Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 15

The consequences of sustained budget deficits

Last December, the Federal Government discarded its oft-repeated promise of delivering a budget surplus this year. In April, it ’fessed up to the deficit being a big one. And instead of a run of surpluses as our economy returns to good health, we’re now told we’ll ‘fail our future’ if we don’t run budget deficits for a while. The Government is only beginning to tell us how grim the budget outlook really is. The risk is that we’ll run a substantial budget deficit over the whole cycle in varying economic conditions.

It’s timely to consider what this abrupt switch in fiscal strategy might mean for the economy and for investors, particularly those planning for, or already in, their retirement years.

The long-held promise of a budget surplus

The promise of a budget surplus in the financial year that’s now ending was made back in 2010. The Government wanted to reassure voters that the large budget deficits it would be running during the global financial crisis would soon be wound back and reversed; there’d not be a sustained build up in government debt. Also, the Cabinet had wanted a way of restraining some of their big spending colleagues and backbenchers (older readers might recall the ‘trilogy’ adopted by the Hawke-Keating government to impose fiscal discipline).

On many occasions, the Gillard Government took the commitment to deliver a budget surplus too far, arguing the surplus would be delivered ‘come hell or high water’ and Australia running a budget surplus this year would stand as ‘one of the eight economic wonders of the modern world’.

The deterioration in the budget numbers

The deterioration in the budget numbers for the current financial year mainly reflects the fact that the Government and Treasury have now moved to more realistic numbers for tax revenues, replacing the highly optimistic numbers they’d earlier employed both for the current financial year and for the forward estimates.

Also, the Government is committing to, but is only partly funding, significant new spending programs such as the Gonski reforms to schools policies and DisabilityCare (formerly called National Disability Insurance Scheme). There’s no doubting these policies’ appeal and there’s a good deal of bi-partisan support for them. But they will have to be paid for one way or another.

Government revenues from income taxes haven’t collapsed. Instead – and has been apparent for some time - growth in tax revenues has slowed because of modest growth in nominal incomes. However, from the start, projected revenues from two new taxes had been fancifully high.

The Minerals Resource Rental Tax, which the Government rushed through in 2010 after the debacle of the Resources Super Profits Tax, included revenue forecasts based on commodity prices that, though never made public, were extremely ambitious. They must have assumed that prices for coal and iron ore would stay near record highs for three or four years.

Forecasts for receipts from the carbon tax were built on expectations of a carbon price of $29 a tonne in 2015 – and were not downgraded even when Australia first tied its carbon price to the European price, which was always likely to be weak because of the over-supply of permits and sluggish economies there. The amended forecast is a carbon price of $15 in 2015 (still more than three times the current European price).

Why the structural deficit or surplus is important

Both major parties have long expressed the view – shared, I think, by a majority of voters – that the budget should be balanced over the economic cycle. This enables the budget to be used to moderate the business cycle via both its ‘automatic stabilisers’ and through discretionary changes to revenue and spending, while still avoiding excessive build up of government debt over the medium-term and longer. This anchor for fiscal policy has served Australia well for many years.

For this reason, the budget deficit or surplus has to be looked at in structural (or cyclically-adjusted) terms as well as in cash terms. Deutsche Bank ran the numbers prior to the release of the 2013 budget numbers, and concluded that “the structural deficit (ie abstracting from the impacts of higher commodity prices and the economic cycle) will be around 2¼% of GDP in 2012-13. Looking forward we estimate the structural deficit will still be around 2¼% come 2016-17 … we see the structural deficit averaging more than was seen under either the Whitlam or Fraser governments.”

Of course, most other western countries have structural budgets and levels of government debt on issue significantly higher than ours, although Canada and New Zealand are likely to return to surplus before we do. And the Coalition Government didn’t run surpluses as large as the prosperous times before the global financial crisis really dictated they should have. Norway’s larger surpluses, fed in that country’s sovereign wealth fund, suggest the route we should have followed.

Stammer deficits

Stammer deficits

The worry about persistent deficits

In the words of the Grattan Institute, persistent budget deficits “incur interest payments, and limit future borrowings … they can unfairly shift costs between generations, and reduce flexibility in a crisis”. In my view, the problems facing Europe, where the global financial crisis morphed into a sovereign debt crisis, demonstrate the pain that comes from persistent budget deficits (aggravated of course by the common currency). Deutsche Bank adds, “given the budget will be in deficit … the Federal Government is now contributing to the current account deficit”.

A balanced budget over the economic cycle is generally favourable for investors, because it improves prospects that real returns in assets will be more stable, predictable and attractive than they’d otherwise be. Similarly, a balanced budget over the economic cycle generally helps to restrain inflation which, when tolerated, creates pain and uncertainty for investors, particularly for self-funded retirees living from savings.

Deutsche Bank also reminds us that “to the extent that unaffordable policies drive dire projections of the budget position, such policies will not see the light of day in unaltered form” - and, I’d add, they can cause the government to cut deeply into current programmes, even popular and efficient ones. When governments live beyond their means, uncertainties build up and costs are imposed because the bills still have to be paid somehow.

Don Stammer is an adviser to the Third Link Growth Fund, Altius Asset Management and Philo Capital. The views expressed are his alone.


 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Four steps to resurrecting Australia

Are recessions a thing of the past?

Budget time and Labor v Liberal on fiscal discipline

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

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.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Latest Updates

Strategy

$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.

Strategy

Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated' investors can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 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.