At the end of the 1990s, the pension systems in Sweden and Germany were about the same. National politics had long ignored demographic change.

Critical voices that saw the contribution-financed system on the verge of collapse only gradually asserted themselves.

The consequences of this realization were very different: Sweden relied on a state fund that invested contributions from the statutory pension in the stock market.

Citizens who did not trust the state could also look for a private provider.

In Germany, on the other hand, there was no such national consensus, which was not least due to the intervention of a major tabloid newspaper, which mobilized against a mandatory funded pension that invests in the financial market. Thus, instead of the statutory pension (1st pillar) in the private old-age provision (3rd pillar) an opportunity was created to invest money subsidized by the state.

It wasn't a completely wrong idea, but German safety concerns favored investing in bonds, which have suffered from steadily falling interest rates since the financial crisis.

So Sweden fared better.

What you can see from there above all: The calmness with which interim price losses are reacted to.

Transparency, a good set of rules, but above all competent people in charge and a cool public are a prerequisite for this.