Recs

8

Picture of the Day: More Babies, Please.

The U.S. government isn't often called upon to weigh in on the question of how many babies are made. But a new report from the National Center for Health Statistics does sound an alarm about the frequency with which Americans are reproducing.

Citing a 2.9% drop in the national rate of baby-making in 2009, the NCHS warned last week that if this keeps up much longer, we're going to have some pretty big problems down the road. Just take a look at the statistics below:

anImage

What's the reason for the declining national birthrate? Two words: The economy.

See the year this trouble began? In 2007, the year the housing market collapsed. It's no coincidence that fewer people made babies around the same time their economic futures turned uncertain. According to John Hopkins sociology professor Andrew Cherlin, about 20% of U.S. women didn't have children at all during the Great Depression, and here in the Great Recession, it's starting to look like deja vu. When people see their futures as less than bright, they're loath to bring new lives into a world turned gloomy.

And while Professor Cherlin assures us that things will perk back up just as soon as they do out on the factory floor, that may not be soon enough to suit everyone.

What's it mean to investors?
A declining birthrate can mean many things to many people. A threat to the stability of Social Security. An argument in favor of relaxing immigration laws. For shareholders, though, it means added risk to their investments.

All other things being equal, 3%-ish annual declines in the birthrate probably equate to a 3% drag on earnings growth at Natus Medical (Nasdaq: BABY  ) , purveyor of equipment for testing the health of newborns. More diversified in their products, disposable diaper companies Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG  ) and Kimberly-Clark (NYSE: KMB  ) will also feel the pinch. Automakers like Ford (NYSE: F  ) , which lean heavily on sales to multichild families to fuel their profits, could find themselves selling more econoboxes and fewer SUVs and minivans.

Then again, all things rarely are equal. As husbands receive pink slips and wives stay in the workforce to ensure a steady paycheck, sales at infant formula purveyor Mead Johnson Nutrition (NYSE: MJN  ) could buck the trend -- and the prevailing wisdom -- and actually rise. Conversely, companies that clothe our nation's toddlers -- Carter's (NYSE: CRI  ) and Gymboree (Nasdaq: GYMB  ) -- could get hit with a double whammy: Fewer sales to clothe new infants; and for those who are born, more hand-me-downs, as cash-strapped parents pinch pennies.

Foolish takeaway
Sorry for killing the mood on last week's market rally, Fools, but that's the way I see it.

Now it's your turn. Take the Foolish Rorschach test. Do you see something different in today's chart? Tell us about it below.

The Steve Jobs Betrayal
You may already know that in the final year of his life, Jobs revealed a stunning betrayal — and told his biographer, "I will spend my last dying breath... and every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong." What was it that made Jobs so irate — and why could it make a few in-the-know investors some major profits over the coming months and years?

Enter your email address below to find out what made Jobs so enraged!

Fool contributor Rich Smith does not own shares of any company named above. Rich is not a licensed economist, but he plays one on the Web. Check out his latest stock recommendations on Motley Fool CAPS. The Fool has a disclosure policy.

Ford Motor is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor selection. Natus Medical is a Motley Fool Hidden Gems recommendation. Kimberly-Clark and Procter & Gamble are Motley Fool Income Investor choices. The Fool owns shares of and has written covered calls on Procter & Gamble. True to its name, The Motley Fool is made up of a motley assortment of writers and analysts, each with a unique perspective; sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree, but we all believe in the power of learning from each other through our Foolish community.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On September 07, 2010, at 4:20 PM, outoffocus wrote:

    Lets not forget that children are expensive. Arguably much more expensive now than they were in the Great depression. The amounts people pay for daycare are astronomical.

  • Report this Comment On September 07, 2010, at 6:14 PM, Luctor wrote:

    As soon as there is a minuscule sign of declining birthrates or falling population, out come the doom predictors. Everybody knows the world is overpopulated, but with the exception of China there isn't a country that dares to signal that enough is too much. Dick Smith Australia is offering big bickies for a population policy. It does the Motley Fool no credit to go around with shut ears, eyes and mind.

  • Report this Comment On September 07, 2010, at 7:28 PM, DDHv wrote:

    The world may be overpopulated, but in many countries, the current birth rate is below replacement. The US was just above replacement rate before this started. You need to look at countries one at a time, just as in investing, you look at each company by itself.

  • Report this Comment On September 08, 2010, at 12:13 PM, TMFDitty wrote:

    @Luctor: "as soon as" does not really jibe with a trend two years running.

    Nor would I call a 5% cumulative drop in the birthrate "miniscule." That's a pretty big drop, actually.

    @DDHv: Exactly right. In particular, Europe has a serious replacement rate problem on its hands. Also, Japan and China are aging.

    TMFDitty

  • Report this Comment On September 10, 2010, at 2:20 AM, commercenary wrote:

    How about this, from a macro- perspective: fewer babies means fewer people to invest in the stock market. Could this cause a general drag on stock prices overall, such as the major stock indices, a la baby-boomers withdrawing their retirement investments?

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1292963, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/26/2012 2:26:55 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 5 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,454.83 -74.92 -0.60%
S&P 500 1,317.82 -2.86 -0.22%
NASD 2,837.53 -1.85 -0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/25/2012 4:00 PM
KMB $79.46 Up +0.25 +0.32%
Kimberly-Clark Cor… CAPS Rating: *****
MJN $83.02 Up +0.83 +1.01%
Mead Johnson Nutri… CAPS Rating: **
PG $62.49 Down -0.08 -0.13%
The Procter & Gamb… CAPS Rating: *****
GYMB.DL $0.00 Down +0.00 +0.00%
The Gymboree Corp CAPS Rating: **
BABY $11.22 Up +0.02 +0.18%
Natus Medical, Inc… CAPS Rating: *****
CRI $54.64 Up +1.67 +3.15%
Carter's, Inc. CAPS Rating: ****
F $10.60 Up +0.01 +0.09%
Ford CAPS Rating: ****

Advertisement