InvestSMART

Wealth effect: baby boomers lead the way in nation's return to saving

Capital gains is no longer the wealth creator it was prior to the GFC.
By · 1 Aug 2011
By ·
1 Aug 2011
comments Comments
Capital gains is no longer the wealth creator it was prior to the GFC.

BACK in the early noughties, when the property market was booming, a lot of baby boomers began contemplating their future and realising they hadn't saved nearly enough to allow them to continue in retirement the privileged lives they'd always enjoyed. They decided they'd have to start saving big time.

So what did they do? Went out and bought a negatively geared investment property, of course. Their notion of saving was to borrow to the hilt, then sit back and wait for the capital gains to roll in.

If you're wondering why the retailers are doing it tough at present, don't blame it all on the mug punters' conviction that Armageddon starts on July 1 with the carbon tax. Part of the explanation rests with the baby boomers learning the hard way that saving actually requires discipline.

Glenn Stevens, governor of the Reserve Bank, has reminded us of the way real consumer spending per person grew significantly faster than household disposable income for the decade to 2005. Over the period our rate of household savings steadily declined until we were actually dissaving.

And this from a nation that hitherto had saved quite a high proportion of income. Why the change? Well, Stevens is no doubt right to explain it primarily in terms of our return to low inflation and low nominal interest rates, combined with a deregulated banking system now more than eager to lend for housing.

But there has to be more to it. For most of the decade in question we fought each other for the best house in the block, forcing house prices up and up. At much the same time, the sharemarket was rising strongly as we and the rest of the developed world enjoyed the boom that ended so abruptly with the GFC.

Over the 35 years to 1995, the nation's real private wealth per person grew at the rate of 2.6 per cent a year, pretty much in line with the growth in real gross domestic production per person. Over 10 years to 2005, real household assets grew 6.7 per cent a year per person.

So what gave us the confidence during this period to let our consumer spending rip and stop saving any of our household income? One almighty "wealth effect". Capital gain was king. Everywhere we turned we could see ourselves getting wealthier, year after year. The value of our homes rising inexorably, the value of our super swelling nicely. With all that going for us, who needed to save the old-fashioned way? No wonder negative gearing was so popular. As Stevens says, that period of debt-fuelled wealth accumulation had to end sometime.

We would come to terms with the new world of lower nominal interest rates and readily available credit, loading ourselves up with as much debt as we needed (or a bit more) and calling it a day.

The recovery in household saving began well before the global financial crisis. Even so, there's no reason to doubt the crisis did much to accelerate our return to rates of household saving 11.5 per cent at last count not seen since the 1980s. For one thing, it reversed the wealth effect.

In principle, the behaviour of people of all ages should be affected by the knowledge of what's happening to the market value of their wealth. In practice, however, you'd expect it to have the greatest effect on those approaching retirement the baby boomers or even the already retired.

Consider it from their perspective. In the months leading up to and during the global financial crisis of late 2008 they saw it smash the sharemarket and take a huge bite out of their super. The market has recovered a fair bit since then, but it hasn't regained its earlier peak and could hardly be said to be booming. As for house prices, the boom is long gone and prices are, in market parlance, "flat to down". There's no reason to believe they'll be taking off again any time soon.

Many boomers have responded to this marked change in their prospects by postponing their retirement. A survey regularly asks workers over 45 when they expected to retire. In 2009, almost 60 per cent were expecting to retire at 65 or later, up from 50 per cent two years earlier.

With little prospect of much in the way of capital gains, it's a safe bet the baby boomers are leading the way in the nation's return to a higher rate of saving.

Google News
Follow us on Google News
Go to Google News, then click "Follow" button to add us.
Share this article and show your support
Free Membership
Free Membership
InvestSMART
InvestSMART
Keep on reading more articles from InvestSMART. See more articles
Join the conversation
Join the conversation...
There are comments posted so far. Join the conversation, please login or Sign up.

Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…

Many baby boomers saw the capital gains that powered retirement plans before the GFC evaporate — sharemarkets fell and house prices went "flat to down" — so they started saving more, postponing retirement and cutting back on spending. The article says boomers, facing smaller capital gains and hit super balances, have driven a nation-wide shift back to higher household saving.

The "wealth effect" refers to people spending more because rising home and share values made them feel richer. During the boom years, capital gains encouraged consumers to borrow and spend rather than save. The GFC reversed that effect, removing the confidence that came from rising asset values and prompting higher rates of household saving.

During the property boom, many investors — especially baby boomers — bought negatively geared investment properties and borrowed heavily. Low inflation, low nominal interest rates and a deregulated banking system eager to lend made debt-fuelled accumulation attractive, reducing traditional saving.

The recovery in household saving began before the GFC, but the crisis accelerated the move back to saving. The GFC hit sharemarkets and super balances and reversed the wealth effect, encouraging households to rebuild savings rather than rely on capital gains.

Glenn Stevens noted that real consumer spending per person grew much faster than household disposable income up to 2005, which led to a steady decline in the household saving rate and even dissaving. He ties that behaviour to low interest rates and easy access to housing credit during the boom.

According to the article, household saving has returned to around 11.5% "at last count," a level not seen since the 1980s, reflecting a significant shift away from the low-saving, debt-fuelled decade before the GFC.

The article cites a survey of workers over 45 showing that in 2009 nearly 60% expected to retire at 65 or later, up from 50% two years earlier — evidence that many boomers are postponing retirement in response to weaker capital gains and market setbacks.

The article suggests capital gains are no longer the reliable wealth creator they once were, so everyday investors should recognise the need for disciplined saving rather than assuming asset prices will keep rising. That mindset change is part of the broader recovery in household saving led by baby boomers.