Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 603

The ASX is full of old, stodgy, low-growth companies

Most of America’s largest companies grew explosively from small minnows into global giants in just a couple of decades or so. In Australia, this small-cap to large-cap experience is relatively rare. Our stock market has been dominated by the same old low-growth giants for more than a century.

Here are Australia’s 20 largest listed companies (as at start of 2025) – showing the year of their formation (filled circles) and stock exchange listing (hollow circles). Most of them are from the horse and buggy era.

Only one company is from the current century – Fortescue (the company was actually listed in 1987 as Lake Raeside NL, but Andrew Forrest took over the tiny shell in 2003, changed its name to Fortescue Metals, and embarked on his grand iron ore adventure, so I credit its ‘formation’ as 2003).

Macquarie Bank is a re-named and spun off branch of London parent company Hill Samual, originally formed in 1832 in the same banking boom that spawned the three forerunners of ANZ, which were also formed and headquartered in London.

Only four are from the computer era, but only one of those – Wisetech – is actually a computer era business. Fortescue digs rocks, Goodman builds and manages warehouses, and Transurban builds and operates toll-roads. Nothing wrong with that, but hardly high-tech or globally scalable.

The rest are mostly from the first half of the last century or relics from the century before that.

Now let’s take a look at the same picture for the largest 20 listed companies in the US. Most are the product of the modern computer age. In fact, these are the companies that created, shaped, and defined the modern global computer age:

Here is how they shape up:

Mature (aging, decaying), low-growth dinosaurs

In Australia, eight of the largest 10 companies, and 14 of the largest 20, are more than 100 years old.

They potter along, relying on domestic population growth as their main source of growth. They entrench their dominant positions by gobbling up younger, innovative challengers, and use their oligopoly pricing power to extract profits by punishing suppliers and crushing remaining competitors.

For a bit of excitement (and ‘free’ overseas trips for execs and directors), nearly all of these Aussie giants have embarked on grand, ego-boosting overseas adventures from time to time, with almost universally disastrous results, so they inevitably retreated back home to Australia. The only rare exceptions to this overseas failure rule have been Macquarie, Aristocrat, Brambles, and CSL (although the jury is out on Vifor, its largest overseas adventure).

To have survived from the horse and buggy era to today, they have stood the test of time, through world wars, economic depressions, inflation spikes, deflation, enormous upheavals in global trade patterns, geo-political shifts, local political crises, countless recessions and boom/bust cycles along the way.

Long-term survival through all of these changes and crises required fairly conservative, unimaginative management most of the time, low or moderate debt levels, not ‘betting the house’ on rash projects or expansion plans, and more than a little political lobbying to protect their cozy domestic positions.

Founders’ vision and drive

Unlike the centuries-old Aussie dinosaurs, most of the US giants are still largely driven by their founders’ vision and drive. seven out of largest 10, and 10 out of largest 20 US companies are still founder-led, or their founders still have sizable/influential stakes.

In Australia it is just one out of the largest 10 (Goodman), and three out of the largest 20 (Goodman, Fortescue, Wisetech).

In the Aussie dinosaurs, the CEOs are hired help with no skin in the game (they are gifted truckloads of free shares and options, they did not sell their houses and put up everything they own). Then they are given just five years (at best) before they are turned over, so there is no time or patience for long-term visions or plans.

Their boards are stacked full of well-meaning accountants, lawyers, and other independent directors where ‘governance’ rules deliberately prevent them from having any actual experience or interest in the company, suppliers, customers, or competitors.

‘Founder problem’ -v- ‘Agency problem’

We have a few examples of the ‘founder problem’ – (eg Wisetech, MinRes, FMG), because visionary, laser-focused founders are often mad, flawed geniuses. That usually comes with the territory.

But we have a much larger ‘agency problem’ – where the lack of visionary, driven founders results in a situation where short-term, manager-CEOs and independent boards with no deep knowledge and no real skin in the game are not aligned with the interests of the owners of the business.

Personally, I would back a diversified bunch of visionary founders with real skin in the game and everything they own at stake, over decaying dinosaur companies with short-term, visionless, ridiculously over-paid, revolving-door, manager-CEOs, supervised by well-meaning but ineffective, ‘professional’ directors who sit on the boards of half a dozen companies from unrelated industries, with deep expertise in none.

What about returns?

The remarkable thing is that the overall stock markets in Australia and the US have delivered almost exactly the same overall returns to shareholders over the past century – total returns averaging 6.5% per year above inflation in each market. See: Australia v US share markets – it’s our turn next!

In Australia it has been the same dominant banks and miners for the past 100+ years (with a fair bit of consolidation within both industries culminating in the companies we see today).

However, in the US it has been a continual process of innovation, change, and renewal. Some of the leaders of a hundred years ago are still around today but are relatively small now (eg General Electric, US Steel) and/or have been chopped up (eg. Standard Oil, and the Baby Bells). In between, there has been a succession of RCAs, Fords, GMs, Kodaks, DuPonts, Hewlett-Packards, Dells, and IBMs, etc that have grown, dominated, but then been overtaken and replaced by the next wave of newer, better ideas and companies within a few decades.

Returns on equity, re-investing for growth

In this endless process of innovation, growth, and renewal, the US market has delivered double the average returns on shareholders’ equity than the Australian listed company market. In the US market, aggregate returns on equity have averaged 14% pa this century, and is currently running at 17%. That is well above the cost of equity capital (around 10%), so they have created value for their owners.

Returns on equity for the Australian market have averaged just 8% pa this century, and is currently running at 7%, less than half that of the US market. This should be a national scandal. Any company that has a return on equity consistently below its cost of equity is destroying value and should simply be closed down and the money handed back to shareholders.

Earnings per share growth comes from investing in the future. US companies, on average, retain more than 50% of their profits to invest for future growth (and buying back shares, which reduces the number of shares and boosts earnings per share), but Australian companies retain less than one third for growth, and pay out the rest in dividends. 

The next 100 years?

If we were to fast-forward one hundred years into the future – I reckon many or most of today’s ASX top 10 will probably still be in the top 10 in 100 years’ time (just as they were 100 years ago).

But I reckon it’s a pretty sure bet that the US top 10 companies will look completely different to the current set, not just in the next 100 years, but probably in just 20 years. Then change again in the 20 years after that, then change again in the 20 years after that.

The current US top 10 will probably be overtaken by a whole new set of global leaders, just as the Apples, Microsofts, Nvidias, Amazons, Googles, Facebooks, and Teslas of today grew rapidly from small caps into global giants by replacing the previous incumbents that dominated only a couple of decades before them.

I would rather invest in innovation, growth, and renewal any day. Bring on the future and let’s see!

 

Ashley Owen, CFA is Founder and Principal of OwenAnalytics. Ashley is a well-known Australian market commentator with over 40 years’ experience. This article is for general information purposes only and does not consider the circumstances of any individual. You can subscribe to OwenAnalytics Newsletter here. Original article is here: Australia – land of horse & buggy era dinosaur companies. Where is the innovation, growth, renewal?.

 

30 Comments
Shawn burns
March 23, 2025

Companies wealth creation are a function of earnings growth, duration and the extent of profitability. the main difference between the US stocks mentioned and the Australian stocks is the US stocks have a question mark over duration ie short product cycles, while the Aussie stocks generally lack growth, assess that against how they are priced. Oh they have returned about the same? Markets are not try hat inefficient

BeenThereB4
March 23, 2025

Old saying
Some people use statistics as a drunk uses a lamp-post ... for Support rather than Illumination

Kevin
March 23, 2025

There is a story / myth who knows. Perhaps a great grandson of 1 of the original farmers.His name is still on a farm in the wheatbelt. The farmers co op that had gone bust 2 or 3 times before, they thought we need more capitalisation .So 25000 shares at £1 each in 1914. 10 shillings down and then 5 shillings 6 months later,and 5 shillings 6 months after that .Westralian farmers co op was born.Just as today,nobody would buy them so it was undersubscribed and left to a few well of farmers to take up the shortfall.

I don't know how many shares the farmer bought so to make up a number 100 shares @ £100 for the lot. Perhaps he has been using the dividend reinvestment plan part of the time I don't know. Now he/ they have 1.5 million shares in WES and 1.5 million shares in Coles as the spin out was 1 for 1.

So $70 for WES and $19 for Coles,everything is rounded down so anywhere between say $130 million and $160 million worth of shares.Not bad at all,if only we knew how many shares the original order was..

When they had a briefing for 40 years as a listed company a $1,000 dollar purchase in 1984 reinvesting all dividends etc was worth around $1.25 million.Which converted to around 12,000 shares in WES on the date given .They had spent the whole period of 40 years compounding @ 19.odd %.

Today as then nobody buys Wesfarmers shares.Take away the people that own less than 1000 shares ( 390,000 people) and you are left with 100,000 people owning more than 1,000 shares.. The first AGM I went to ( 1997 ?) was full of farmers with very few suits,the opposite to today.I still try to keep the roots going,I cycle in,lock the bike up and turn up like a tramp . One of the farmers said you're new here,I'll give a tip.Never ever sell any of your shares in Wesfarmers. Took me perhaps 10 years to think what wonderful advice that was,then came the Coles purchase and the GFC and 2 capital raisings .

I like that long term stability and compounding.Hopefully they are there in 2114 to celebrate 200 years,it could be terrifying how much they are worth then. Probably very few people will own them then,and it will be 200 years of "you can't do that"

Kevin
March 23, 2025

Pulled out the info. WES compounded @ 19.2 % so $1.125 million. I knew there was a 25 in it .The joys of getting older and carrying numbers around in your head.
The share price on 30/6/24 was slightly less than $65,so you had anywhere between 17,000 and 17,500 shares roughly.

Accumulation index compounded @ 10.5% over that period so $1,000 grows to ~ $54,000 ( minus fees).. You only need to pick one winner in your lifetime and understand compounding..This will never happen but if WES compounded at 19% for 100 years then your $1,000 compounds to ~ $36 billion.

Probabilities,the patience to wait,then see how wrong you were. Don't listen to the noise and the constant "you can't do that".

There will be some terrifying crashes over that long period,hold your nerve.

ashley owen
March 24, 2025

Yes WES was certainly a fine investment from the very earliest days for co-op part-owners. As a listed stock since 1984 its best days were the first 15 years up to 2000. But the growth engine has stalled for the past couple of decades - mainly due the huge distractions and losses from the Coles + Bunnings UK misadventures. Earnings and Divs per share have been flat since the pre-GFC peak. EPS is now barely above 2007 EPS (225cps now -v- 218c in 2006). DPS is now just 198cps -v- 225cps in 2007 (both pre-Coles). Sure, the share price has risen nicely - but that has been purely from PER expansion (from PER of 19 at end of 2007, up to 33 now), and dividend yield compression (from 6% at end of 2007 to less than 3% today. It is priced like a growth stock but the earnings and dividend engine have been flat for 15+ years. Ditto the big-4 banks. cheers, ao

Kevin
March 25, 2025

Yea Ashley. I got three of them early enough, CBA,WES and Macbank.For WES it would be something like that, $50 before Coles and 10 or so years later $50 before/ during getting rid of Coles.Questions asked at the AGM,why get rid of Coles. The answer ,Coles takes up 60% ( ish) of the time and work of the board, to produce 30% of the profit,too time consuming .You'll get 1 share in Coles for every share in WES.That turned out reasonable. It is slowing down but those early years,yes you're right.

CBA could flatline for the rest of my life and the dividends would still fund retirement.That long run in excellence and then a huge jump in share price for no apparent reason.I expect it to slow down,quickly or slowly I don't know.Probably the quick side of slowly.

Macbank is let them get on with it now I think..Very volatile and most of profit coming from the USA,and seemingly determined to further expand around the world.Will it work great or be a disaster,who knows. They seem to have slowed down after an explosive first 10 years,but it wasn't hard to work out that first 10 years wasn't going to carry on for a long time. A few % above average for a long time is perfect,get 13 to 15% for a TSR for 3 or 4 decades and it is what colour would SIR like the Rolls Royce in. Sorry I'm thinking more along the lines of those carbon fibre bikes that weigh around 10 grams.

Pete Latham
March 23, 2025

I first purchased WES via the old Franked Income Fund (FIF) which was the income distributing side of WES pre 1999. It was then assimilated into WES. One of the great things about WES (for me) is that like a lot of other companies at the time of the Financial crisis in 2008/9, it needed to raise funds by offering a share purchase plan on a pro rata basis. But WES also allowed and accepted over subscriptions and having just received a redundancy, I decided to take the chance and put in for more at the princely sum of $12.00. Needless to say I am more than happy with the capital appreciation and the dividends received since then. There is a place in any balance portfolio for the Wesfarmers to sit comfortably alongside the Wisetechs, Pro Medicus and the Telix’s.

Ian Nettle
March 23, 2025

I very much enjoyed your story. Thankyou. I have had similar lessons. In my case my grandfather. He used to buy me Bank NSW (Westpac) shares from time to time instead of toys. Pointed out to the young me that my parents bought toys and it wasn't his job. Took this advice into CRA/Rio who my father worked for. Sine every dividend into DRP or an on market purchase for Rio. Always regarded as my rainy day money. Now sizeable holdings.

Also counselled my daughter to keep it going after my demise.

ashley owen
March 25, 2025

hi ian, I too am very long bank shares. Bought in early 1990s - very low cost bases - so I can't sell - locked in by the CGT if I sell. Div yields + franking credits are very high, but I accept that growth peaked a decade ago. Still, I will only live another decade (if I'm lucky) so it I guess that will do!
cheers
ao

Dudley
March 23, 2025

"I cycle in,lock the bike up and turn up like a tramp":
Good thing about being content with being a tramp is small income requirement, potentially large saving ratio, and never being destitute - with sufficient retirement capital.

WES from 1990:
https://www.marketindex.com.au/asx/wes/advanced-chart

WES current share price:
= $70.84

Share price Indexed to 100; not adjusted for tax or inflation:
1990/Jul/02 $100.00
2025/Mar/03 $2,964.90
= (2964.90 / 100) ^ (1 / (2025 - 1990)) - 1
= 10.2% / y

Share price Indexed to 100, ADJ for reinvestment, splits, ...; not adjusted for tax or inflation:
1990/Jul/02 $100
2025/Mar/03 $16,756.42
= (16756.42 / 10) ^ (1 / (2025 - 1990)) - 1
= 23.6%

"Probably very few people will own them then,and it will be 200 years of "you can't do that"":
If Wesfarmers did that again then each share:
= 70.84 * (1 + 23.6%) ^ 200
= $179,462,082,511,093,000,000
Compared to inflation:
= 70.84 * (1 + 3%) ^ 200
= $26,165

I think many are betting, 'you can't do that again'.

Dudley
March 23, 2025

Err;

Share price Indexed to 100, ADJ for reinvestment, splits, ...; not adjusted for tax or inflation:
1990/Jul/02 $100
2025/Mar/03 $16,756.42
= (16756.42 / 100) ^ (1 / (2025 - 1990)) - 1
= 15.8%

"Probably very few people will own them then,and it will be 200 years of "you can't do that"":
If Wesfarmers did that again then each share:
= 70.84 * (1 + 15.8%) ^ 200
= $390,832,284,140,488
Compared to inflation:
= 70.84 * (1 + 3%) ^ 200
= $26,165

I think many are betting, 'you can't do that again'.

SMSF Trustee
March 22, 2025

So? Only one example is needed to debunk the premise that a company that's survived a hundred years is automatically dead wood.
CBA.
Do you honestly see banking in 2025 being done the same way as it was done in 1925? What about netbank? What about the Commbank App? What about the myriad of loan options that people can take up if borrowing from CBA? What about the brand new cashless withdrawal mechanism at ATM's that they've been letting customers know about this week?

CBA is a thoroughly contemporary, leading edge company. That perhaps is why it's survived for over 100 years.

The premise of this article is flawed.

Kevin
March 22, 2025

He didn't say that He said the opposite to that.100 years ago top 10 companies were much the same.In 100 years time top 10 companies much the same.

The US changes every 20 years,it probably does,it doesn't matter.I picked a concentrated portfolio for fun and wondered why Buffett didn't own them ,Wal mart, Bank of America, McDonalds, Johnson and Johnson,Kellogs and Heinz.. That was 2000 we'll say. 4 of that 6 I expect to be there in 100 years.I don't expect Heinz and Kellogs to be there. Every day of that 100 years I would be expecting well over 95% of people to repeat "you can't do that"

SMSF Trustee
March 22, 2025

The title of the article calls CBA old, stodgy and low growth. It's plain wrong.

James Gruber
March 22, 2025

Hi Warren,

Thanks for your comments.

It's my title, not Ashley's. Though I think it's reflective of the article.

It suggests the many of the ASX large caps are old, stodgy companies. Not all of them, but many of them.

Ashley doesn't specifically mention CBA so I'm not sure where he thinks it sits.

James

Bryan
March 21, 2025

The numbers tell the story. In one country, risk taking and entrepreneurship are applauded, capitalism rules and competition thrives. In the other, the economy is over-regulated, socialism is dominant and a small market is dominated by a few "competitors" in all key areas of the economy.

Graeme
March 21, 2025

How about comparing the overall returns to shareholders from the top 20 Aus companies to that from the top 20 USA companies?

Kevin
March 21, 2025

It all depends on how far you want to take self delusion. If you couldn't pick 2 banks in Australia in 1991, CBA and NAB when they were $6 each then you couldn't pick 2 companies in the USA at whatever price they were then Berkshire and Wal mart .

If you couldn't work out that compounding that price would now give you a share price of ~ $51 ( @ 6.5%) then you couldn't do that for BRK and WMT either .

If you spent that entire time saying "you can't do that" you would have done exactly the same for BRK and WMT.

If you can't work out what the total return is for CBA and NAB is by reinvesting the dividends then you can't do that for BRK and WMT either .

If you can't calculate what an expected return for those companies would be after 40 years then ?

When you get it wrong see how you got it roughly right,how far wrong were you,a plus or a minus on the expected figure .

After 40 years of the simple and the obvious ( calculate $6 @ 6.5 for 40 years) you probably shouldn't be investing. On the 31/12/ 2031 you'll know exactly how wrong were by looking at the share price of CBA and NAB.
Then throw the calculations in the bin. The share price changes the next trading day.There is nothing complicated about investing. Work out probabilities for yourself and see how wrong you were after a few decades

Dudley
March 21, 2025

"work out what the total return is for CBA and NAB is by reinvesting the dividends":
What is your method and answer? Also after tax and inflation?

Kevin
March 21, 2025

He gave you the information you need,and his opinion
The simple maths for CBA and NAB for 100years @6.5% is the price grows from $6 a share to anywhere between $3,000 and $3,500 per share .Get it roughly right then work out how far wrong you were ,well your grandchildren will be working out how far wrong you were if they do nothing..

TSR if you reinvested all the dividends,use 14 years as a time period to double your shareholding Double it 7 times to get it roughly right 1 2 4 8. 16 32 64 128.

128,000 shares in each of them @ $3,000 each.Note it and ask your grandchildren to follow it after 100 years of doing nothing.See how wrong you were.

I think both of those companies will be there in 2091. Ask Ashley if he thinks the same. If he doesn't you have 2 different opinions.Which opinion do you agree with?

Dudley
March 22, 2025

"CBA and NAB for 100years @6.5% is the price grows from $6 a share" ... "14 years as a time period to double your shareholding":
= log(2) / log(1 + 6.5%)
= 11.0 y

Allowing for 30% tax [ ignoring capital gains discount ... ] doubling time:
= log(2) / log(1 + (1 - 30%) * 6.5%)
= 15.6 y

My opinion: cast bread upon waters; after many days it may return soggy and useless or many loaves and fishes or something between. No knowing what.

A chance to spoil grandchildren by taking away the motivation to take risk when young; impecunity.

Dudley
March 22, 2025

"The simple maths for CBA and NAB for 100years @6.5% is the price grows from $6 a share to anywhere between $3,000 and $3,500 per share":

Should have stopped there, assuming initial 1,000 shares for initial invested $6,000 shareholder value after 100 years at 6.5% growth / y:
= 6000 * (1 + 6.5%) ^ 100
= $3,259,208

"TSR if you reinvested all the dividends,use 14 years as a time period to double your shareholding Double it 7 times to get it roughly right 1 2 4 8. 16 32 64 128."

"128,000 shares in each of them @ $3,000 each.":

The shareholder value by that calculation is:
= 128000 * 3,000
= $384,000,000

That is compounded number of shares multiplied by compounded share price.
'Doubled doubling.'

The shareholder value after 100 years with shareholder return rate of 6.5% is:
= 6000 * (1 + 6.5%) ^ 100
= 3,259,208

Dane
March 20, 2025

But..but..franked dividends..

Disgruntled
March 22, 2025

If you want income, you'll invest in income paying stock.

Some of those stocks have dividend reinvestment options if you wish to go down that path.

If you don't want dividends, look for growth stocks. People's investment choices and outcomes sort differ.

Do what's best for you.

I'm looking to retire soon and will be using dividends to fund it. I don't want to work much longer, I have the capital base to fund retirement.

I don't wish to continue growing my wealth by keeping working and investing, reinvesting earnings.

My view, we are dead too long to keep working until we die.

Derek
March 20, 2025

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a highly selective analysis of the companies on the S&P?

Yes, many of the top 10 or 20 are new, fast growing, and founder led. But how many similar companies have crashed and burned along the way??

If the virtues of these companies are extolled, then to be objective it's necessary to stack beside them the litany of failures they grew up with and are no longer around.

Perhaps this is why the overall returns if the ASX are the same as US markets. Slow and steady is not a losing strategy.

ashley owen
March 24, 2025

hi Derek - no 'selection' going on. Those were the largest 20 in the S&P500 in early Jan this year when I wrote the story.
But one of the points in my original story was that the current US leaders will probably disappear and/or be replaced by a new set of leaders in 10-20-30 years' time. Innovation, competition, creative destruction, etc.
cheers,

Steve
March 20, 2025

The hard to follow bit is the same returns over a very long period. How can that be? As a first guess, what if we factored in exchange rates? I understand the aussie dollar (or pound) was worth alot more (against the US dollar) 100 or 75 years ago (I did a quick google search but its not that quick or easy!). So we may deliver similar headline percentage returns but someone who invested $1000 USD in a "nominal" index of each market 100 years ago would have many more USD in the US index fund than the AUD index fund.

James Gruber
March 20, 2025

Steve,

I agree on the hard to follow bit. I suspect currency isn't the answer, though happy to be proved wrong.

Perhaps more to do with Australia's development over the past 100 years into a modern economy, and banks and miners have played a big part in that. And they may not have been as stodgy 30, 50, or 100 years ago!

Guessing the Aussie market may have been cheap in 1900 after the 1890s depression too, but generally valuation differentials matter less when measured over very long periods.

Am sure Ashley may be able to come up with some better answers!

Steve
March 23, 2025

Did another search, found the website below. 100 years ago (March 1925) one USD bought 0.21 Australian pounds, so nearly $5USD to the Au pound. As one pound converted to $2 AUD, the exchange rate in AUD would be about $2.40 USD. It is now closer to 0.6, so over 100 years the exchange rate has wiped off nearly 75% of the returns for someone in the US who invested in Australia. Or someone who invested in the US with aussie pounds 100 years ago has quadrupled the nominal return when converted back to aussie dollars today. So I would argue exchange rate is a non-trivial factor in assessing overall returns. The returns are definitely not the same.

https://canvasresources-prod.le.unimelb.edu.au/projects/CURRENCY_CALC/

Kevin
March 20, 2025

Ashley is that not the whole idea of investing,keep it simple.Get an above average return for a long period of time .The world is full of pantomime mathematicians,never made a mistake and never made anything as the old saying goes.Huge egos.

Boards of directors I would agree,some of them you just shake your head .A flawed mad genius,,they didn't get rich by $ cost averaging into a well diversified portfolio,it is unlikely you ever will .A Fortescue AGM is like no other AGM. A Wesfarmers AGM is the same,for the opposite reason to an FMG meeting .They choose the right people and they stay long term.

Being there since the days of the horse and buggy is a strength,not a weakness.Decade after decade of "you can't do that",and what happened over those decades.I'm still waiting for concentration risk and sequencing risk to happen. What did the Bessembinder study find ,not quite the Pareto principle but 4% ( ?) of the companies produce 80% ( ?) of the returns.Those companies have been there since the days of the horse and buggy.To win the race you have to survive the race.
Westpac,a 1% variation over that long period of time 7% means from $200 to $150 million .An 8% return means just under $1 billion. The pantomime mathematicians will be rushing to the scene of the emergency now,you must get it precisely wrong .

Those 4 banks being there in 100 years time,it seems ridiculous,I wouldn't be betting against it though.Anytime I think the tide is going out I can sell. The returns will be astonishing.Do nothing and I don't have to constantly look for the next bright shiny thing. Wal Mart as a company,what a return over a long period of time.Probably still there in 100 years,but as with all companies demographics could be a big problem in the future. Not a bad article though,something to think about.I just have a different opinion.

Yee ha,bike time,far better and more healthy than look for next bright shiny thing time.I'll be the healthiest looking bloke in the graveyard

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Has passive investing killed small caps?

Australian large caps outperform small caps over long term

The case for and against US stock market exceptionalism

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

16 ASX stocks to buy and hold forever, updated

This time last year, I highlighted 16 ASX stocks that investors could own indefinitely. One year on, I look at whether there should be any changes to the list of stocks as well as which companies are worth buying now. 

UniSuper’s boss flags a potential correction ahead

The CIO of Australia’s fourth largest super fund by assets, John Pearce, suggests the odds favour a flat year for markets, with the possibility of a correction of 10% or more. However, he’ll use any dip as a buying opportunity.

2025-26 super thresholds – key changes and implications

The ABS recently released figures which are used to determine key superannuation rates and thresholds that will apply from 1 July 2025. This outlines the rates and thresholds that are changing and those that aren’t.  

Is Gen X ready for retirement?

With the arrival of the new year, the first members of ‘Generation X’ turned 60, marking the start of the MTV generation’s collective journey towards retirement. Are Gen Xers and our retirement system ready for the transition?

Why the $5.4 trillion wealth transfer is a generational tragedy

The intergenerational wealth transfer, largely driven by a housing boom, exacerbates economic inequality, stifles productivity, and impedes social mobility. Solutions lie in addressing the housing problem, not taxing wealth.

What Warren Buffett isn’t saying speaks volumes

Warren Buffett's annual shareholder letter has been fixture for avid investors for decades. In his latest letter, Buffett is reticent on many key topics, but his actions rather than words are sending clear signals to investors.

Latest Updates

Investing

Finding the best income-yielding assets

With fixed term deposit rates declining and bank hybrids being phased out, what are the best options for investors seeking income? This goes through the choices, and the opportunities and risks involved.

Shares

What history reveals about market corrections and crashes

The S&P 500's recent correction raises concerns about a bear market. History shows corrections are driven by high rates, unemployment, or global shocks, and that there's reason for optimism for nervous investors today. 

Shares

The ASX is full of old, stodgy, low-growth companies

Eight of the ASX's top 10 stocks are more than a hundred years old, while in the US there's just one. It points to our market being filled with low-growth dinosaurs compared to the US where innovation and renewal rule.

Retirement

Time to review the family home's exemption from Age Pension test

Improving housing mobility in Australia is crucial for enhancing both individual well-being and the economy. Potential reforms include ensuring greater rental security and incentivising downsizing among older homeowners.

Superannuation

Death benefits from super don't need to be this complicated

This may surprise you, but a person's super balance does not automatically form part of their estate. A simple change could bring greater certainty to Australians, quicker payouts for families, and lower super fees.

Economy

The RBA deserves kudos for a job well done

Over the past few years, the Reserve Bank of Australia has been subjected to a blizzard of criticism. Yet, despite its flaws, it may just have engineered that rarest of beasts: the fabled soft economic landing.

Investing

Asia deserves a closer look from investors

As part of their global exposure, Australian investors typically allocate most to Developed Markets equities, and a smaller portion to Emerging Markets. This looks at the latter position and whether there might be a better way.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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.