Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 64

Impact of deficits and surpluses on stock market returns

In Part 1, we looked at the record of Labor versus Liberal governments in running surpluses or deficits. Both sides have run very few government surpluses during their respective years since Federation.

In Part 2, we looked at the record of Labor versus Liberal governments in running up (and occasionally paying off) government debt. We saw that the current level of Commonwealth government debt (relative to national income) is modest, and is lower than almost any other time since World War 1. It is also lower than almost all other countries today.

Part 3 looks at what government deficits mean for share markets.

As investors we are not concerned here with debates about whether deficits are inherently good or bad, nor about inter-generational equity between current and future taxpayers, etc. We are primarily interested in the returns from shares in different fiscal conditions.

Chart 1 shows the annual Federal government balance plotted against real total returns from shares (including re-invested dividends and after CPI inflation). These are for years ending in June so they line up with the government’s fiscal years. Labor government years are shown in red and right-leaning government years (including Liberal) are shown in blue.

Chart 1: Federal government surplus/deficit versus real total returns from shares since Federation

Clearly the war-time years at the left of the chart dominate the overall picture, with very large deficits but also good stock market returns in most years (although returns during World War 2 were somewhat affected by war-time limits on share price movements). World War 2 was particularly good for business in Australia, despite the government’s measures to control prices and limit profiteering. Chart 2 shows the same story but for post-war years only.

Chart 2: Federal government surplus/deficit -v- real total returns from shares post 1946

Deficits are good for stock markets

There has been a mildly negative correlation or inverse relationship between government balances and stock market returns. Most of the high return years from shares were government deficit years (top left section). This includes 2011 and 2013 and the likely result in 2014 (remember all years are June years in this paper).

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. This is shown in Chart 3.

Chart 3: Real returns from shares -v- Government surplus/deficit - post-1946

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 the government, or indirectly via household spending.

The second reason is one of 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).

Tax revenues and welfare payments tend to lag economic activity, both on the way into recessions and in the recoveries on the way out. On the other hand, stock markets tend to lead economic activity. As a result of these leads and lags, stock markets tend to do well in government deficit years, and tend to do poorly in government surplus years.

There have been very few years when government surpluses accompanied negative returns from shares (bottom right section). The most obvious instance was 2008, when tax revenues from the boom were still rolling in but shares were already falling in the GFC.

Some conclusions

History provides useful lessons, and some conclusions are:

  • Government deficit years have generally been good years for stock market returns. 2013-2014 will be a big deficit year and shares are heading for another good year to June 2014.
  • Government surpluses have generally been bad for shareholders, with significantly lower returns from shares compared to returns in deficit years.
  • The differences in returns between surplus and deficit years have been large and significant, regardless of which side of politics was in power at the time.

 

Ashley Owen is Joint CEO of Philo Capital Advisers and a director and adviser to the Third Link Growth Fund.

 

  •   30 May 2014
  •      
  •   

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Budget time and Labor v Liberal on fiscal discipline

Federal Budget 2022: A “magic election pudding”

Living within one’s means

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Why spending more in early retirement can improve lifetime income

Conventional wisdom encourages retirees to preserve superannuation. But if those likely to qualify for the Age Pension later in life spend a little more today, it may deliver higher lifetime income and a more stable retirement.

Will you run out of money in retirement?

Fear of running out has become a defining retirement anxiety. Why do some retirees die with substantial wealth while others deplete their nest egg? Evidence suggests the answer is more complicated than we think. 

The investment that sidesteps the new tax traps

Tax rules have changed, but many investors are still using yesterday’s strategies. Insurance bonds may offer advantages for those seeking greater control, tax efficiency and certainty about their wealth.

Testamentary trusts have secured the CGT exemption

Treasury’s latest CGT reform draft delivers a win for testamentary trusts and deceased estates, exempting estate-derived gains from the 30% floor. However, questions on death and divorce rollovers remain unresolved.

Meg on SMSFs: What do we think about reversionary pensions these days?

Reversionary pensions have long been a staple of SMSF estate planning, but are they still the best option? Meg Heffron revisits a once-clear favourite and asks whether changing super rules have shifted the balance.

How does the 4% rule stack up?

The 4% rule has long been retirement's gold standard. But after a difficult period for investors, fresh analysis suggests a more conservative approach may significantly improve the chances of making savings last.

Latest Updates

Planning

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

The fight over testamentary trusts looked settled. Then the draft legislation arrived. Hidden in a technical detail is a question that could force many families to rethink wills they thought were already future-proof.

Investment strategies

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

Investors have long accepted one portfolio rule without much question. A major tax shift could change that calculation entirely, forcing difficult trade-offs between risk, discipline and an overlooked cost lurking beneath.

Economy

Population growth masks Australia’s productivity problem

For years, investors have benefited from a seemingly reliable growth story. But recent national accounts raise uncomfortable questions about what has really been driving Australia’s economy and whether that can continue unchecked.

Investment strategies

Why tomorrow’s winners may not be today’s index leaders

The stocks that built retirement balances over the past decade now dominate many portfolios. The new challenge is whether these companies can continue meeting the increasingly high expectations embedded in today's share prices.

Investing

What earnings surprises reveal about future returns

Sometimes the most important information in an earnings result isn't the number itself. It's the possibility that the market's assumptions have been fundamentally wrong and future earnings may look very different.

SMSF strategies

Individual SMSF Trusteeship directly liable for ATO fines

A rarely discussed detail buried in SMSF structures could dramatically change who wears the cost when something goes wrong. With penalties rising, a decision many dismissed as administrative may deserve a second look.

Investment strategies

The currency bet you didn’t know you made

Buying global shares means making two bets: on the companies and on the Australian dollar. Most investors consciously choose only the first. Last financial year, the second bet cost 8.5% in returns for many investors.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 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. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. 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.