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.

 


 

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

Pros and cons of Labor's home batteries scheme

Labor has announced a $2.3 billion Cheaper Home Batteries Program, aimed at slashing the cost of home batteries. The goal is to turbocharge battery uptake, though practical difficulties may prevent that happening.

Howard Marks: the investing game has changed

The famed investor says the rapid switch from globalisation to trade wars is the biggest upheaval in the investing environment since World War Two. And a new world requires a different investment approach.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 606 with weekend update

The boss of Australia’s fourth largest super fund by assets, UniSuper’s John Pearce, says Trump has declared an economic war and he’ll be reducing his US stock exposure over time. Should you follow suit?

  • 10 April 2025

4 ways to take advantage of the market turmoil

Every crisis throws up opportunities. Here are ideas to capitalise on this one, including ‘overbalancing’ your portfolio in stocks, buying heavily discounted LICs, and cherry picking bombed out sectors like oil and gas.

An enlightened dividend path

While many chase high yields, true investment power lies in companies that steadily grow dividends. This strategy, rooted in patience and discipline, quietly compounds wealth and anchors investors through market turbulence.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

Getting rich vs staying rich

Strategies to get rich versus stay rich are markedly different. Here is a look at the five main ways to get rich, including through work, business, investing and luck, as well as those that preserve wealth.

Investment strategies

Does dividend investing make sense?

Dividend investing offers steady income and behavioral benefits, but its effectiveness depends on goals, market conditions, and fundamentals - especially in retirement, where it may limit full use of savings.

Economics

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

Strategy

Ageing in spurts

Fascinating initial studies suggest that while we age continuously in years, our bodies age, not at a uniform rate, but in spurts at around ages 44 and 60.

Interviews

Platinum's new international funds boss shifts gears

Portfolio Manager Ted Alexander outlines the changes that he's made to Platinum's International Fund portfolio since taking charge in March, while staying true to its contrarian, value-focused roots.

Investment strategies

Four ways to capitalise on a forgotten investing megatrend

The Trump administration has not killed the multi-decade investment opportunity in decarbonisation. These four industries in particular face a step-change in demand and could reward long-term investors.

Strategy

How the election polls got it so wrong

The recent federal election outcome has puzzled many, with Labor's significant win despite a modest primary vote share. Preference flows played a crucial role, highlighting the complexity of forecasting electoral results.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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.