Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 33

US Government shut-down – been there, done that

As yet another US budget crisis looms in Washington, the US Government may run out of money and be forced to close down. It will not be the first time the US Federal Government has run out of money, unable to borrow more to keep paying its bills. It has happened before - most recently in 1995 and 1996. Scary as this may sound to investors, the impact on markets of recent government shutdowns was different to what many expected.

1980s boom financed by debt

The deep financial, economic and political crises of the 1970s came to a head in 1979. The US Treasury defaulted three times on its Treasury Bills in 1979, when Congress didn’t legislate in time to raise the debt ceiling – like in early August 2011, and at the end of December 2012, and again this month. But these temporary defaults on US government debt became the dawn of a brand new era of growth and prosperity for Americans. We will look at recent US Treasury defaults next week.

Following Ronald Reagan’s landslide victory over Jimmy Carter in the November 1980 elections, Reagan, Volcker, and Thatcher led the macroeconomic revolution in the 1980s, back toward smaller government, lower tax rates, privatisation of industries and deregulation of markets. These reforms brought lower inflation, lower interest rates, lower unemployment rates, a return to economic growth and prosperity.

Or so it seemed.

The US economy may have grown strongly in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s after the stagflation of the 1970s, but the boom was financed by a massive build-up of budget deficits, trade deficits and debt.

When Reagan came to office in 1981 the US was the biggest creditor nation – it was the banker to the world. By the end of Reagan’s first term it had become a net debtor nation. By the end of his second term the US had become the world’s biggest net debtor and Japan had become the biggest creditor and main banker to America. This is shown in the following chart of the US net foreign asset position.

AO default1

AO default1

Trade deficits increased rapidly under Reagan, were lower under Bush Senior and Clinton, but then blew out to record deficits again under Bush Junior. The trade deficits were financed by foreign investors, including a rapid build-up of foreign debt – firstly owed to the Japanese, and during the 2000s, to the Chinese.

1995/1996 deficit crisis and government shutdown

Fifteen years of spending and borrowing binges that started under Reagan led to the next crisis: the 1995/1996 government shut-downs. The budget stand-off forced temporary shut-downs of non-essential government services for 28 days across two periods: 14 to 19 November 1995, and again from 16 December 1995 to 6 January 1996.

The crisis was a culmination of the stand-off in the 1990s between the Republican controlled Congress (led by Newt Gingrich) and Democrat President Clinton. Clinton’s 1993 Deficit Reduction Act was opposed by Republicans in Congress, who wanted more cuts to welfare, mainly Medicare.

By pushing the President all the way down to the wire in 1995 and forcing a shut-down of the government, Gingrich was seen by the public as going too far in putting political point-scoring ahead of America’s credit standing in the world. Gingrich’s loss of public support effectively ended his political career.

The following chart shows US interest rates and inflation during the 12 months from July 1995 to June 1996.

AO default2

The Fed reduced the Fed Funds target rate three times from July 1995 and January 1996, following the seven rate hikes between February 1994 (which had triggered the 1994 bond market crisis) and February 1995. Short term rates were drifting down during the second half of 1995 and did not spike upward when the government shut-downs occurred, as might be expected in the event of a cash shortage. Rates stabilised at around 4% during 1996, and the Fed did not cut rates again in that cycle.

Long term bond yields were on the way down following the 1994 rate hikes, but started to rise again from January 1996 following the shut-down crisis. There are several likely reasons for the rises in bond yields. The first is that inflationary expectations were rising – with inflation still running at 3% while the Fed was cutting rates and the economy was also growing relatively strongly.

Second, it is possible that the increase in bond yields also started to factor in a credit default premium since clearly shutting down the government was not a long term solution to the deficit/debt crisis. However a stronger argument is that it reflected higher inflationary expectations as a result of Clinton’s perceived victory over Gingrich in the PR war, meaning there was likely to be less pressure to balance budgets in future and more latitude to keep running expansionary deficits.

The next chart shows the US dollar index (trade weighted basket) and the S&P 500 index over the same period.

AO default3

The US dollar surged during the Russian bank crisis in August 1995 and then kept strengthening during the budget stand-off and even during the government shutdowns. Far from panicking in the crisis, investors kept buying US dollars and US shares. Over the 12 month period the US dollar gained 10% and the S&P 500 index put on a decidedly bullish 20%.

President Obama and the Republicans in Congress today are keen to not repeat the errors of gamesmanship in the 1995/1996 shut-down crisis. Painful as the shut-downs were at the time for staff and suppliers, markets ignored them and kept on booming. However the crisis did act as shock therapy for the President and Congress and it stunned both sides into constructive dialogue and action.

As a result, a compromise balanced budget bill was passed in August 1997, aimed at balancing the budget by 2002. In fact the goal was achieved earlier than expected, thanks to the booming dot-com economy that delivered better than expected tax revenues and lower than expected welfare costs.

To this day, Republicans and Democrats both claim credit for the 1998-2000 surpluses, and they are both partially correct – it was the bi-partisan co-operation that was forged by the shock therapy of the shut-down crisis that produced the result.

Clinton is the only President since Nixon (Republican) in 1973 to achieve a budget surplus. Not only that, there were three surplus years in a row – 1998, 1999 and 2000 - a feat not seen since the Kennedy/Johnson (Democrat) surpluses of the early-mid 1960s.

To sum up, the government shutdown crisis of 1995 and 1996 was shrugged off by markets and served as shock therapy that forced both parties to the negotiating table to come up with bi-partisan action that resulted in a rapid return to surplus. Bi-partisan action is what is sorely needed in Washington to solve the current crisis, but it has largely disappeared during the Obama administration.

Perhaps a government shutdown or debt default will provide the necessary catalyst once again as it did in the past.


Ashley Owen is Joint Chief Executive Officer of Philo Capital Advisers and a director and adviser to Third Link Growth Fund.



Living within one’s means

Epilogue: Death duties, where angels fear to tread

Lending policies can spoil good SMSF strategies


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

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.

Latest Updates


The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.


RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.


4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.


Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.


Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.


Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

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.