Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 629

A nation of landlords and fund managers

Viktor Shvets, Global Strategist at Macquarie Group, has a genius theory. It’s not genius for the theory itself but because he’ll be right whatever plays out in markets, and when job security in finance is as fragile as a soccer coach in the English Premier League, then that’s genius at play.

Here’s the theory. Shvets says business cycles are dead, and it’s due to three forces. First is excess capital. Financial assets have grown so much faster than the real economy that they are all that matter – it’s otherwise known as financialisation. He says the value of financial assets around the world is at least 5x greater than the real economy. It’s led to increasing inequality as those holding these assets have benefited, and those who haven’t have been left behind.

Second is government intervention in the economy and markets. Because an unwinding in financial assets would have devastating consequences for the global economy, governments and central banks are incentivised to keep the bubble going with fiscal and monetary stimulus. Yet, this serves to further entrench inequality.

Third is the pace of innovation. It’s created a winners take all economy and the winners will keep winning.

Due to the three forces, Shvets believes everything is a bubble and central banks and governments have every incentive to keep it inflated. That means traditional market measures such as mean reversion in earnings and valuation multiples as well as economic cycles are redundant.

Shvets tempers his views by suggesting that there are echoes of the 1930s in today’s world, and he hints that it may not end well - but we’re not there yet.

The genius of Shvets is that he’ll be right if markets continue to climb higher, and he’ll be right if they take an ugly turn.

While his theories aren’t especially original, especially on financialisation, and I disagree with business cycles being totally dead, Shvets packages his views nicely and they should keep him gainfully employed for some time!

Australia is the prototype for financialisation

You don’t have to go far to see Shvets’ thinking on financialisation playing out. Look at Australia. Here, superannuation and housing dwarf every other asset class and the economy.

Residential housing is now worth $11.7 trillion, superannuation totals $4.3 trillion, while annual GDP amounts to just $2.6 trillion.


Source: Cotality, World Bank, Firstlinks.

In other words, housing is 4.5x larger than annual GDP, and housing and super combined is 6.2x the size of the economy.

That makes them too big to fail. Consider this: if super and housing fell in value by a combined 8%, which is not even a correction in market terms, that would equate to six months’ worth of GDP.  

It’s no wonder everyone in Australia is obsessed with housing. And it’s no wonder why super is a giant in our stock market and broader financial industry.

Extrapolating current growth for super and housing

What happens if super and housing continue on their current growth trajectories? Is it sustainable, and if so, what are the implications for the economy and markets?

To gauge this, let’s do a simple experiment and explore what housing, super, and the economy could look like in 2050, just over 24 years away.

I’ll first assume that housing grows at 7% per annum until then. That’s slightly less than the 7.5% of the past decade, though it’s in line with a lot of people’s expectations that housing should double in price every decade.

With super, there are various consultant forecasts out to the 2040s, and from that I’ve got a good idea of what the size of the sector might be by 2050.

Finally, with GDP, Treasury’s long-term forecasts suggest economic growth of 2.25-2.75%. I’ve taken 2.25% because I think it’s most realistic. And I've also taken the mid-point of the RBA's inflation band of 2.5%, resulting in nominal GDP growth of 4.75% over the period.

With these assumptions, here’s what 2050 looks like:


Source: Firstlinks.

The residential real estate market would grow from $11.7 trillion to $63.5 trillion. The size of super assets would increase to $15 trillion. Meanwhile, annual GDP would jump to $8.3 trillion.

It’d mean housing would become almost 8x the size of annual GDP, up from 4.5x now. And housing and super would be 9.5x the size of the economy.

In this world in 2050, a 13% fall in house prices would equate to a year's worth of GDP.

If you think housing dominates dining table conversations now, wait until 2050!

And what about super? $15 trillion in assets would be an enormous amount of money to invest. Can they continue to outperform benchmarks like now? Consider that the world’s greatest investor, Warren Buffett, is struggling to invest the equivalent of A$539 billion today. Will it mean the super funds allocate more money to passive over active?

Think about what it could mean for the ASX. Super funds are already major shareholders in most large companies. What will happen when they are more than 3x the size of today?

What about the implications for the tax system? Super will surely be taxed more by then. And housing too. Especially if governments continue to lavishly spend other people’s money ie. the taxpayers.

Is it sustainable?

The question is: are my assumptions for future growth correct? That is, are current trends sustainable?

Let’s zoom in on housing. The current median house price is $920,000 across Australia. If prices grow at 7% per annum, the median price by 2050 would be $5 million. For the largest capital city, Sydney, a 7% growth rate would turn the current median house price of $1.52 million into $8.25 million.

Is that realistic? A common measure of housing affordability is the median house price to annual household income ratio. Currently, that stands at roughly 10x – the median house of $920,000 versus median gross household income of $92,000. If I assume the current annual growth in wages of 3.4% persists to 2050, what happens to this ratio? The answer is that it would rise by the current 10x to 23.6x.

It should be no surprise that the ratio jumps that high given that I’ve assumed house prices grow at a rate of about double that of wages over the next 24 years or so.

According to Demographia, no country or city has ever had a ratio as high as 23.6x. Hong Kong got close in 2021 at 23.2x, but that was when interest rates were near 0% and the ratio there has since fallen to 14.4x.

As you might be able to tell, I’m sceptical that housing can grow anywhere near 7% per year over the long term. If prices continue to increase by more than wages, it will just make housing even more unaffordable than it is now.

If house prices were to grow by less than wages, it would mean that housing would shrink in importance versus the economy. It would mean less investment going into housing and more into other areas of the economy - potentially more innovative sectors. That could spur better productivity and growth.

Turning to super, there’s not a lot to stop it in coming decades. Yes, that might be a few market downturns, even bad ones, yet money will still flow in via the super guarantee.

While current debate on super centres on the switch from accumulation to decumulation, and the introduction of the $3 million super tax, attention in future is likely to turn to the size of the sector and what it means for performance. There isn’t nearly enough discussion on this, though I don’t think it’s far away.

*Note the original article contained an error calculating future growth rates for GDP in real rather than nominal terms. It has since been corrected. 

Finally, I'd like to ask a favour of you. Firstlinks has been nomianted for a People’s Choice, Industry Media of the Year award at the Australian Financial Industry Awards. If our insights and reporting have helped your decision-making, please consider voting.

Cast your vote: https://ifpa.com.au/peoples-choice-australian-financial-industry-awards-2025/

 

James Gruber is Editor at Firstlinks.

 

25 Comments
Maurie
September 22, 2025

A lot of recency bias associated with these forecasts. Why will the growth rates in real estate prices over the next 25 years resemble the growth rates for the past 25 years. The huge investment in real estate has coincided with a seismic increase in the borrowing capacity of most Australians due to abnormally low interest rates and lower tax burdens. Neither of those stimuli are likely to continue indefinitely. Once borrowing capacity reaches it zenith then what? - Government incentives to maintain the status quo. What will it take for a Government to renew its policy focus on the productive engine of the economy - maybe a 1991 style recession.

James Gruber
September 22, 2025

Maurie,

Recency bias? I say I'm sceptical those numbers will be hit, and elaborate on why.

Roger Farquhar
September 21, 2025

It's my belief that property prices are driven primarily by the finance industry and therefore supply and demand and/or migration are political distractions. There is a slew of data to support this and the International Journal of Housing Policy is one source.

Graeme Cant
September 22, 2025

Yes. Over a long period of time, residential mortgages have been the most secure form of lending for most lenders. From the highly controlled times of the 40s and early 50s, to today, there has been continuous pressure on governments and regulators to loosen restrictions on amount of lending and conditions since it is the safest way to make money by lending.

Supply and demand are not irrelevant but both are related to availability of finance. So finance is the primary driver.

The sub-prime crisis is a small foretaste of what will probably happen throughout the highly developed world. When will the bubble burst? Who knows.

Trish Power
September 21, 2025

Interesting discussion. Two (obvious) observations but not noted in article - you cannot eat your home, and super is not an asset class. Of course the weight of money in super can influence markets but the sharemarket/listed property/other investments are a lot more transparent than pre-compulsory super, but could still be more transparent. Super funds etc will need to be more innovative to generate returns which means more direct investment in assets such as housing, businesses, infrastructure and also current and future innovative enterprises

RADHEY SHAYAM GUPTA
September 21, 2025

Yes you just can not leave money in super account. You have to invest it, Share market is very fluid and place to invest

Alan
September 21, 2025

So not necessarily an immigration issue…

Mark Hayden
September 19, 2025

The concept of excess capital is good. My thoughts are (a) Spending dictates the size of the economy and savings go into assets. (b) The accumulated savings pool grows as new savings are added, and this increases the demand for assets. (c)The supply of some assets will be slower (related to the economy & spending), and hence prices will rise.
I am interested in any articles covering analysis of the savings pool and asset prices over history.

Dudley
September 19, 2025


Median and average incomes:
https://grattan.edu.au/news/what-do-australians-earn-and-own-grattan-institutes-2025-budget-cheat-sheet-might-surprise-you/

Dudley
September 19, 2025

Housing 'singularity' - when a new mort-gage consumes all household after tax income:

Interest 6%, home price growth 7%, home median 2025 $920,000, income growth 3.4%, average after tax household incom 2025 $98,037:

Google:
solve for X: 1 = (0.06 * ((1 + 0.07) ^ X) * 920000) / ( ((1 + 0.034) ^ X) * 98037)
= X ˜ 16.755
= 2025 + 16.8
= 2042
1 = (0.06 * ((1 + 0.07) ^ X) * 920000) / (((1 + 0.034) ^ X) * 98037)

Dudley
September 20, 2025


Google is flaky.

'1 = (0.06 * ((1 + 0.07) ^ X) * 920000) / (((1 + 0.034) ^ X) * 98037)'
https://www.wolframalpha.com
X = 16.7831

'Singularity':
= 2025 + 16.8
= 2042

Dudley
September 19, 2025


A median home is more affordable to an average income household than to a median income household.

Median home price Aus 2050:
= ((1 + 7%) ^ 25) * 920000
= $4,993,238.03

Median interest only mort-gage payment Aus 2050:
= 6% * 4993238
= $299,594.28 / y

Average after tax household income Aus 2050"
= ((1 + 3.4%) ^ 25) * 98037
= $226,153.59 / y

Median interest only mort-gage payment to average household income 2050:
= 299594 / 226153
= 1.32

Roger
September 19, 2025

Super isn’t an asset class. It’s a mixture of asset classes.

Mark
September 19, 2025

Super is an asset. Classed as an easy milking cow by our (Not mine!) current Labor GOV"T.

Burrow Smorgasboard
September 19, 2025

Thanks James. If super is bound to grow faster than the local economy does that mean the demand for a limited supply of ASX listed companies could increase, leading to higher for longer PE ratios?

James Gruber
September 20, 2025

Burrow,

I think that is a distinct possibility, though it's predicated on many assumptions. We could have a boom in ASX listed companies, as difficult it is to believe right now. It also assumes super continues to invest more in the local market. They are already going more overseas, and into private assets. Maybe the government will forced their hand and invest more directly into businesses to boost business growth?

What we do know is that super has been a powerful tailwind for the ASX for the last 30 years, and is likely to remain so going forward. To what extent is the question I am posing.

James

Andrew Smith
September 19, 2025

Interesting though comparing super with houses is apples & oranges?

Houses are houses, but super is made up of diverse investments onshore am offshore.

On the future of housing, 2014-24 median city house values stagnated (using 7% test) while boomer 'bomb' has started transitioning; mother lode of demographic change (along with silent gens who have been a driver of pop growth through longevity).

Anecdotally, a sea change town south west Victoria for the first time is seeing rental vacancies and empty houses, often neglected, apparently deceased estates and/or moving to city based aged care; for next twenty years?

James Gruber
September 20, 2025

Andrew,

Maybe...

Measuring financial assets, including housing, vs the economy isn't straightforward. If there's a better method, I'm all ears.

James

Nadal
September 18, 2025

"In other words, housing is 4.5x larger than annual GDP, and housing and super combined is 6.2x the size of the economy. That makes them too big to fail."

I'm not sure comparing a stock of money (ie. assets) which accumulates over time, with a flow of money (ie. GDP) in a particular one year period is helpful - unless trying to use a P/E multiple type metric to show overvaluation. An asset value should always be multiples higher than a money flow value.

Cam
September 18, 2025

Your housing growth forecasts, which I expect is pretty similar to the past, says someone owning a home in Sydney will have $2.65m more equity than the average homeowner. Throw in better health outcomes than most places and higher wages meaning higher super balances and that seems a massive equity issue. The concept is higher wages covers the higher mortgage, but the higher wages continue after the mortgage is repaid and the higher super starts from your first job.
People don't leave the capital cities as they have family and friends there. If we want to change that, its at least got to be better financially.

Ben
September 20, 2025

With rising house prices we are seeing a compression of the yields. In inner ring suburbs in our capital city the yield is almost non existent when you consider outgoings like insurance, maintenance and rates. Sooner or later only those on high incomes will be able to invest in residential real estate. House prices will then likely plateau as housing demand will soften.

We have seen something like this in Melbourne already where the introduction of land tax has compressed the yields down enough to discourage residential investment. House prices have not gone up much across middle tier suburbs for about 5 years. Many properties are selling below replacement value. Only now that interest rates have come down have prices in the lower quartile of the market started to move because the yield increased a little due to lower interest rates.

Once regular workers are priced out of the median priced properties then this means there are less buyers for such properties. I also doubt couples will want to mortgage themselves up to the max to own versus rent when the price disparity between a mortgage and rent would be great enough to discourage purchasing. Then there are limits to how much of a person wage they are prepared to pay for rent further putting downward pressure on yields and in turn prices. Paying a big mortgage means sacrificing other things such as holidays, car purchases, private school etc.

Housing has been an incredibly easy investment in Australia for the last 40 years but I doubt it will continue to be as good for Gen Z and the next generation. If I was in my 20's I wouldn't be rushing in trying to purchase a house to live in. Doing so only causes more inequality. Buying a house now at high multiples meaning mortgaging your future earnings and labour to pay out an older homeowner who is probably already wealthy. I think you would be better off keeping your money in your own pocket, rent somewhere affordable and invest in less inflated assets elsewhere.

Aaron Minney
September 18, 2025

James
Great piece on the key drivers of Household wealth in Australia.
I think you might have overstated the 2050 comparisons. Your super and housing projections are nominal, but you seem to be using real GDP. The relativities will still expand but not quite as much.
Assuming 2.5% p.a. price growth puts GCP at around $8.2trn in 2050

James Gruber
September 18, 2025

Thanks Aaron. You are right and I have corrected the text and chart to reflect this.

Best,
James

John
September 18, 2025

Another great article James. A big ask, but why do you think business cycles are still relevant? As alluded to in your article, governments, but more so, central banks, have no interest in any sort of downturn rearing its head and will continue to stimulate despite that aggravating the current situation where we have a surfeit of capital looking for any excuse to be spent despite diminishing returns on that capital.

Geoff
September 19, 2025

The 'tendency of the rate of profit to fall'... sounds vaguely familiar....

 

Leave a Comment:

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Are LICs licked?

LICs are continuing to struggle with large discounts and frustrated investors are wondering whether it’s worth holding onto them. This explains why the next 6-12 months will be make or break for many LICs.

Retirement income expectations hit new highs

Younger Australians think they’ll need $100k a year in retirement - nearly double what current retirees spend. Expectations are rising fast, but are they realistic or just another case of lifestyle inflation?

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 627 with weekend update

This week, I got the news that my mother has dementia. It came shortly after my father received the same diagnosis. This is a meditation on getting old and my regrets in not getting my parents’ affairs in order sooner.

  • 4 September 2025

5 charts every retiree must see…

Retirement can be daunting for Australians facing financial uncertainty. Understand your goals, longevity challenges, inflation impacts, market risks, and components of retirement income with these crucial charts.

Why super returns may be heading lower

Five mega trends point to risks of a more inflation prone and lower growth environment. This, along with rich market valuations, should constrain medium term superannuation returns to around 5% per annum.

Super crosses the retirement Rubicon

Australia's superannuation system faces a 'Rubicon' moment, a turning point where the focus is shifting from accumulation phase to retirement readiness, but unfortunately, many funds are not rising to the challenge.

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

Why I dislike dividend stocks

If you need income then buying dividend stocks makes perfect sense. But if you don’t then it makes little sense because it’s likely to limit building real wealth. Here’s what you should do instead.

Superannuation

Meg on SMSFs: Indexation of Division 296 tax isn't enough

Labor is reviewing the $3 million super tax's most contentious aspects: lack of indexation and the tax on unrealised gains. Those fighting for change shouldn’t just settle for indexation of the threshold.

Shares

Will ASX dividends rise over the next 12 months?

Market forecasts for ASX dividend yields are at a 30-year low amid fears about the economy and the capacity for banks and resource companies to pay higher dividends. This pessimism seems overdone.

Shares

Expensive market valuations may make sense

World share markets seem toppy at first glance, though digging deeper reveals important nuances. While the top 2% of stocks are pricey, they're also growing faster, and the remaining 98% are inexpensive versus history.

Fixed interest

The end of the strong US dollar cycle

The US dollar’s overvaluation, weaker fundamentals, and crowded positioning point to further downside. Diversifying into non-US equities and emerging market debt may offer opportunities for global investors.

Investment strategies

Today’s case for floating rate notes

Market volatility and uncertainty in 2025 prompt the need for a diversified portfolio. Floating Rate Notes offer stability, income, and protection against interest rate risks, making them a valuable investment option.

Strategy

Breaking down recent footy finals by the numbers

In a first, 2025 saw AFL and NRL minor premiers both go out in straight sets. AFL data suggests the pre-finals bye is weakening the stranglehold of top-4 sides more than ever before.

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.