Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 352

Demographic change at the worst possible time

The view of many investors is that the latest market developments related to the COVID-19 outbreak are a temporary downturn in a 10-year secular bull market, similar to those previously seen in 2016 and 2011. Their main argument is that loose monetary policy, including low interest rates alongside accommodative monetary policy such as QE, will continue to serve as the main market driver.

Governments are bailing out everything

During the bull market of the 1950s and early 1960s, the Federal Reserve followed a ‘lean against the wind’ monetary policy that ultimately lead to the Great Inflation. Too-loose monetary policy had a dramatic impact on the economy and the level of inflation. Policy makers at the Fed misjudged how hot the economy could run without increasing inflation pressures and when CPI started to rise, monetary response was too slow. Oil and food price rises only exacerbated the issue.

In 2020, the global economy is facing a much more difficult challenge that may lead to similar consequences if not controlled: stagflation. In the coronavirus era, state emergency and the double shock on supply and demand are likely to depress growth sharply, thus increasing risk of recession. Governments are ready to do ‘whatever it takes’ to mitigate the crisis. We are moving from ‘bailout the banks’ in 2008 to ‘bailout SMEs and anything else’ in 2020.

The huge fiscal stimulus that is coming is likely to increase inflationary pressures in months to come. Contrary to common thinking, at Saxo we doubt that the coronavirus is a temporary market shock. We think that the COVID-19, along with another underestimated factor, demographics, will precipitate the end of the secular bull market.

Demographics drive markets

In our view, demographics are the ultimate indicator of how the economy and the market will evolve decades in advance. In 2011, a research paper released by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco entitled ‘Boomer Retirement: Headwinds for U.S. Equity’ pointed out the strong link between stock market performance and the US population’s age distribution. Using data from 1954 through 2019, it found that booming population explained about 61% of the variation of the P/E ratio over the sample period.

In the post-war period, a phenomenal increase in the population generated record levels of income, great wealth, higher consumption and increased economic activity. At the same time, groundbreaking innovations increased productivity and created new industrial clusters. The combination of booming population and industrial innovations were key factors behind the bull market.

Now, the booming population is the missing piece that may put a definitive end to the secular bull market. The baby boomer generation — which represents more than 76 million people in the US alone — is transitioning out of the workforce and drawing down on its retirement funds. This may structurally depress equity valuations in the coming years.

There are not enough buyers in front of them to compensate when they eventually sell. The younger population, whose size is shrinking, is for the first time on record less optimistic than the oldest generation. This will have a direct impact on money behaviour and favour saving rather than investing, despite low interest rates.

Even if they want to invest on the stock market, millennials cannot. The everyday consumer has never really recovered from the last recession and inequality is increasing, at least in the US, which does not draw a bright outlook for spending in the future. We can already observe the same exact situation in the US real estate market. Baby boomers are offloading their huge rural properties, but millennials cannot afford to buy them. Demographics will disrupt not only the stock market — they’ll disrupt the financial sector as a whole.

Retirement of the baby boomers happens at the worst time ever for the stock market, when other structural factors are already affecting the macroeconomic outlook. Loose monetary policy, for example, has dramatically increased debt-to-GDP ratios — which are now at unsustainable levels globally — and diverted capital from productive investment. The amount of debt in the system, especially in the private sector, is dragging down productivity and the economy overall.

The system that prevails, which is centred on central banks providing unconditional liquidity, is inefficient and has not been able to foster the emergence of decisive disruptive innovations. We are reaching the limits of this system, with spreads on high yields reaching crisis-levels on the back of the COVID-19 outbreak.

 

Christopher Dembik is Head of Macro Analysis at Saxo Bank. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any investor.

 

  •   8 April 2020
  • 6
  •      
  •   
6 Comments
PS
April 08, 2020

Is the virus part of Natural Selection and will its favouring of "Oldies" change the demographic?

Greg Nunn
April 09, 2020

What do we do with our capital then, Christopher?

Kevin
April 10, 2020

I seem to recall an author with a Dad has been predicting this for around 15 years.

Millennials cannot invest in the stock market,why?

Looking at annual reports the shareholder breakdown says that baby boomers didn't invest in stock markets either. Less than 1% of the population own 1000 to 5000 shares in every company that I own,they all have them in their super funds though.

I don't plough through figures endlessly but my understanding is with dividends coming in and super contributions the contribution rate is still higher than the drawdown rate,I could be wrong on that though .

AlanB
April 10, 2020

The more interesting question for a demographer is whether stay at home self-isolation prevails over social distancing and in nine months time we see a baby boom. We'll all know what they did during their confinement.

Susan Roberts
April 11, 2020

Most of the younger generation that I know are very interested in investing in the markets but they do it in a different way via new online platforms where they can invest in small increments with very low brokerage costs.

Martin
April 15, 2020

I disagree that "millenials cannot invest in the stock market, even if they want to." Thanks to the Internet, it is now infinitely easier to invest than previously, not to mention the abundance of readily available information (for free) at one's fingertips. I would argue that for these reasons, among others, financial literacy and self-responsibility will continue to increase.

And since you mention that (quite rightly) that millenials cannot afford to buy property, they are in fact more likely to seek other avenues to improve their future wealth prospects (i.e. the sharemarket).

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

How super funds can better help with retirement planning

Why Australia’s roaring population growth won’t last

Population and ageing nonsense … again

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Are you making these SMSF mistakes?

After four decades advising investors, there are a few common mistakes I've seen SMSF investors make. From holding too much cash and chasing yield to overtrading and trusting tips. Are these errors costing you?

Why have Australian living standards 'fallen' and how do we fix it?

For the last few years there has been much talk of a 'cost-of-living' crisis in Australia and of 'falling living standards'. Lately this has flared up again with the pickup in inflation resulting in a renewed fall in real wages.

Retirement spending is not one-size-fits-all

New data challenges the idea that Australians are underspending their super. The bigger issue may be helping retirees navigate complexity, make confident decisions and use their savings to support security, wellbeing and choice.

Will you run out of money in retirement?

Fear of running out has become a defining retirement anxiety. Why do some retirees die with substantial wealth while others deplete their nest egg? Evidence suggests the answer is more complicated than we think. 

Four options for an income investor’s next dollar

What if Australia’s golden age of dividends is ending? Rather than overhaul your portfolio, it may be worth considering where new capital can work harder. I discuss four income strategies and the trade-offs behind each.

The missing link in the CGT debate

A little-noticed consequence of Labor’s tax changes could have implications well beyond investors’ tax bills. The issue raises bigger questions about incentives, capital allocation and the drivers of long-term economic growth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: What do we think about reversionary pensions these days?

Reversionary pensions have long been a staple of SMSF estate planning, but are they still the best option? Meg Heffron revisits a once-clear favourite and asks whether changing super rules have shifted the balance.

The ageing ‘crisis’ has not and will not happen

Rising age dependency is frequently treated as a warning sign for economies. But when actual workforce participation is examined, a strikingly different picture emerges about ageing, productivity and economic sustainability.

Retirement

How does the 4% rule stack up?

The 4% rule has long been retirement's gold standard. But after a difficult period for investors, fresh analysis suggests a more conservative approach may significantly improve the chances of making savings last.

Shares

Four charts that expose market concentration risk

Investors have recently been rewarded for backing market leaders, but history suggests this eventually comes at a cost. Now may be the time to review whether your portfolio is carrying unintended risks beneath the surface.

Investment strategies

The case for gearing beyond property

Most Australians gear into property but ignore shares. That may be a mistake. Used carefully, geared equity strategies can enhance long-term returns, reduce cash tied up in growth assets and support retirement income goals.

Economy

Australia's $1 trillion debt pile

The headlines exclaiming that Australian government debt has hit A$1 trillion and US government debt has hit $40 trillion has turned heads, but how serious are they really? Will Australia's mix of debt create challenges?

Economy

Has 100 years of growth made us any happier?

For decades, GDP has been the benchmark for economic success, but has it made us materially happier? If happiness does not rise in lockstep with prosperity, are we overlooking what constitutes a successful society?

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.