While British babies are cooing happily in their cots about the government's promised birthday present, parents are reaching for calculators and scratching their heads over investment strategies and real term returns.
The government's proposal to give babies lump sum cash gifts is a highly unusual way of encouraging savings.
Normally, savings incentives are based on tax-free benefits, probably because giving people a lump sum of money creates a host of investment dilemmas.
The baby's windfall in later life could vary significantly in value depending on the parent's choice of investment.
And the government itself is still chewing over a number of different ways of implementing its baby bonus scheme.
Doing the sums
The first option that the government is considering is to give each baby in lower income families £500 at birth, and an extra £100 at their fifth, eleventh and sixteenth birthdays - a total of £800.
Taking inflation into account that would be worth about £2,000, assuming a real return of 7%.
If the parents plumped for a safer strategy, real term savings in a building society would yield £1,200.
Another investment option under consideration is that the lump sum is invested in a mix of cash, bonds and shares in order to spread the risk.
The government proposes that the savings are administered through a fund manager, and that parents will receive advice from an independent expert to help clarify strategies.
More affluent families would receive half of the amount - a £250 lump sum and three £50 top ups later on.
A pound for a pound
The second option that the government is considering works on the "something for something" theory where the government rewards savings efforts.
During a three-year period, the government could match savings pound for pound in a tax-free scheme.
After the three years are up, the money could be transferred to a further savings scheme such as an Individual Savings Account (Isa).
More headaches
The economics of investment is not the only potential headache looming on the horizon.
The whole thing could turn into an organisational nightmare for the government.
Suggested areas for spending includes university fees, a deposit for a house or starting a new business.
But the government has already admitted that trying to implement this sort of control would be very difficult.
"Not fair"
Some parents are also bracing themselves to hear the familiar refrain of "that's not fair".
Families with one child now and one on the way could find themselves left in the tricky situation of having a savings account for one child but not the other.
"That could be a real problem," said Caroline Johnston a mother of one, hoping for more.
Nevertheless, the Johnston family warmed to the plan, saying that it would encourage savings from themselves and the wider family.
"If you ever have £500 cash available, there's a temptation to go and buy something needed like a pushchair rather than to save it," said proud father Paul.
But although welcomed as a good idea, the suspicions are already creeping in that the baby give-away could herald future government cuts on student grants or child welfare.