a 3 year fixed annuity with an A rated insurance company yielding over 5%. Depending on your state it may even allow 10% of balance withdrawals without issuer penalty, mitigating liquidity concerns. One does need to be over 59.5 to take withdrawals without tax penalty.
If you want a policy from an AA+ rated insurer, MassMutual is paying around 4.65% for three years, depending on your state of residence. All of these policies have the added benefit of tax deferral (for taxable accounts), including the ability to "roll over" the proceeds (1035 exchange) to extend the deferral period. No loss of principal, "high" rate that cannot drop, some liquidity, and tax deferral. Seems to check all your boxes and more.

Here is an earlier post on the matter.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/62918/vanguard-to-settle-target-date-fund-distributions-2020

(I presume things like the Chevron decision, activist pro-business conservative courts, and an incoming 'president' who will sling arbitrary EO's around like playing cards are the force behind this.)
Due to evolving legal landscape & changes in the framework of administrative law, Federal Reserve Board will soon seek public comment on significant changes to improve transparency of bank stress tests & reduce volatility of resulting capital requirements....
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20241223a.htm

@hank- I was under the impression that you were using Musk's Starlink. Have you switched to fiber optic? If so, is that service relatively new around there?

Yup. I was early by 1-2 years in my neighborhood in having high-speed broadband when I put up a Starlink dish in November 2020 (rooftop mounted due to the tree line). Was very proud to have been an early (beta) user. Was miles ahead of the 4G cellular I’d relied on for internet. However, Musk kept jacking up the monthly rates (from around $99 initially to $135 over 3 years) and then announced plans to impose rather tight data limits.
Fortunately, by that time fiber had been installed here. Not burried but strung on poles. Less expensive & no data cap. So ditched Starlink about a year ago. A story of progress! Actually, when I retired in ‘98 and moved to this area all we had was dialup internet. Took 3-6 hours to download a single music album! I bought a DirectTV kit back then at K-Mart for about $50, nailed it up on the side of a garage, burried cable to the house, and had access to great TV for that day. Something like $29 a month back then.
* I should add that prior to 2020 there were a couple satellite based internet companies who had a few subscribers here. But the reports were poor. Essentially, slow connections and high prices.

msf: "It is true that RPHIX did not return more than 4% before 2023. I suggest that a better way of looking at it is how much it outperformed cash. According to Portfolio Visualizer, it usually beat cash by 3/4% or more, with larger margins coming in years when cash returned under 2%. So it is not surprising that RPHIX has not exceeded 4% until recently. Cash has not exceeded 3% until recently."
msf, there are many low risk bond oefs, that "outperformed cash" in the past couple of years. But even when I was very active bond oef momentum investor, I held my "cash" in MMs or high rate Savings Accounts. RPHIX use to be in my "low risk" bond oef category, but RPHIX has gone through periods of losing principal, which was the case when I dumped it in 2020 with the market crash. RPHIX "risk" is much higher than MMs, CDs, Treasuries, and I will not use it in my portfolio, when I get comparable returns with "lower risk" fixed income alternatives. I would argue that the 2023 and 2024 TR performance of RPHIX are aberrations in the RPHIX performance history, and do not expect that to return anytime soon.
For the purposes of this thread, my maturing CD money will be very briefly in a cash account at my brokerage and bank, but after a very short period of a few days/weeks, it will be re-invested into much less risky options, compared to RPHIX, like noncallable CDs, MMs, treasuries, and maybe a callable CD. I would only use RPHIX if I thought it was going to significantly outperform CDs, MMs, treasuries, etc. who have much lower risk. Of course, others have a much different TR/Risk criteria, but I want to lowest risk option to produce "at least" 4%, and there are several fixed income options to accomplish that with risk lower than RPHIX. Others are encouraged to define their TR/Risk criteria, and dive into low risk bond oefs if it meets their criteria.

Although this thread is about CDs, the bond oef RPHIX keeps getting mentioned as a viable alternative. I was a bond oef, momentum investor before I sold all my bond oefs in 2020. RPHIX produced a consistent TR of 1% to 3% almost every year before 2023. In 2023 and 2024, it had a TR of slightly over 5%. I invested in CDs during 2024 that made about the same as RPHIX. I still own a large number of CDs paying over 5%. As a previous bond oef investor, I do not believe RPHIX will make over 5% in 2025, but instead I expect it to have a TR in the 3 to 4% range. I can get that in 2025 wirh callable CDs with no stress, so I am not inclined to use RPHIX for my very conservative portfolio when CDs will produce comparable or better TR, with less risk. If I want a solid investment for the next 2 to 3 years of at least 4%, I will invest in a noncallable CD that pays 4%, not RPHIX with no history of making 4% except for 2023 and 2024. I am well aware that posters/investors who are opposed to CDs will likely not agree with me--that is okay!

DT: I qualified for SNAXX in 2020 in my IRA account, when I met the $1 million investment requirements, but have to use SWVXX for my taxable holdings because I did not have enough money to qualify for SNAXX

Easy solution. In 2020+2022 I held MM at Schwab. I purchased SNAXX in 2020 in my rollover(=trad) IRA. Then I transferred one share from TIRA to Roth IRA and from Roth one share to my taxable.
I actually also bought at that time SUTXX+SCOXX and transferred to all accounts because when risk is very high, I like the safer options.
=============
The older I get and more money I have, the more conservation I get, but no CD/treasuries for me so far. I still use MM when risk is very high and I'm out of market.
CLOs had one of the best opportunities I have seen for years. I still in them heavily. Great performance with very low volatility. I looked at PAAA. Per it's last distributions, it's close to 4.7% on an annual basis.
CLOZ, one of the lower-rated CLOs, made over 20% in just 1.5 years.
Portfolio Managers John Kerschner, Nick Childs, and Jessica Shill discuss why they believe the strategic case for AAA CLOs remains compelling amid Federal Reserve (Fed) rate cuts.
(https://www.janushenderson.com/en-us/advisor/article/do-aaa-clos-still-make-sense-in-a-declining-rate-environment/)
Another CLOs link (https://www.vaneck.com/us/en/blogs/income-investing/why-clos-still-make-sense-when-the-fed-cuts-rates/)
RPHIX should be a no-brainer.
When rates start to go down, MM/CD/treasuries will be far behind.

I have considered Treasury based MM funds, but am choosing to use a more "diversified" MM fund at Schwab, where they will use some high quality corporates, and other Government offerings besides treasuries. I qualified for SNAXX in 2020 in my IRA account, when I met the $1 million investment requirements, but have to use SWVXX for my taxable holdings because I did not have enough money to qualify for SNAXX in my taxable account. I guess you have to make a "risk" decision within the MM fund offerings.

@Sven, for FRN funds (USFR, TFLO), approx yield = 4.296% + spread - ER.
I am sticking with USFR too.

One can get better yields with Treasury only MMFs, but only through a limited number of brokerages (those offering access to institutional class shares). It's a tradeoff - more work to access but easier bookkeeping (no cap gains, wash sales, etc. with MMFs).
Merrill Edge offers FSIXX (4.40% 7 day yield, 4.49% APY, in 2023 94.89% state tax exempt) and UTIXX (4.39% 7 day yield, 4.49% APY, in 2023 99.25% state tax exempt) with $1 mins.
WellsTrade has similar offerings (including a slightly better share class of the Fidelity fund, FRSXX) with no mins.

#1b (upstream giving) looks like a pretty big loophole for mass affluent/high net worth investors (with significant assets but under roughly half the estate tax exemption limit). This one never occurred to me.
As a loophole, it works with appreciated assets that you plan to hold for a few more years. Gift them to your 90 year old grandparent or parent, or for that matter any elderly person you trust with money. Have them bequeath that asset back to you in their will or via a TOD account.
Presto, in a few years the capital appreciation tax liability has vanished and you have your assets back intact. It doesn't seem all that proper to me, but it also doesn't seem to be illegal. As Schwab writes, the assets can be left to any "selected beneficiary". That means even you.
It's not quite as efficient as the way an ETF dumps appreciated assets onto authorized participants. But it is similar in spirit - use a straw man of sorts who has a way to make the tax liability disappear.

Any one interested in IEP should know now it yields 20%. Has had a few distribution cuts.

Was in and out of it over the years. After the Hindenburg short raid last year I bailed, took the loss to offset gains elsewhere, and never looked back. Not sure I'd want to go back in after that, plus the div cuts, and general restructuring of things they've been doing.

Book gains and fund DAF with those gains
I'm confused about what you mean by "book gains". Also, it doesn't look like net effect on taxes comes out to zero.
I'll make this concrete. $40K cost for stock, $64K present value, 15%/22% tax bracket (cap gains/ord. income).
Scenario 1: Liquidate all, donate $24K gain ($24K deduction)
cap gains tax = 15% x $24K = $3.6K
ordinary tax savings = 22% x $24K = $5.28K
net tax = -$1.68K
Scenario 2: Donate $24K gain in kind, liquidate rest ($40K)
cap gains tax = 15% x 40/64 x $24K = $2.25K (less because you don't sell all)
ordinary tax savings = 22% x $24K = $5.28K
net tax = -$3.03K
Donating securities directly usually comes out better than selling and donating proceeds. The tax savings above assume that one gets the full benefit of itemizing the contribution.
One benefits (gets a higher deduction) only to the extent that itemized deductions exceed the standard deduction. So if a $10K contribution pushes itemized deductions just $4K over the std deduction amount, one gets only $4K in increased deductions, not the full $10K.
As you noted, the trick is to bundle deductions. That way, instead of losing some deduction value in reaching the std deduction amount each year, one reaches the threshold this year and then keeps adding. DAFs are an excellent vehicle to do this.

Many investors are considering TLH to book losses to offset gains or to just carryover losses into future years (they never expire).
Here is another tax strategy for capital gains in this good year 2024.
Book gains and fund DAF with those gains (better with comparable value in-kind). You will get full tax deduction on Itemized Schedule A for 2024. There will be no net effect on taxes. Trick is to consolidate other deductions so that you itemize instead of taking standard deduction in 2024. Only 2 weeks left to implement this.
For those who would like a quick refresher on DAFs, here is my article in a local e-paper,
https://indoustribune.com/business/finance/donor-advised-funds-dafs/

I’m taking “early” retirement next week at 57, so been thinking about risk/reward. Have coworkers who couldn’t tell you what WSJ means, but had retirement 100% in SPY for 30 plus years. Compared to 70/30 ratio, could mean 8% AR vs 11%. Over 33 years
, could mean at least one million more. Coulda had the brokers yacht and Ferris Bueler’s Ferrari…gonna drink my big Black Cow…
One of the Ferraris From Ferris Bueller's Day Off Just Sold for $396,000 in 2020. Replica 250 GT.

Dec 12th Episode

Warren Pierson, Co-Chief Investment Officer of Baird Advisors and portfolio manager of the top-rated Baird Aggregate Bond Fund, explains the newfound popularity of bonds.

Dec 14th Episode:

Great investor David Giroux has cut way back on stocks and increased bonds in his top performing T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Fund. He explains why stock prices are scary and bonds look better than most stocks in 2025.