I challenge the basis for the question because the sample matters, and other answers seem to waltz past the basis of the question. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Rephrasing the question as:
What are the negative consequences of employment with a firm that demonstrates stable employment?
This leads to a certain set of answers. However, it also presupposes that a firm with stable employment eliminates a set of possible negatives in the first place and suggests things about the firm with stable employment that may be observably false.
The things that frequently lead to turnover may exist at a firm, even those firms with stable employment. The employees in question may simply not have acted upon those concerns to this point. Simply because a firm is not replacing employees does not mean the firm is a better or worse place to work than another firm that is or is not replacing employees. The fact that no one has left has no bearing on the existence or occurrence of those common indicators for turnover at other firms. At best, this fact is nothing but trivia without more information.
First, consider the size of the sample. A firm consisting of 10-15 developers does not sound anything like a 'typical' big firm. Answers that point to studies, results, experiences, and statistics for a big firm really do not apply. The firm in this question certainly is not oriented around solo/SOHO development, but it is very different from a 50-developer shop, let alone 100 or 1000.
Second, consider the nature of the sample and nature of the firm. The character and behavior is vastly different between firms that provide software and firms that also provide software. In other words, a 'software shop' is different from a shop that also provides software. Expectations and culture will be extremely different when the success of the larger business depends on your unit, or if your unit is merely a foot in the door or icing on the cake (a coup de grace to a larger effort). In a small shop, this distinction is far less clear but no less pervasive than in a large shop. Are you a financial services company that also provides financial software, or are you a software company that provides software for finance? Each would be quite certainly a different kind of place to work, with vastly different objectives.
Third, a firm that is 'more than five years old' can mean quite a few different things. The two main things it could mean are:
Is it barely more than five years old by mere months? If so, then the honeymoon of 3rd party financing hasn't worn off, and few tough decisions have yet to be made. No one has been made uncomfortable, and budget and design decisions have possibly avoided deep scrutiny.
If it was say, seven years old, has a discernible, physical presence (and not just an email address of PO BOX), an accompanying physical product, and frequent face to face customers, then they have dealt with some of the harder issues. They probably have a few assets they own outright and aren't completely leveraged and beholden. In other words, someone along the way made some tougher decisions that probably had a consequence.
Beyond concerns about the sample, there are plenty of reasons for not leaving a firm, which may or may not have anything to do with the job or the company itself. People do not leave jobs because of one reason. They leave jobs because of an accumulation of reasons, and perhaps one overwhelming, 'final', or 'big' reason. In other words, as long as enough things are going right, there may not be enough opportunity for the employees to register typical reasons and that leads them across that threshold of moving on.
So again, let me state that the sample or circumstance matters. A 'shop' with 10 software developers is not a big shop. Things that cause developers to leave big shops that occur with some statistical frequency may not have occurred yet in the small shop, but being small does not preclude or ultimately protect from it.
The following are just a few reasons outside of the typical 'work' issues that can distort how employees may view a workplace and their job:
First, the community or neighborhoods where the employees live, socialize, work, and possibly send kids to school might be hard to beat. Bad or lukewarm experiences in other places may greatly deter moves or job seeking if they fear that lightening will not strike twice.
Closely related, a close proximity of employees to family or acquaintances they grew up with, or hometown, provides easy access to familiarity or positive shared history. We tend to hang on to the things we know, and the things that worked well. A close, inclusive community providing social support can overcome professional shortcomings and negative concerns experienced as a matter of employment. If the employees are close to home (with mom or dad, or brother or sister, or BFFs) then we might expect that professional concerns be kept at greater perspective such that things that would be a big deal anywhere else are not of much concern. In addition, there is underlying financial incentive to stay within close proximity of extended family or in a hometown as holiday and other 'routine' family travel will be easier and less expensive (which allows fun time and fun funds to be precisely purposed to that end).
Second, the volatility of the industry or job market, and recent experience with cumulative instability (former/recent 'job shoppers' by necessity) may deter people from moving on when they would otherwise be motivated to do so. Job-hunting can be a lot of work. Bouncing around from project to project can be interesting, but leave you unfulfilled and without the opportunity to settle down. After a while, the task of packing and unpacking can become more of a strain than things that may have once 'bothered' someone at work.
Third, an employee invested with their employer beyond their immediate employment can keep them around longer than they normally would. The strong influence of an employee's compensation might stem from their firm's profitability and sustainability (eg. stock or options, or stock or options in a partner or parent).
Similarly related, the employee might incur a 'debt' to the firm if they leave because of conditional up front, incentives received, are receiving, or intend to soon receive (eg. signing bonus, retention bonus, loan forgiveness, sponsorship, indirect advantage simply because of affiliation like credit union or club memberships, and so on).
Lastly, the situation of a significant other in either professional or personal terms may have more consequence, and be less flexible than a set of employees in question. If a spouse or the otherwise object of affection is tied to a job that cannot be easily moved (researcher, civil servant, or any other professional), or the conditions of the spouse's employment depends on the stability of the employee in question (sensitive, confidential, otherwise high trust), the employee in question may be extremely reluctant to move jobs.
Again these are simply a few reasons why the demonstration of 'stable employment' in a small 'shop' who also provides software might be particularly misleading, especially when compared to a larger shop, or a 'software shop'.