Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 15

Federal Government budgets and their impact on the stockmarket

While the media coverage surrounding the budget is full of facts, figures and opinions, much of the debate is clouded by political rhetoric and misinformation. Issues like whether deficits are good or bad for the country as a whole and for present and future tax-payers – and indeed what the money is actually spent on (ie productive assets or welfare, etc) - are important questions for another day.

This paper is about facts, not opinion or judgment, and puts the current budget into context and considers what budget deficits mean for investors. In particular:

  • how often have governments produced budget surpluses?
  • how do Labor and Liberal governments compare when it comes to deficits and debt?
  • how serious are the current levels of deficit and debt?
  • have government deficits been good or bad for stockmarkets?

History of Federal Government surpluses, deficits and debt

Our first chart shows the history of federal government fiscal balances and debt levels since Federation, and it also shows the various governments in power. Labor governments are shown in pink and ‘right leaning’ governments in blue.

The top section shows the annual government balance (surplus or deficit) expressed as a percentage of GDP (June years). We can see that governments have run surpluses (green bars in the top section) in only a very small minority of years.

Chart 2 shows that Labor governments have achieved government surpluses in only 18% of all years they have been in power, while right-leaning governments have done marginally better, with surpluses in 26% of years in power.

Chart 3 shows that on average Labor budget balances have been worse than right-leaning governments (ie Labor has tended to run larger deficits). Even if we just look at the post-war era the differences are still significant, and probably reflect the philosophical differences between the major parties over the role of government in the economy.

Changes in government fiscal balances

More important than the actual level of government fiscal balance from year to year is the change in the balance. This is the case for a couple of reasons. The first is that every government inherits the budget position from the last government and so it has more control over changes in government spending and revenues than it has over the levels of spending and revenues themselves.

The second reason is that it is the change in balance rather than the level that reflects the incumbent government’s fiscal stance and its effects on the economy. For example, if a government goes from a deficit of $40 billion in one year to a deficit of ‘only’ $10 billion in the next year, the $30 billion in lower spending and/or higher taxes in the second year represents a substantial tightening of fiscal policy even though the deficit in the second year appears expansionary if viewed in isolation.

Chart 4 shows that left wing governments have a slightly better record of reducing deficits over the whole period and also in the post-war period, although in most cases it was reducing their own deficits, since Labor governments ran larger deficits overall.

Deficits and stockmarket returns

But what does all of this mean for investors?

Chart 5 shows the annual federal government balance plotted against real total returns from shares (ie including re-invested dividends and after CPI inflation) since 1946. Years are ending in June to line up with the fiscal years. Labor government years are shown in red and right leaning government years are shown in blue.

There has been a mildly negative correlation between the government balance and stock market returns. Most of the high return years from shares were government deficit years (top left section), including 2011 and 2013.

Deficits are generally good for shareholders and surpluses are generally bad for shareholders. In the post-war era the median real total return from shares was 10.8% pa in the deficit years but only 2.4% pa in the surplus years, which is a very significant difference, as shown in Chart 6.

There are two main reasons for this. The first is that deficits come about by governments spending more money (and/or taxing less), and much of the additional cash ends up in company coffers, either directly via contracting to government, or indirectly via household spending. The second is timing. Deficits tend to be high in mid-late recessions (when tax revenues are down and welfare spending is up), and this is when shares generally do best, rebounding out of the middle of recessions. This was the case in 1954, 1972, 1983, 1992 and 2010, (and in the pre-war years: 1922, 1923 and 1932).

There have been very few years when government surpluses accompanied poor returns from shares (bottom right section in Chart 5). The most obvious instance was 2008, when tax revenues from the boom were still rolling in but shares were already falling in the GFC. However the differences are not as significant as the stark differences in returns in deficit years versus surplus years.

Some conclusions 

This paper adds some factual context to the current highly-charged debate and we can draw some conclusions:

  • government deficit years have generally been good years for stock market returns. 2013-4 will be a deficit year, as was 2012-3
  • years of fiscal tightening have been a little better for stock market returns than years of fiscal loosening. 2013-4 will probably be a year of fiscal tightening (as was 2012-3)
  • in the post-war era, Labor has produced four surplus years against the Liberal’s eleven
  • today’s level of government debt is much lower than it was in the two World Wars and in the 1930s depression
  • the current interest burden (at less than 1% of GDP and around 3-4% of tax receipts) is no higher now than it was in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s
  • the pre-WW1 period was a golden era of balanced budgets and no Canberra!


Ashley Owen is Joint Chief Executive Officer of Philo Capital Advisers and a director of Third Link Investment Managers.



Leave a Comment:



Budget time and Labor v Liberal on fiscal discipline

Living within one’s means

Until debt do us part, Act 2


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Latest Updates


The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.


RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.


4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.


Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.


Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.


Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

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. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.