Best CD rates today, May 29, 2025 (lock in up to 4.4% APY)
Find out which banks are offering the best CD rates right now. If you're looking for a secure place to store your savings, a certificate of deposit (CD) may be a great choice. These accounts often provide higher interest rates than traditional checking and savings accounts. However, CD rates can vary widely.
Learn more about where CD rates stand today and how to find the best rates available.
CD rates are relatively high compared to historical averages. That said, CD rates have been on the decline since last year when the Federal Reserve began cutting its target rate. The good news is that several financial institutions offer competitive rates of 4% APY and up, particularly online banks.
Today, the highest CD rate 4.4% APY, offered by NexBank on its 1-year CD. There is a $25,000 minimum opening deposit required.
Here is a look at some of the best CD rates available today from our verified partners:
The Federal Reserve recently began decreasing the federal funds rate in light of slowing inflation and an overall improved economic outlook. It cut its target rate three times in late 2024 by a total of one percentage point.
The Fed has indicated it will continue cutting its target rate in 2025. However, it now projects a total of two cuts, down from its previous projection of four.
The federal funds rate doesn't directly impact deposit interest rates, though they are correlated. When the Fed lowers rates, financial institutions typically follow suit (and vice versa). So now that the Fed has lowered its rate, CD rates are beginning to fall again. That's why now may be a good time to put your money in a CD and lock in today's best rates.
The process for opening a CD account varies by financial institution. However, there are a few general steps you can expect to follow:
Research CD rates: One of the most important factors to consider when opening a CD is whether the account provides a competitive rate. You can easily compare CD rates online to find the best offers.
Choose an account that meets your needs: While a CD's interest rate is a key consideration, it shouldn't be the only one. You should also evaluate the CD's term length, minimum opening deposit requirements, and fees to ensure a particular account fits your financial needs and goals. For example, you want to avoid choosing a CD term that's too long, otherwise you'll be subject to an early withdrawal penalty if you need to pull out your funds before the CD matures.
Get your documents ready: When opening a bank account, you will need to provide a few pieces of information, including your Social Security number, address, and driver's license or passport number. Having these documents on hand will help streamline the application process.
Complete the application: These days, many financial institutions allow you to apply for an account online, though you might have to visit the branch in some cases. Either way, the application for a new CD should only take a few minutes to complete. And in many cases, you'll get your approval decision instantly.
Fund the account: Once your CD application is approved, it's time to fund the account. This can usually be done by transferring money from another account or mailing a check.
Read more: Step-by-step instructions for opening a CD
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
24 minutes ago
Can $1,000 at birth change a child's future? A Republican proposal aims to find out
WASHINGTON -- When children of wealthy families reach adulthood, they often benefit from the largesse of parents in the form of a trust fund. It's another way they get a leg up on less affluent peers, who may receive nothing at all — or even be expected to support their families. But what if all children — regardless of their family's circumstances — could get a financial boost when they turn 18? That's the idea behind a House GOP proposal backed by President Donald Trump. It would create tax-deferred investment accounts — coined 'Trump Accounts' — for babies born in the U.S. over the next four years, starting them each with $1,000. At age 18, they could withdraw the money to put toward a down payment for a home, education or to start a small business. If the money is used for other purposes, it'll be taxed at a higher rate. 'This is a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation,' Trump said at a White House event Monday for the proposal. 'They'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economy.' While the investment would be symbolically meaningful, it's a relatively small financial commitment to addressing child poverty in the wider $7 trillion federal budget. Assuming a 7% return, the $1,000 would grow to roughly $3,570 over 18 years. It builds on the concept of ' baby bonds,' which two states — California and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have introduced as a way to reduce gaps between wealthy people and poor people. At at time when wealth inequality has soured some young people on capitalism, giving them a stake in Wall Street could be the antidote, said Utah Republican Rep. Blake Moore, who led the effort to get the initiative into a massive House spending bill. 'We know that America's economic engine is working, but not everyone feels connected to its value and the ways it can benefit them,' Moore wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Examiner. 'If we can demonstrate to our next generation the benefits of investing and financial health, we can put them on a path toward prosperity.' The bill would require at least one parent to produce a Social Security number with work authorizations, meaning the U.S. citizen children born to some categories of immigrants would be excluded from the benefit. But unlike other baby bond programs, which generally target disadvantaged groups, this one would be available to families of all incomes. Economist Darrick Hamilton of The New School, who first pitched the idea of baby bonds a quarter-century ago, said the GOP proposal would exacerbate rather than reduce wealth gaps. When he dreamed up baby bonds, he envisioned a program that would be universal but would give children from poor families a larger endowment than their wealthier peers, in an attempt to level the playing field. The money would be handled by the government, not by private firms on Wall Street. 'It is upside down,' Hamilton said. 'It's going to enhance inequality.' Hamilton added that $1,000 — even with interest — would not be enough to make a significant difference for a child living in poverty. A Silicon Valley investor who created the blueprint for the proposal, Brad Gerstner, said in an interview with CNBC last year that the accounts could help address the wealth gap and the loss of faith in capitalism that represent an existential crisis for the U.S. 'The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system,' Gerstner said. 'We're not agentless. We can do something.' The proposal comes as Congressional Republicans and Trump face backlash for proposed cuts to programs that poor families with children rely on, including food assistance and Medicaid. Even some who back the idea of baby bonds are skeptical, noting Trump wants to cut higher education grants and programs that aid young people on the cusp of adulthood — the same age group Trump Accounts are supposed to help. Pending federal legislation would slash Medicaid and food and housing assistance that many families with children rely on. Young adults who grew up in poverty often struggle with covering basics like rent and transportation — expenses that Trump Accounts could not be tapped to cover, said Eve Valdez, an advocate for youth in foster care in southern California. Valdez, a former foster youth, said she was homeless when she turned 18. Accounts for newborn children that cannot be accessed for 18 years mean little to families struggling to meet basic needs today, said Shimica Gaskins of End Child Poverty California. 'Having children have health care, having their families have access to SNAP and food are what we really need ... the country focused on,' Gaskins said. ___ standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A Brown Student Went Full DOGE Over How His $93,000 Tuition Is Spent. The Fallout Was Predictable—and Wrong.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Brown University sophomore Alex Shieh had a good idea. Inspired by Elon Musk's efforts to reduce supposed staffing inefficiencies in the federal government, Shieh wondered if there were a way to quantify and combat an analogous trend at his university. So with the help of A.I. and a number of publicly available databases, he compiled a list of the university's nearly 4,000 non-faculty employees, grouped them by category, and mocked up working job descriptions for each. Then he wrote emails to all of them, asking them to describe their value to the university. Shieh hoped the project would be the basis for a reporting project that would anchor the first few issues of the Brown Spectator, a defunct conservative student newspaper he and two classmates hoped to relaunch. Shieh's project had the erstwhile DOGE chief's fingerprints all over it, but there's one big difference between the two men: Musk will be able to start drawing on Social Security (if, of course, it's still solvent) in under a decade, while Shieh can't yet legally drink. Shieh's idea, even if it did have roots in our raging national culture wars, was quite ambitious, strong work for a young man with less than half of a degree under his belt. The authorities at Brown, however, didn't see it that way. Upon getting wind of the provocative email blast, they launched a conduct-code investigation and accused Shieh and his partners of trademark violations. And although all charges were eventually dropped, the university's intent was clear: They came to bury Shieh, not to praise him. They couldn't have been more wrong to do so. And it's not just Republicans who think so. I've been teaching sophomores for over a decade and a half, and while Shieh's project is certainly undergraduate work, it's of a particularly high caliber. It is timely, relevant, and enterprising, and it asks a pressing research question. Brown shouldn't have met him with disciplinary threats. Instead, the university should have offered him the best resources an elite institution can provide: academic mentorship and access to top-flight faculty research. If I'd had the opportunity to work with Mr. Shieh, I would have begun by praising him for identifying and focusing on a pressing problem for American higher education in a time of rising tuition costs: administrative bloat. According to a report by the Progressive Policy Institute's Paul Weinstein Jr., non-faculty hiring has exploded over the past 50 years, and today, at the nation's top 50 universities, there is on average 1 non-faculty employee for every 4 students. This trend is particularly acute at Brown, where the ratio nears 1 to 3. But then I would challenge this student to reconsider his methodology—and to research whether Musk's approach is advisable. I would remind him that Musk's efforts to trim the fat at Twitter probably contributed to a giant drop in that company's valuation. And I would add that some experts believe that DOGE's cuts to the federal workforce may actually end up costing taxpayers money. (I would also admit that either initiative might bear fruit in the longer term.) I would then leverage the interdisciplinary connections available at a large research institution, sending Shieh to colleagues in the business school to learn about other approaches to considering and enacting substantial layoffs. If Shieh and his partners persisted, I would have sent them to professors in sociology and communications to figure out best practices for designing a survey that didn't inspire one recipient to respond, 'Fuck off.' (His email, which only garnered 20 responses, allegedly included the too-pert question 'What do you do all day?') If he wanted, in good faith, to get results, he should have recognized that he was operating inside a highly polarized, charged environment, sending a survey to adults who pay their bills with these jobs, and modulated his approach accordingly—something the university's many experts in rhetoric could have helped him see. As a onetime writing instructor, I would also advise him that it is misleading to refer to that profane recipient as an 'administrator [at] Brown' in Congressional testimony, when he is really a relatively low-level functionary in the events planning office. And by the way, I would have done all these things not because I agree with Shieh. Indeed, I don't think I do. Rather, I would have supported him because he had a serious academic question and the drive to think it through as part of an ambitious, time-intensive project. The fact that Brown University responded so aggressively only lends ammunition to those on the right who believe—often correctly—that American academia is hostile to conservative viewpoints. (This despite the fact that, as Shieh himself said, 'It's not inherently conservative to want to make education more affordable.') Now, perhaps Brown would have done some of these things had they been given ample notice of Shieh's plans, or if Shieh had registered the Spectator with the university in advance. As it was, it seems they were blindsided, and ended up reacting, rather than acting. So now, instead of boasting about high-profile conservative-leaning student research, they're trying to put out a political firestorm and opening themselves to attack at a moment when Elon Musk's old boss is gunning for the Ivy Leagues.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
6 takeaways from Michelle Bowman's first speech as Fed vice chair
This story was originally published on Banking Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Banking Dive newsletter. Michelle Bowman is a veteran of the Federal Reserve. But the ink on her newest role – the Fed's vice chair for supervision – is still drying. Following her confirmation, she spoke Friday at Georgetown University in her first appearance as the central bank's top cop. Here are six takeaways from her remarks. 1. The Fed's job is not to take the risk out of banking entirely. Banking is not and cannot be devoid of risk, and to drive out such risk 'is at odds with the fundamental nature of the business of banking,' Bowman said. 'Banks must be able to earn a profit and grow while also managing their risks.' 'Adding requirements that impose more costs must be balanced with whether the new requirements make the correct tradeoffs between safety and soundness and enabling banks to serve their customers and run their businesses,' she said. Rather than eliminating risk from the banking system, regulators must be tasked with ensuring banks manage risk effectively, Bowman said. 2. ...or make sure banks don't fail. 'Our goal should not be to prevent banks from failing or even eliminate the risk that they will,' Bowman said. 'Our goal should be to make banks safe to fail, meaning that they can be allowed to fail without threatening to destabilize the rest of the banking system.' 3. Enhancing supervision doesn't necessarily mean more rules; it means tailored rules. 'Supervision focused on material financial risks that threaten a bank's safety and soundness is inherently more effective and efficient,' Bowman said. 'We should be cautious about the temptation to overemphasize or become distracted by relatively less important procedural and documentation shortcomings.' The uniqueness of each bank, in business model and complexity, means that risks are not uniform. In the past, Bowman said, rules meant to enhance safety at the biggest banks have also been unfairly applied to smaller banks. She suggested creating a framework instead for those smaller community banks, which would insulate them from the standards designed for bigger, more complex institutions. 'While I have no objection to a deliberate, intentional policy to apply similar standards to firms with similar characteristics as conditions warrant, the gradual erosion of distinct regulatory and supervisory standards among firms with very different characteristics — essentially the subtle reversal of tailoring over time — is not a reasonable approach for implementing supervision and regulation,' Bowman said. 4. The Fed needs to reconsider some rules it has imposed on banks since the 2007-08 financial crisis. Since Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act almost 15 years ago, rules banks must follow have 'increased dramatically,' Bowman said. And while many were important, a number of these reforms were 'backward looking — responding only to that mortgage crisis — not fully considering the potential future unintended consequences or future states of the world.' Some changes had unintended consequences, she noted, like pushing banking activities into 'less regulated corners of the financial system.' Moving forward, the Fed needs to evaluate these rules on the banking system today, rather than that of the financial crisis-era. Meanwhile, other regulations, some of which haven't been updated in more than two decades, need to be. 'Given the dynamic nature of the banking system and how the economy and banking and financial services industries have evolved over that period, we should update and simplify many of the Board's regulations, including thresholds for applicability and benchmarks,' Bowman said. 5. Ratings need a revamp. Supervisory changes have 'eroded the link between ratings and financial condition,' Bowman said, noting that two-thirds of the nation's biggest financial institutions were rated unsatisfactory in the first half of last year. Yet the majority of these institutions met all supervisory expectations for both capital and liquidity, and they're all still operating. 'This odd mismatch between financial condition and supervisory ratings requires careful review and appropriate revisions to our current approach. Under the current large bank ratings framework, a single component rating can result in a firm being considered not 'well-managed,' which has driven the disparity between well-managed status and financial condition,' she said. The Fed plans to address this mismatch by proposing changes to the Large Financial Institution ratings framework, she said. The changes will be geared toward creating 'a more sensible approach' to determining if a bank is well-managed, and won't disproportionately weigh a single framework component 'for a firm that has demonstrated resilience under a range of conditions and stresses,' she said. 6. Processing delays have not been kind to bank applications, including for M&A. Applications for regulatory approval, such as seeking a de novo charter or approval to merge, need transparency and clear timelines for action, she said. Processing delays must spur a rethinking, Bowman said, of 'whether many of the additional requests for information can be addressed through better application forms or relying on information that is available from bank examinations.' Recommended Reading Bowman nod for Fed supervision czar advances to full Senate Sign in to access your portfolio
