The current IRS form 8888 says you can have your refund electronically deposited to a Treasury Direct account, avoiding paper bonds.
"You can request that your refund (or part of it) be used to buy up to $5,000 in series I savings bonds. You can buy them electronically by direct deposit into your TreasuryDirect® account. See instructions under Part I for details. Or, if you don’t have a TreasuryDirect® account, you can buy paper savings bonds. See the instructions under Part II for details."
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8888.pdf
It looks like one would enter the TD account number, check the Savings box, and use the Treasury Direct routing number 051736158 as one of the Part I items. Has anyone succeeded in doing this?

Good article from Schwab that Tom Mandell linked
https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/why-go-long-when-short-term-bonds-yield-more
Recommends intermediate bonds
Authers at Bloomberg has a very interesting article pointing out that the hopes that bank crisis will precipitate Fed easing also seem to require recession. Not good for earnings!
He thinks the potential for that scenario is overdone, and the Fed could continue to raise rates to control inflation while continuing QT.
"In the short term, the risks are that markets will continue to shift away from the position of the last few weeks, and perhaps begin to put some credence in the Fed’s claim that it won’t be cutting rates this year. A barrage of data that is about to hit for the beginning of the month should enlighten us further. While the banks’ crisis might not hurt economic activity that much, tighter money can be expected to have a big effect, with a lag. The most important place to look for that could be the corporate sector.
As Torsten Slok, chief US economist of Apollo Management, shows in this chart, capital expenditures (capex) have started falling. That can be expected to have a negative multiplier effect over time, which would be good for defeating inflation, but not so great for economic activity, or corporate revenues and profits:
And on the subject of profits, the latest National Income Profit Accounts data, compiled as part of the process of calculating gross domestic product, came out last week. This is a measure of corporate profits that eschews the smoothing that goes with the GAAP accounting used to publish companies’ accounts. They’re typically published, as below, with adjustments both for inventory valuation (IVA) and capital consumption (CCAdj). Over time, NIPA profits and S&P 500 GAAP profits do tend to move roughly together, because there are limits to the creative accounting that companies can do. But in the short term they can differ. It’s therefore not a great sign that NIPA profits took a dip in the final quarter of last year:
There are reasons for concern about the remaining three quarters of this year, many of which are not yet reflected in market pricing. For now, however, it looks as though the damage done by the banks has been overpriced. Absent big surprises in the new data — or fresh external shocks like the Opec+ agreement to limit oil production that spurred a rise of 8% for Brent crude at the Asian opening — it’s best to brace in the near term for bond yields to rise from where they are now, while more speculative investments give up ground. "

Thrivent Partner Small Cap Value Fund, TPSIX merged into Thrivent Small Cap Stock TSCSX in 2015.
Thrivent Partner International Stock Fund AAITX merged into Thrivent Partner Worldwide Allocation TWAAX in 2011, which was renamed Thrivent International Allocation in 2019.
https://fp.thriventfunds.com/resources/fund-changes-and-mergers.html
There is only one Thrivent mutual fund currently submanaged. That is TWAAX, submanaged by Goldman Sachs. All the other submangers (e.g. Turner, TRP, Mercator, Principal, Aberdeen, DuPoint) used by various funds in 2014 have been jettisoned.
https://www.thriventfunds.com/about-us/our-fund-managers.html

Effective April 30, 2019, Thrivent Partner Worldwide Allocation Fund changed its name to Thrivent International Allocation Fund. Principal Global Investors, LLC (“Principal”) and Aberdeen Asset Managers Limited (“Aberdeen”) no longer serve as subadvisers to the Fund. Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P. will continue to subadvise the Fund. Thrivent Asset Management, LLC currently manages a portion of the Fund and will also manage the portions previously managed by Principal and Aberdeen.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/811869/000119312519126040/d735543d497.htm
Information about Thrivent from its membership application:

Thrivent (“Thrivent Financial for Lutherans”) ... is a membership-owned fraternal organization. ... We welcome Christians* seeking to live out their faith. *For more information on Thrivent's Christian Common Bond, visit thrivent.com/christiancalling

Until recently, Thrivent offered an interval fund with this in mind: Thrivent Church Loan and Income Fund. But it has recently closed that fund and is winding it down.

Just as Vanguard Flagship customers ($1M+ invested in VG funds directly at Vanguard) may open new Primecap-managed fund (VHCOX, VPMCX, VPCCX) accounts, T. Rowe Price Summit Select customers ($250K+ invested in TRP funds directly at Price) may open new accounts in TRP's closed funds including PRWCX.
(A couple of closed funds, but not PRWCX, will reopen later this month.)
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/60860/t-rowe-price-new-horizons-and-emerging-markets-funds-reopening-to-new-investors
At the Summit Personal Services level ($500K), investors may open new accounts in TRAIX with a $50K min.

Good point - PRWCX is closed to most new investors.
The fund is closed to new accounts other than investors whose accounts meet any of the following criteria:
• Participants in an employer-sponsored retirement plan where the fund already serves as an investment option;
• Direct rollovers from an employer-sponsored retirement plan to a new T. Rowe Price IRA;
• Accounts held directly with T. Rowe Price that qualify through participation in certain T. Rowe Price programs;
• T. Rowe Price multi-asset products (such as funds-of-funds);
• Discretionary accounts managed by T. Rowe Price or one of its affiliates;
• Wrap, asset allocation, and other advisory programs, if permitted by T. Rowe Price.
T. Rowe Price submitted an SEC filing (dated 03/22/2023) for Capital Appreciation Equity ETF.
David Giroux will be the portfolio manager.
The new ETF will normally invest at least 80% of its net asset in equity securities.
PRWCX normally invests at least 50% of its total assets in stocks while the remaining assets
are generally invested in corporate/government debt and bank loans.
Consequently, this ETF will not be a clone of PRWCX.
MFO Link

Thanks stayCalm! Good catch. The variable name for Alpha Ratings was updated recently for consistency, which messed-up the search. I've added a month to your subscription for the hassle and the feedback. If you see anything else, or have suggestions for improvement, please reach back. Below is result using the Alpha Rating along with couple others ...

An interesting take on the new Restrict Act opening a back door way of digital surveillance and prevent tech mergers https://salon.com/2023/04/02/patriot-act-on-steroids-left-and-right-unite-against-fear-mongering-tiktok-ban/
An excerpt:

That doesn't appear to square with the actual language of the bill. Although most of its legislative language is clearly geared toward controlling corporate mergers — and giving the president a new tool that can force a foreign company to divest itself of U.S. interests — there's no specific provision that protects individual users of banned websites or software. Instead, it would give an appointed presidential committee the power to make new rules and enforce them, with little oversight.
How could those new powers pose a threat to individual users? First, there's a real possibility that, according to the current version, an individual user could face criminal charges for downloading or accessing banned content, such as through the use of a virtual private network. Depending on the appetite for enforcement, the penalties could include up to 20 years in prison for using a VPN to access a banned site — and, in some interpretations, up to $1,000,000 in fines.
Another threat is the lack of transparency and accountability the bill grants the appointed committee that would decide which apps to ban. The lack of judicial review and reliance on Patriot Act-like surveillance powers could open the door to unjustified targeting of individuals or groups….
….Across its 55 pages, the Restrict Act offers a lot of winding, tricky language with room for broad interpretation. Concerns are emerging about how the bill could threaten civil liberties and First Amendment rights, especially considering its vague language, lack of oversight for sweeping new executive (not elected) authorities, and the secretive nature of the FISA courts, which rule on a range of intelligence and surveillance cases.

TIPS are a risky asset short term, primarily because of their poor liquidity. (Even in normal times the spreads on the longer ones approach 50bp.) Planning on rebalancing out of them into stocks during a crunch might not be a great idea; for example, take a gander at what TIPS prices did in late 2008.

Reality check - How many of your current holdings (aside from cash) did you possess …
- 20 years ago?
- 25 years ago?
- 30 years ago?
None of mine date back 25 years (1998 or earlier). But three go back over 20 years. Two are multi-asset funds (10% of portfolio each). The third is a balanced fund (5-7% of portfolio).

Hi Charles
In the screener, the 'Alpha Rating' selection under the Alpha Beta metrics section is not working. On selection of value 4 - 5: Above Average, the result page displays
Alpha Beta Metrics
• Alpha Rating (In Type):
Also any selection on this filter produces no results in the output.
I can send you screenshots.
Thanks

I think a lack of discipline or psychology plays a role in selling a 30-year TIPS before maturity, but that characterization puts the reason for selling completely on the investor's shoulders as some sort of moral or psychic failing. A lot can happen to one's finances in 30 years that may have nothing to do with discipline and everything to do with unavoidable liquidity needs. I've seen some market commentators point out that if you just bought and held onto stocks through the Great Depression you would've done fabulously. Meanwhile unemployment peaked at 25% in 1933. Many people in such circumstances were understandably afraid and sold after an 89% decline in the Dow from peak to trough, but just as many I imagine had no choice but to sell to stay alive back then. Discipline or a lack of it has nothing to do with selling for unemployed people who have to pay their bills. That is is the unseen personal 30-year risk in holding such a long-term bond. Today, I would think unforseen health risks, might be a more likely reason for selling before maturity, as uncovered medical bills are still a large cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. But recessions, job loss, and selling of securities do tend to go hand in hand.
I would add just from a market history perspective, that leverage plays a really terrible role in the above recession/depression scenario. A recession hits, people lose their jobs, stocks fall and suddenly investors are getting margin calls on their leveraged bets which they can't pay because they're out of work. That forces them to sell their securities even if they want to hold on for a recovery. Worse, when they sell, that puts further downward pressure on the market and more people who consequently get margin calls. Selling begets selling and you end up in a weird kind of death spiral caused by leverage. My impression is margin levels were really high and easy to get prior to the Great Depression. And we saw just what happened with leverage in the 2008 crash. And now we see what happened with SVB, and seemingly safe Treasury bonds. This is why the FDIC exists, and they label banks too big to fail, although I think there are other ways of addressing these problems that benefit the public more and banks less.

Retail investors may not have the fortitude to hang on to 30-yr TIPS. But IMO, holding 5-yr TIPS to maturity and rolling them over (and laddering) should work fine too to approximately capture the CPI. The real-yields (TIPS yields) have been in +/- 2% range most of the time (FRED charts go back to 2003 although TIPS started a few years back in late-1990s), so it isn't as if the investors would miss the boat on locking high real-rates. BTW, the current real yields are 5-yr 1.20%, 10-yr 1.16%, 30-yr 1.44%.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1264R
https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_real_yield_curve&field_tdr_date_value=2023

Good read. Don’t bet the farm on any particular point. Conventional wisdom. Wish the 10-year would get back up above 4% where I’d plunk a portion of cash back into GNMA. Just a hunch that that’s a more profitable (in & out) trade than at the current rate around 3.5%. Yes, short term rates have fallen dramatically in recent weeks.
The insights into falling commodity prices are of interest (although precious metals / miners have surged this year). Suspect the commodity downturn is normal after a very heady period. Should level off. Checking 3 commodity related funds I’ve owned in the past (but no longer own) …
1-Year Return … 3-Year Annualized
PRAFX -11% …….… +19%
PRNEX - 2% ……..… +26%
BRCAX - 8% ……..…. +22%
*Numbers (rounded) from MarketWatch

That would correspond with the two emails I got from Fidelity 11:45PM Friday evening:
(1) FCONX has closed to new investors
(2) FCRDX has closed to new investors
FCRDX shares were likely moved to FMNDX.
Fidelity's web page(s) may be a little slow in making changes, but the filings have been updated (and are available on the website).

Fidelity® Conservative Income Bond Fund/FCNVX
In this summary prospectus, the term “shares” (as it relates to the fund) means the class of shares offered through this summary prospectus.
Fidelity® Conservative Income Bond Fund, a class of shares of the fund, was formerly known as Institutional Class.
Summary Prospectus
October 29, 2022
As Revised April 1, 2023
...
There is no purchase minimum for shares of the fund offered in this prospectus.

Summary Prospectus
With a pretty flat short term yield curve and rates still rising, I haven't paid much attention to this fund (SEC 30 day yield 4.60% after waivers), preferring MMFs like FZDXX (SEC 7 day yield4.66% after waivers). Given that you have under $100 in the fund, it looks like you concur.

A Fido email came on trades when I didn't do any.
On a/c login, I found that Ultra-ST FCONX (formerly, Investor class) was auto-converted into FCNVX (formerly, Institutional class). Fido website doesn't even recognize FCONX ticker now, while other sites still do. Fido FCNVX info isn't updated either as it still shows $1M minimum - that of course isn't true anymore as my current balance is UNDER $100.00.
I was surprised by this sudden change for which there was no prior notification.
FCONX was among the rare Fido funds to which frequent-trading didn't apply. I checked that remains valid for FCNVX.
Another good change was that the new ER for FCNVX is just 25 bps.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/316146521

I thought I knew what stable value funds in a 401k were. I used them for years, but what you show looks to me more like an annuity.
Stable value fund is available in my 401(K) plan. It is an insurance product that invest in short term treasurys but has the liquidity like money market fund.
There's a lot of subtlety in attributes of these products that results in a fair amount of confusion. In a broad sense everything people have mentioned here is a stable value fund. In practical terms, the distinctions don't matter much.

stable value funds and their close cousins, guaranteed investment contracts, together accounted for 21.3 percent of the assets in such plans in September [2006]
...
The stable value funds in 401(k) plans are generally a pool of short-term bonds or other debt-market investments protected by an insurance contract known as a wrapper.... The underlying investments are generally corporate bonds, which yield more than government bonds but are also at a greater risk for loss of principal. He said Treasury bonds were a more secure long-term choice than stable value funds, which may be subject “to the law of unintended consequences."
...
Like other stable value funds in 401(k) plans, [the Trust Advisors Stable Value Plus fund] was not a mutual fund but a collective trust.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/mutfund/08stable.html
"Stable value" can refer to even more varied investment structures. Historically, or "traditionally", these were insurance products - guaranteed insurance contracts like TIAA Traditional issued directly by an insurance company.

TIAA Traditional is a guaranteed insurance contract and not an investment for federal securities law purposes.

https://www.tiaa.org/public/learn/retirement-planning-and-beyond/how-do-traditional-annuities-work
"Stable value" evolved into a much broader range of investment structures. The common thread is the use of insurance to provide investment value stability.

Stable value investment options may be offered by investment managers, trust companies, or insurance companies in various structures, such as separately managed accounts, commingled funds or guaranteed insurance accounts. Sometimes a stable value investment option will be managed by a plan sponsor. While stable value investment options may be managed or structured in a variety of ways, the important similarity is the use of stable value investment contracts, issued by banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions, which convey to the investment option the ability to carry certain assets at book value.

https://www.stablevalue.org/stable-value/ (Links in original)
For a brief shining(?) moment, stable value funds were offered in retail IRAs. But SEC concerns about pricing led to their demise:

[Stable value as an] investing option has disappeared for individuals [in 2005] because of questions raised by the Securities and Exchange Commission about how to value the funds, although no formal ruling against them has been made.
...
Stable value funds have been available for many years, and remain available today-although on a much more limited basis-in some 401(k) plans and defined benefit pension plans maintained by employers. These investments come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor, which has strict, but somewhat different regulations, from the SEC. The SEC's questions affect investments by individuals in IRAs ...
Scudder launched the first stable value IRA fund in 1997, offering the funds as Scudder Preservation Plus Income and Scudder Preservation Plus. Others were offered by PBGH, Gartmore Morley, Oppenheimer and other mutual fund managers.
But the SEC began raising questions about how to determine the daily valuation of funds with insurance wrappers, which managers had been pricing at book value. The wrapper agreement, which is what made the stable value fund what it was, was also the part that was raising questions at the SEC. The SEC, which initially approved the funds, will not comment on the situation other than to say that there are no stable value funds now registered with the SEC, although there are some nonregistered ones in existence, says John Nester, an SEC spokesman.

https://www.fa-mag.com/news/article-1120.html?issue=56

It appears that Bramshill is trying to attract more investors. In addition of the high ER, it is on transaction-fee platform, $49.95 to purchase at Fidelity. Here is the fund’s performance since inception.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/performance-and-risk/89832P515?type=sq-NavBar

I might have pointed to Larry Summers as the Democratic poster boy for deregulation.

Between 1992 and 2001, Summers held various positions in the US Treasury Department, including that of Treasury Secretary from 1999 to 2001. Summers has described the 1990’s as a time when “important steps” were taken to achieve “deregulation in key sectors of the economy” such as financial services. He has also said that during this period government officials and private financial interests collaborated in a spirit of cooperation “to provide the right framework for our financial industry to thrive.” Summers recommended before he left the Treasury Department that removing policies that “artificially constrict the size of markets” should remain a priority for the US government.
Along with Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan, Summers brought about elimination of key US financial regulations including the Glass-Steagall Act. He was particularly aggressive in his efforts to block regulations of derivatives, regulations that might have prevented the economic meltdown the US suffered in 2008. According to economist Dean Baker, "The policies he promoted as Treasury Secretary and in his subsequent writings led to the economic disaster that we now face."

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Larry_Summers
That's some of what Summers did while he was working in the government. In contrast, Barney Frank had left Congress years before attempts were made to weaken Dodd-Frank. As a private citizen, and as the bill in question was reaching the House for a vote, he wrote an opinion piece titled: "Why I would vote 'no' on Senate bill to amend Dodd-Frank".
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/01/barney-frank-why-i-would-vote-no-on-senate-bill-to-amend-dodd-frank-commentary.html
Though while objecting to the bill, he did not excoriate it. One of his objections was that the threshold for subjecting "large" banks to the most stringent level of examination was set too high. He would have preferred $125B, as opposed to $250B.
Both Dems and Reps voted to loosen regulations. Bags of pus
The opposition to the legislation, though in the minority, was also bipartisan. One Republican voted no.
If calling that bipartisan sounds a bit weird, consider that 83% of the Democratic representatives voted against the legislation, while 99.6% of voting Republican representatives supported it.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2018216

Thanks for your earlier tip @msf. I put in additional $ by year-end so to ensure the tax refund is over $5K. Just filed our return and will be getting two $2,500 I bonds for me and my wife.

You can also hold the paper bonds yourself, perhaps in a safe deposit box.
The mail in process isn't hard, though a tad more tedious than one would like. And you only have to create that second account once.
As I've posted before, the USPS lost one $50 refund savings bond of mine (out of a $5000 total). TD replaced it many months after I reported it as never having been received. Unfortunately the replacement was another paper bond.
So while you might have $1200 to send in, I'm stuck with a single $50 bond to have and to hold (or to mail in). I mailed in (converted) the other $4950 long ago.