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

Testamentary trusts post-budget: Estate planning, tax reform and the ‘death tax’ debate

Proposed Budget changes to taxation are casting new uncertainty over testamentary trusts, prompting closer scrutiny of estate planning structures and the real implications of reforms still taking shape.

How to minimise tax with a will

Inheritance tax implications in Australia may surprise some, as poor estate planning without proper wills or trusts can lead to costly tax bills and delays for beneficiaries.

High quality businesses are on sale

Beneath the dominance of the ASX's largest stocks, much of the market has been left behind. High-quality companies are now trading at levels rarely seen, offering opportunities for investors willing to look deeper.

Meg on SMSFs: The CGT changes don’t impact super but what about Div 296 tax decisions?

New CGT rules could tip the scales in the super vs non-super debate. For those facing the Division 296 tax, the case for withdrawing has gotten more complex. A "comparison rate" tool may help assess decisions.

The strange effect of the 30% minimum capital gains tax

The 30% minimum tax on capital gains sits at the heart of the budget's proposed reforms. Yet the mechanics reveal anomalies that introduce unexpected distortions that raise questions about its design.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 667 with weekend update

The downfall of the giant and three lessons for investors.

  • 18 June 2026

Latest Updates

Latest from Morningstar

Ranking three common retirement strategies

The defining challenge of retirement isn't just about building wealth, it's about converting your lifetime savings into sustainable income. A holistic understanding of different strategies can improve long-term outcomes.

Economy

Was life really better in the good old days?

Are we worse off than previous generations? Lately, there seems to be a heightened level of angst that economic conditions are getting harder and that the two-party political system (and maybe democracy too) is failing voters.

Retirement

Australia has saved $4.5 trillion for retirement. Here's what matters more

Most Australians approaching retirement can tell you the exact dollar value of their super account. But success depends on more than a sizeable balance. Here's four key questions to ask yourself at the start of the financial year. 

Who gains in an AI-supercharged economy?

AI is already reshaping the economy, but companies building transformative technologies rarely capture the greatest long-term value. Instead, those benefits accrue to the users. We may well see this pattern reproduced. 

Taxation

Div 296's million-dollar reset worth $25,000

The 'cost base reset' for the new super tax is being sold as protection for pre-July gains. A worked example shows $1M of protection is worth about $25,000, and the real deadline has not passed.

Latest from Morningstar

The forecasting fix that Wall Street missed

Asking whether markets are overpriced may be the wrong question. New research suggests that traditional valuation metrics used to forecast returns may have been misread. Here are five takeaways for investors.

Investment strategies

Should a fund manager invest their own money differently?

Investors often like the idea that fund managers should invest client money exactly as they invest their own. But reality is more complicated. Unique circumstances make a different approach rational and, at times, beneficial.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 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.