(Macaulay) duration is the time weighted sum of cash flow present values normalized by dividing by the bond price.

https://www.fincash.com/l/basic/macaulay-duration
What you were using was modified duration (or effective duration), i.e. sensitivity to interest rates:
TIPS have higher durations than Treasuries of comparable maturities, so they are hit worse from rising rates.
Modified duration is the derivative of present value (PV) with respect to rates (again, normalized by dividing by bond price, i.e. PV). That turns out to be Macaulay duration divided by (1+r) where r is the discount rate per coupon period.
This is easy to see. Start with the PV formula:

After dividing by the bond price, differentiating with respect to i (rate) gives:
{[(-1 x PMT1/(1+i)¹) + (-2 x PMT2 /(1+i)²) + ...)] / BondPrice} / (1 + i) =
- ( timeWeightedCashFlowPVs / BondPrice ) / (1+i)
- MacaulayDuration / (1 + i)
Related to, but not the same thing as Macaulay duration.
Still, that doesn't address your more significant assertion that TIPS' duration (whatever the form) is longer because cash isn't paid out until maturity. IOW, that TIPS are effectively zero coupon bonds.
With a traditional CD, interest compounds at a fixed rate. So calculating APY and YTM is easy. In fact, all that really matters (except for tax purposes) is the final value of that CD. You could call it a zero since you don't get the cash flows until maturity.
Still, there are interest payments; you can see it in the balance reported for your CD. The risk with fixed rate CDs (as with zero coupon bonds) is that interest rates may rise and you can't deposit those interest payments at the new higher rates.
If the bank did allow you to draw the interest payments and redeposit them at higher rates, that CD would be more valuable to you. It's not that you're literally getting your hands on the cash, it's that you're able to get current (higher) market rates on the interest as it is credited.
Same with TIPS. You don't get your hands on the inflation adjustments. But you see them in your balance (i.e. "principal amount"). And if inflation rates go up, that new balance benefits from the higher rates.
In this regard, TIPS work even better than redepositing the CD interest or reinvesting bond coupon payments. With the CD or the fixed rate coupon bond, only the interest payments receive higher rates going forward. With the TIPS, the original principal (as well as the inflation "adjustments") receive the benefit of higher rates.
With respect to inflation, TIPS are floating rate bonds, and as such have zero duration.
I started with the statement: "The relationship between inflation adjusted (real) durations and nominal durations is somewhat complex." This may help (or further confuse):

Nominal bonds are generally considered to have one duration (the sensitivity of the bond's price to a change in its nominal yield or interest rate), but inflation-indexed bonds, such as Treasury Inflation-Indexed Securities (formerly, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, TIPS), may be regarded as having two durations: Di, the sensitivity of the bond's price to a change in inflation, and Dr, the sensitivity of the bond's price to a change in real interest rates.
For a nominal bond, whether a change in yield was caused by a change in inflation expectations or a change in the real interest rate does not matter; the effect on the bond's price is essentially the same either way. But for a TIPS bond, an increase in inflation does not affect the bond's price because the change in the cash flows in the numerator (of the equation for discounted cash flow analysis) is indexed to inflation and the discount rate in the denominator has also been increased by the same change in the expected inflation rate. Thus, the TIPS bond has an "inflation duration" of zero. A change in real interest rates, however, affects the price of a TIPS bond much as it does the price of a nominal bond, so a long-term TIPS bond has a long real-interest-rate duration—say, 15 years.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2469/faj.v60.n5.2656
That is why Vanguard moved to short term TIPS.

Two years ago: I don't know where at this forum, but I too, noted Covid on Jan. 21, 2020. I still have pics in my phone from the John Hopkins site when they began posting global Covid data. Anyway, you may choose to read some of the posts in this thread.
NOTE: the MFO link below contains 3 sections. The link goes to page 3, and I can't adjust this fact. Click the number 1 (1,2,3; just to the top right of the text area ) to go to the beginning of the post.
From the original post:

I wrote on Jan. 21:
As to a "black swan" or what could also be named as an excuse to take some profits by the big market players; IS IF.......and likely a much to do about nothing, is the monitoring of the corona virus in China and other countries in the area.
If this virus were to become very wide spread and deadly; well, who knows, eh?
Market reports (of course) are already headlining that this virus could trigger a markets sell-off.
I can not disagree that if a global problem with any virus became serious enough; markets would be affected.
Of concern to the CDC, WHO and other health organizations at this time, is the beginning of the lunar new year period; which always involves escalated travel volumes by millions of Chinese, both domestic and foreign travel.

MFO February 2020
Remain curious,
Catch

The FCC surely knows exactly what kinds of services are assigned to use every part of the radio frequency spectrum, from the lowest frequencies (just below the AM broadcast band) to the highest. (I'm not certain what that high limit is these days, as I've been retired as a radio tech for some years now, and they keep finding uses for higher and higher frequencies.)
The point here is that the FCC certainly knew well before the 5G C-Band was auctioned/assigned to the telcos that some of those frequencies were already in use for aviation purposes. That's their job. It's incomprehensible to me how all of this was allowed to happen, presumably without coordination between the FCC and the FAA.
Evidently this was dealt with properly in at least some European countries, since we're being told that France, for example, is using 5G near airports with no problems.
Something is really smelly here.

If he says it enough times (and he has) one of these days he is bound to be right. Personally, I'm glad I didn't listen to him seven or ten years ago.

TIPS have higher durations than Treasuries of comparable maturities, so they are hit worse from rising rates. Almost 25% of TIPS are held by the Fed, a price-insensitive buyer. And TIPS funds behave quite differently from individually held TIPS to maturity There is confusion on how the TIPS funds report 30-day SEC yield - some report only real 30-day yield, others add CPI to it.
Many TDFs do include TIPS. Vanguard TDFs switched from IT-TIPS (too volatile) to ST-TIPS (to capture most of the inflation effects) years ago.
(Edited post from another MFO thread)

Hi Puddnhead,
Ya want me to get naked in front of everyone with my portfolio, eh? :)
A few notes: At this time, all of our market holdings are either T-IRA or Roth accounts, so any position changes do not involve taxation considerations. We generally do not hold more that 5 investments at any given time, with 10 being a maximum; as beyond this number tends to not have a meaningful impact (positive or negative) upon a portfolio. An EXCEPTION would be: if one wants 25% of a portfolio to be in health related; and can find 3-5 funds/etf's that don't have a lot of overlap; this would be okay.
Our house continues to favor health and technology. FSMEX, IMHO; is a fund that favors both of these areas. FSPHX, FHLC and similar funds are more broad based health funds. Although the ARK funds, ARKK in particular; has a lot of rocky performance and bad press at this time; the ARKG etf has become fairly inexpensive at this time and travels into another favorable long term area (IMHO) of medicine/health/tech. (genomics and related). Some of these companies will fail, but others will prosper and/or become the targets of M&A.
Generally, one can expect decent distributions (div's, cap gains) from the healthcare area. So, a bonus, eh?
AND YES, health care funds have taken a hit with much else, for 2022.
Now: We no longer have FSPHX, which was replaced several years ago with FHLC.
FHLC is 21% of the total portfolio
FSMEX is 15% of the total portfolio
You mentioned a poor year....2021....for health. I'm okay with the 2021 total returns shown in the below chart.
CHART of FSPHX, FSMEX and FHLC (Fido health etf) for 2021.
I've sure as heck forgotten something to jabber about, for this post.
Remain curious,
Catch

@MikeM - They don’t loose the match (as I recall from family member 30 years back). But they loose the potential invested growth of that $$ - albeit the “borrower” does pay interest on the loan. I don’t know how the government can force the individual to repay it. Slapping on penalties for failure to repay (or placing a lien on his home) would make the individual’s situation more dire.
I can’t prove that any 401K participants have ever taken unreasonable risk with their invested money. (There are of course antidotal accounts.) Logic alone would suggest that:
(1) We know a large number of working age population suffer from gambling addiction.
(2) That shows these people do not manage their available cash / lines of credit responsibly.
(3) It would be illogical to assume that these people who can’t manage day to day finance effectively somehow behave more responsibly managing funds earmarked for 30 or 40 years into the future.
I did find that TIAA-CREF puts the % of workers who borrow at least once from their plan at nearly 30%.
Thanks for joining in Mike.

Just curious, do employees actually lose company match when they borrow within their 401k? I took loans from my 401k a few times in my earlier years but we didn't have matching contributions in those days. I always found borrowing your own money and paying yourself back, with interest, was better than paying a bank that interest. If the loan affects company contributions though, that would negate the benefits for sure.

@hank
>> How many employees have wasted their company match 401 K money by “borrowing” against it in their working years or taking highly speculative market risks with it?
so ... what's the answer? do go on.

I don’t know. Thus the reason I used a ? at the end.

Howdy folks,
So typically government. How many years ago did they auction off the spectrum? Duh.
That said, I favor 5G over the airlines. It's more important. Sorry, but we've morphed from transportation to communication. Think about it. It's a continuum. Albeit moving goods and moving busses of data.
I also don't believe the airlines. They're not having issues overseas AND these are the peeps who lied to us for what? 10? 15? years over cellphones in planes.
Nah, roll it out completely. It's more important.
and so it goes,
peace and wear the damn mask,
rono

@hank
>> How many employees have wasted their company match 401 K money by “borrowing” against it in their working years or taking highly speculative market risks with it?
so ... what's the answer? do go on.

We are inundated here in SE MI by TV ads for several online sports books. All of them appear to offer “risk free” wagers to the newcomer. The fine print at the end of the ad gives a phone number for those who have a problem with gambling.

FWIW saying at least for now, the NFL is restricting betting app ads to like 6 per 3-hour game. They're NOWHERE as annoying as State Farm or Verizon ads this season, for sure.
By contrast, a few years ago, the last 5 minutes and first 30 minutes or so of games were filled with back-to-back-to-back Draftking or Fanduel ads.

We are inundated here in SE MI by TV ads for several online sports books. All of them appear to offer “risk free” wagers to the newcomer. The fine print at the end of the ad gives a phone number for those who have a problem with gambling.

Let’s not get moralistic here. How many employees have wasted their company match 401 K money by “borrowing” against it in their working years or taking highly speculative market risks with it? Any of us can login to our accounts and make any number of risky plays 24 / 7. We just don’t call it gambling. Unfortunately, there’s no cure for stupidity.

Here’s 7 High Risk Funds You Can Buy (Click arrows to scroll L - R)
Sorry your days are being disturbed by those ads Ben. I don’t like them either. Michigan is getting to be a challenging place to live. Between the nuts plotting to kidnap our governor and the stoned drivers I frequently need to dodge while driving (because the state’s legalized pot) - YIKES
ARTICLE: Online Gambling Tax Revenue in Michigan Far Exceeds 6-Month Predictions
“After just six months of legal online gambling in Michigan, tax revenues have already exceeded the initial industry predictions, with the state taking in almost $90 million so far in 2021, nearly doubling what some experts had first expected.”
“ Most of the online gambling tax revenue will go to help finance the Michigan School Aid Fund which covers the per-pupil foundation allowance, special education, at-risk programs, school lunch and breakfast, vocational education, and many other costly aspects of public education.
“Also benefitting from these online gambling tax revenues is a fund for state firefighters afflicted with a certain type of cancer as well as a state fund through the Department of Health and Human Services meant for compulsive bettors whose gambling has gone beyond recreational.”

For those waiting on better valuations to buy Equities, at what point would you be a serious Buyer? Do you have a specific plan in place?
What about Bonds (yeah, what about Bonds) - are any type/class of bonds worth holding in 2022?
Current S&P 500 PE Ratio: 25.85
Mean: 15.96
Median: 14.88

If you are on the sidelines congrats. Don’t see much fear in this market just everyone wanting to buy the dips. A lot of complacency. I guess that is what the past twelve years have conditioned investors to do. Should we actually get something more than a garden variety correction ala late 2018 and February/March 2020 would use a Zweig momentum buy signal to get back in. Worked like a charm after those two brief sell offs as well as the longer bear of 2008.
As for bonds the scary consensus is buy floating rate/bank loan funds as they are the place to be during periods of rising short term rates. Can’t argue with that ( and I have an allocation there) other than it seems a bit too pat and overwhelmingly embraced. If you get a really bad bear market in stocks/junk bonds, the floating rate/bank loan category will not protect you,

Derf, I don't post anywhere what I own or trade, sorry.
Generally, I own, in the last several years, only 2-3 funds. See (link).
Today I was down just -0.02%(it's the correct figure).

I too notice that DODBX is up while the balanced index is down, +3.2% vs -2.3%. Will see next week if that is a typo reported.

It’s nuts. DODBX is heavy into banks which are benefitting from the spike in interest rates. Throw in an overweight in refiners (reported about 2 years ago) and add a 5% short on the S&P (reported within the last 12 months) and you get a 3+% start to the new year. There’s some kind of sorting-out process taking place in the markets. We’ll see where it all leads …
Marty Zweig - “I’m nervous Lou. Very nervous.”

Not a strategy. But I’ve uncovered a link to a trove of old Wall Street Week - With Louis Rukeyser shows which, of course, aired on PBS from some time in the 70s until the 90s. We all learn in different ways. For me this was the best “primer” I ever had in finance. What’s fascinating is that many of the programs seem as relevant to investors today as they were 30, 40, 50 years ago. I guess that’s because the basic principals underlying financial markets and good investing practices really don’t change much with time. Your grandson could do worse than to sit back and enjoy a few of these shows.
Best wishes to you and grandson
https://americanarchive.org/catalog?f[special_collections][]=wall-street-week&sort=asset_date+asc&f[access_types][]=online

Thanks for the chart. You can see that even for a dip below the 200 MA it's only about a 2.5% dip in the NAV, and with the dividend yield above 4% even at today's elevated price, risk seems reasonable. I do have "trial" initial limit order in at slightly below the current 200 MA.
Ditching the corporate funds is a little more involved since they are in Roth IRAs and it's a PITA to do direct transfers. (They always seem to find a way to reject the transfer. Once it was because my middle initial didn't have a period after it, so I needed a notarized change of name document.) I do my one 60-day transfer a year, just to flush out the stragglers, this years it's probably going to be USAIX since it's my smallest holding and I'm not overwhelmed with the move to Victory.

My corporate bond funds (DODIX Dodge and Cox Income, USAIX USAA Income, etc) are taking the expected nose dive, but some junk and preferred ETF's I've been keeping an eye on (USHY iShare High Yield, PEF iShares Preferred, etc) have gone down a lot less. What's up with this? Flight to better income yields? A delayed effect because the duration of the junk bond funds is shorter than the bond funds?
The junk bond funds have twice the yield of the corporate bond funds and their alphas are higher and betas are lower, although that's to some extent apples and oranges. I don't think there's as much risk for the junk bond market as there was the last few years, the losers have been flushed out, everyone's almost done with their dodgy restructuring deals, and the main sectors in that area, energy and real estate, seem to be on the rebound.
Any ideas? I'm intrigued and a little suspicious of these funds.

Given that those 4 items have generally been true for most of the last 40+ years, they're just background noise at this time. I suppose one could get into the weeds of the ebb and flow of those 4 items and discern whether there is any pattern but I doubt that exercise would reveal a signal that can be exploited.