Vivere solo di obbligazioni a 50 anni: 40 anni senza azioni reggono?

Summary

The video tests whether Sergio, a fictional 50-year-old with €1.24 million and €40,000 in annual spending (including rent), could fund 40 years using only bonds. His initial withdrawal rate is about 3.23%. The analysis compares bonds-only portfolios with a rebalanced 60/40 stock–bond portfolio and stresses that results depend on inflation, taxes, the historical period, and the timing of poor returns.

Historical Performance and Withdrawal Risk

• Italian government bonds’ estimated real annual return varied sharply by start date:
  • −1.14% from 1900–2020
  • +2.73% since 1950
  • +3.19% since 1970
  • +5.61% since 1980

The video cautions that the recent 40-year period began around unusually high interest rates and should not be assumed to repeat.

• In Italy, the 1970s inflation shock sharply eroded bond purchasing power: government bonds lost 58.8% in real terms from 1970–1981, including 47.0% during the 1970s. In the US, 10-year government bonds reportedly lost 58.2% in real terms from their January 1941 peak to their September 1981 low. Their prior real value was not regained until August 1986.

• For historical 40-year withdrawal windows, the highest initial inflation-adjusted withdrawal rate that survived the worst window was very low in some countries:

  • Italy: 0.11% for bonds only versus 0.73% for 60/40
  • US: 1.72% for bonds only versus 3.49% for 60/40

The 60/40 portfolio generally performed better, with Italy and Portugal cited as exceptions in certain samples.

• At Sergio’s 3.23% withdrawal rate, historical failure rates were often substantial:

  • Capital was exhausted in 84.4% of bonds-only windows versus 65.6% of 60/40 windows in Italy.
  • In the US, the figures were 55.5% versus 0%.
  • Across the last 40-year windows, the share that could not support Sergio’s gross spending was 77.5% versus 59.5% in Italy, and 55.5% versus 0% in the US.

• A separate study’s 2.31% figure was described as applying to 65-year-old couples across 38 developed countries, with a 5% ruin risk. It is not directly comparable to Sergio’s case: he is 50 and needs a 40-year horizon.

• A simulation that shuffled historical annual returns into 20,000 trajectories used a 5% ruin threshold. The stated gross withdrawal rates were:

  • 1.78% for bonds only
  • 2.21% with 40% stocks
  • 1.95% with 80% stocks

After taxes, the rates were 1.47%, 1.49%, and 1.14%, respectively. The video emphasizes the limitations of short historical records.

Model Assumptions and Strategy Comparison

The illustrative forward-looking calculation assumes 2% inflation, 1.5% real gross returns for bonds, and 4% real gross returns for stocks, implying 3% real gross returns for a 60/40 portfolio. The stock and bond return assumptions are modeling choices, not historical facts. The model also applies the stated October 2026 Italian tax rules.

• With no added shock, the maximum annual spending supported for 40 years is:

  • €36,485 for bonds only
  • €36,113 with 15% high yield
  • €44,387 for a rebalanced 60/40 portfolio

• At €40,000 annual spending, bonds alone last about 35 years, while the 60/40 portfolio lasts about 47 years. In the modeled case, approximately €329,226 remains after 40 years in the 60/40 portfolio. After 20 years, the model shows nearly €600,000 left in bonds only versus more than €935,000 in the 60/40 portfolio.

• Holding late-September 2026 auction rates constant raises the bonds-only maximum annual spending to:

  • €39,178 if held for 10 years
  • €40,036 if held for 14 years
  • €42,439 if held for 40 years

The 40-year rate freeze is explicitly described as an upper limit, not a forecast.

• The central risk is sequence of returns. If a 1970s-style shock begins immediately, the Italian model supports €40,000 spending for 21 years with bonds only versus 14 years with 60/40. If the shock starts later, the 60/40 portfolio may have accumulated more beforehand: with a shock beginning in year 31, modeled capital is €34,178 for bonds only versus €38,687 for 60/40. The video emphasizes that the order of returns matters, not just their average.

• Under the same shock, bonds-only performs better in Italy, where stocks and bonds both suffer, while 60/40 performs better in the US and the 15-country median. The video presents this as a scenario-specific strength of bonds, not a general rule.

Coupons, Taxes, and Inflation

• The late-September 2026 10-year government-bond auction yield is given as 4.58% gross. After 12.5% tax and 0.20% annual stamp duty, the estimated nominal net yield is 3.81%, or 1.78% real at 2% inflation.

• On €1.24 million, the model estimates €42,842 in annual net coupon cash flow (about 3.45%), but that fixed nominal income loses purchasing power. To match €40,000 of today’s spending, the stated amounts are:

  • €44,163 after five years
  • €48,760 after 10 years
  • €59,438 after 20 years

The video’s point is that spending more than the coupon requires selling capital, even if it feels like “living off the coupons.”

• Annual stamp duty is assessed on market value, not yield: 0.20%, or €2,480 a year on €1.24 million. The cited tax rate is 12.5% on government bonds and 26% on corporate bonds and stocks. The video notes that capital losses can be offset through the fourth subsequent year.

• A government-bond coupon of 4.229% gross is stated as necessary to produce 3.5% net before stamp duty. A corporate or high-yield coupon taxed at 26% would need to be 5% under the stated calculation.

• A 4% inflation assumption for the first two years reduces modeled maximum spending to €38,252. The video also gives real-return estimates for the 10-year bond of 0.06% using September European inflation and −0.22% using Italian inflation.

Inflation-Linked Bonds and High Yield

• The 10-year inflation-linked bond at the late-September auction is stated to yield 2.42% real gross, versus 4.58% nominal gross for the conventional bond. The estimated pre-tax break-even inflation rate is 2.11% over 10 years and 2.47% over five years. These are comparisons of auction yields, not inflation forecasts.

• The video says the indexed bond follows a European or Italian inflation index, depending on the issue. Cited limitations include a three-month indexation lag, exclusion of tobacco, market-price fluctuations, a nominal—not purchase-price—floor, and maturities of 5–30 years, shorter than Sergio’s 40-year horizon.

• High-yield bonds carry material default and recovery risk. The video cites an average default figure of 3.88%, a maximum of 11.02% in 1991, and a European average of 2.99% across rating classes, with some rates above 11%.

• In one illustration, a 6.55% gross high-yield yield is reduced by estimated defaults, tax, and stamp duty to 3.28% nominal / 1.26% real. This is below the government bond’s stated 3.81% nominal / 1.78% real. The video concludes that the apparent yield premium can disappear after losses and taxes.

• Across 12 high-yield recovery episodes, six recovered within an average of 8.9 months, while six took at least 23.7 months, averaging 31.8 months. The median was 18 months, but no episode fell near it. Maximum drawdowns cited include −35.0% in US high yield in 2007, −43.5% in Europe in 2000–2002, and roughly −20% in 2020. Withdrawals during a downturn can worsen recovery.

• Preferred shares are excluded from the bond analysis. The video characterizes them as equity, notes that dividends depend on distributable profits, and cites a 26% tax rate.

Methodology and Practical Framework

The video’s comparison framework is to:

1. Set the investment horizon and inflation-adjusted spending need.
2. Compare bonds-only with a rebalanced 60/40 portfolio using historical worst-case windows as well as return assumptions.
3. Test the timing of a severe inflation or return shock rather than relying only on average returns.
4. Include taxes, stamp duty, default losses, and the difference between nominal coupons and real spending power.
5. Recalculate maximum sustainable spending and years covered under different assumptions.

The accompanying spreadsheet is described as allowing users to change capital, spending, horizon, years of held auction rates, and shock assumptions.

Disclosures and Cautions

Sergio is a fictional illustrative case. The video says it is not personalized financial advice, makes no predictions, and reflects an October 2026 snapshot using the tax rules then in effect. It urges viewers to do their own due diligence and consult qualified professionals before making career or portfolio decisions.

Assets and Instruments Mentioned

Italian and US government bonds; 10-year government bonds; inflation-linked government bonds; corporate bonds and high-yield bonds; stocks/equities; rebalanced 60/40 portfolios; preferred shares. No stock tickers are mentioned.

Presenters and Sources

Presenter/channel: Marco FIRE. No other presenter is identified in the subtitles.

Sources are not named in detail. The video refers to historical country-return datasets, a study of 38 developed countries, and an unnamed rating agency. It also references related Marco FIRE videos on coupons, inflation, long-duration bonds, and high yield, plus a free spreadsheet.