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:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Budget time and Labor v Liberal on fiscal discipline

Living within one’s means

Until debt do us part, Act 2

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Too many retirees miss out on this valuable super fund benefit

With 700 Australians retiring every day, retirement income solutions are more important than ever. Why do millions of retirees eligible for a more tax-efficient pension account hold money in accumulation?

Is the fossil fuel narrative simply too convenient?

A fund manager argues it is immoral to deny poor countries access to relatively cheap energy from fossil fuels. Wealthy countries must recognise the transition is a multi-decade challenge and continue to invest.

Reece Birtles on selecting stocks for income in retirement

Equity investing comes with volatility that makes many retirees uncomfortable. A focus on income which is less volatile than share prices, and quality companies delivering robust earnings, offers more reassurance.

Welcome to Firstlinks Election Edition 458

At around 10.30pm on Saturday night, Scott Morrison called Anthony Albanese to concede defeat in the 2022 election. As voting continued the next day, it became likely that Labor would reach the magic number of 76 seats to form a majority government.   

  • 19 May 2022

Is it better to rent or own a home under the age pension?

With 62% of Australians aged 65 and over relying at least partially on the age pension, are they better off owning their home or renting? There is an extra pension asset allowance for those not owning a home.

Keep mandatory super pension drawdowns halved

The Transfer Balance Cap limits the tax concessions available in super pension funds, removing the need for large, compulsory drawdowns. Plus there are no requirements to draw money out of an accumulation fund.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

30 years on, five charts show SMSF progress

On 1 July 1992, the Superannuation Guarantee created mandatory 3% contributions into super for employees. SMSFs were an after-thought but they are now the second-largest segment. How have they changed?

Investment strategies

Anton in 2006 v 2022, it's deja vu (all over again)

What was bothering markets in 2006? Try the end of cheap money, bond yields rising, high energy prices and record high commodity prices feeding inflation. Who says these are 'unprecedented' times? It's 2006 v 2022.

Taxation

Tips and traps: a final check for your tax return this year

The end of the 2022 financial year is fast approaching and there are choices available to ensure you pay the right amount of tax. Watch for some pandemic-related changes worth understanding.

Financial planning

Is it better to rent or own a home under the age pension?

With 62% of Australians aged 65 and over relying at least partially on the age pension, are they better off owning their home or renting? There is an extra pension asset allowance for those not owning a home.

Infrastructure

Listed infrastructure: finding a port in a storm of rising prices

Given the current environment it’s easy to wonder if there are any safe ports in the investment storm. Investments in infrastructure assets show their worth in such times.

Financial planning

Power of attorney: six things you need to know

Whether you are appointing an attorney or have been appointed as an attorney, the full extent of this legal framework should be understood as more people will need to act in this capacity in future.

Interest rates

Rising interest rates and the impact on banks

One of the major questions confronting investors is the portfolio weighting towards Australian banks in an environment of rising rates. Do the recent price falls represent value or are too many bad debts coming?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2022 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. 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.