Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 591

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 591 with weekend update

  •   19 December 2024
  • 22
  •      
  •   

The Weekend Edition includes a market update plus Morningstar adds links to two additional articles.

This is the last edition of Firstlinks for 2024. We'll have a week's break and be back on January 2.

To our readers, I'd like to wish you a safe and merry Christmas and New Year. Thank you for all the support that you've given us.

I'd like to give a shout-out to Leisa Bell and Joseph Taylor for their work on Firstlinks, as well as to Morningstar for its support during the year.

Onwards and upwards in 2025.

----

Australia is at a crossroads. For most of our history, we’ve been one of the world’s wealthiest countries. Yet, that wealth has stagnated over the past decade.

There’s been a lot of talk in economic circles about lifting productivity growth. Economists seem to agree that what’s needed is further deregulation of the economy. Much of the debate seems narrow and simplistic, and based as much on politics as economics ie. if you slant right wing in politics, you support deregulation, and if you’re left of centre, you don’t.

The study of history and why some nations prosper and others don’t, provides a broader perspective on the topic. Jarred Diamond’s best seller in the late 1990s, Guns, Germs, and Steel, suggests that geography and the environment shape our societies and prosperity. Daron Acemoglu, who recently won a Nobel Prize in Economics, argues differently, emphasizing the quality of political and economic institutions in driving economic success.

The late Australian economic academic, Ian McLean, put forward a more nuanced thesis in his 2013 book, Why Australia Prospered. McLean’s book is the subject of this article as I think it provides the best clues for how Australia became one of the world’s richest countries, and what we need to do to grow wealth from here.

How we quickly become wealthy

Most Australians are unaware of how lucky we’ve been throughout our short history as a country. Founded in 1788, Australia already obtained the world’s highest incomes by the mid-1800s. And we’ve retained our mantle as one of the richest countries ever since.

Many other nations haven’t been so fortunate. Some have never been wealthy. Others were rich, then became poor. Witness Argentina, which was one of the wealthiest countries in the early 1900s but has declined, ravaged by rolling economic crises for the past 50 years, with high inflation and unemployment, increasing poverty, and political instability.

Australia has managed to maintain its standard of living over a long period. How have we done it?

Key factors behind Australia’s enviable record of prosperity

McLean offers several factors behind our economic success. The first is obvious: our resource base. Yet, it isn’t so obvious, is it? That’s because most of us have heard of the ‘resources curse’ – that an abundance of resources is more a curse than blessing, and typically associated with corruption, low growth, and even failed states.

Australia offers compelling evidence to the contrary. Our farmland and minerals have been the backbone of our economy. In our early history, resources dominated the economy and was a central source of employment. Australia’s exports have long been monopolized by resource-intensive products, beginning with wool and gold. Still today, most of our exports come from primary products.

Another factor behind our wealth is the quality of our institutions, according to McLean. He says institutional flexibility has been critical. What he means by this is that our political and economic institutions have adapted and changed when they haven’t been working to grow our economy.

Examples from the 19th century include the transportation of convicts, the monopolization of grazing land by squatters, and the employment of immigrant, indentured labor on sugar plantations. A more recent example is the reform of labor market institutions by the Hawke Government.

McLean says institutional adaptability a critical factor:

“The capacity of a society to adapt its institutional arrangements in the face of changed economic conditions, or evidence of the adverse consequences for prosperity of doing nothing, is a key factor explaining why there is such a wide range of income levels across countries.”

McLean also emphasizes the importance of political institutions in Australia’s growth. He says Australia benefited greatly from ties to Britain. Early on, we had privileged access to foreign capital and trade, thanks to our colonial ruler.

Also, self-government came early to five of the six colonies in the 1850s. This paved the way for a federal constitution unifying the colonies by 1901. This served us well economically.

McLean’s final point on the importance of institutions highlights the significance of how institutions interacted with our resource abundance. That is, the quality of our institutions has helped us avoid the dreaded resources curse.

Another factor that McLean says is central to our economic success is how policymakers have responded to the major economic shocks, both positive and negative, through our history.   

For example, Australia endured an economic depression in the 1890s. It appeared that our resource-based prosperity had come to an end, and the openness of our economy had heightened our vulnerability to events overseas. We shifted strategy to become less reliant on commodities, building up industry behind rising levels of protectionism over the subsequent 50 years.

McLean attributes luck as another factor behind our prosperity. For example, our convict heritage hasn’t been a source of national pride, though McLean believes it provided an underappreciated role in our early prosperity.

That’s because of the peculiar nature of our labor market back then. Most of the convicts sent to New South Wales were selected to maximise the workforce participation rate among the early colonial population. The convicts were selected by gender, age, and physical condition. Men far outnumbered women, most were in the prime working-age range, and only the healthy were transported. This ‘human capital’ was needed to quickly clear land, build key pieces of infrastructure such as roads and houses, and to produce food. Put simply, the convicts had the profile and skills to provide the building blocks for the economy.

Seeds for future prosperity

McLean’s work offers clues for what Australia needs to do to revitalize itself today. My take is that our current institutions have failed to adapt to economic stagnation. They’ve been happy to ride a once-in-a-century boom in iron ore and coal and haven’t wanted to face a world where the best days for these commodities may be behind them ie. there’s unlikely to be another China-style boom for a long time.

They’ve also been content to subsidise massive investment in non-productive industries such as housing.

The complacency of our institutions has left Australia with limited exposure to so-called future facing industries: AI, robotics, biopharmaceuticals, cloud services etc.

We have an education system that could provide the foundations for leadership in the industries of the future. But we don’t seem to have the ambition to want to change and invest in these industries.

We also have resources, like lithium, which can feed into these industries, and we’ve been late to the party in realizing this.  

All is far from lost, though there needs to be a more sophisticated debate about how Australia can be bold and creative, and leverage our resources, both mineral and human, to meet the world’s current and future needs.

Our country’s wealth depends on it.

----

In my article this week, I offer nine lessons from this year, including expensive stocks can always get more expensive, Bitcoin is our tulip mania, follow the smart money, the young are coming with pitchforks on housing, and the importance of staying invested.

James Gruber

Also in this week's edition...

Financial industry icon, Don Stammer, is back with the 43rd edition of the X-factor report. Each year, Don picks the X-factor - a largely unexpected influence that wasn’t thought about when the year began but came from left field to have powerful effects on investment returns. What wins in 2024?

We've hit the halfway point of the 2020s and Ashley Owen gives a scorecheck on the Australian stock market. He says this decade's returns haven't been great versus history, though there's reason to hope for a better second half to the decade.

Four years ago, Orbis introduced its 'bubbles' chart to show how the market had become concentrated in one type of stock and one view of the future - namely 'defensive growth' stocks, especially lockdown beneficiaries such as Netflix and Amazon. Turning to today, and Eric Marais says investors are crowding into the same group of stocks, which may open up investment opportunities for those who think differently. 

Regulatory tensions have weighed on the share prices of Australian listed private health insurers. Airlie's Emma Fischer thinks the insurers haven't profited at the expense of the hospitals, and that the Government won't step in with a bailout of these hospitals. If right, she says Medibank Private should benefit, and with continued long-term tailwinds from an ageing population, it offers a compelling investment opportunity.

Little noticed is that the inverse correlation between bonds and stocks has returned as inflation and economic growth moderate. PIMCO's Emmanuel Sharef and Erin Browne believe this broadens the potential for risk-adjusted returns in multi-asset portfolios.

A lot has been written about what makes for a good retirement. Australian anthropologist Shiori Shakuto has studied Japanese seniors and that's led her to a counter-intuitive conclusion about what makes for a great retirement: the secret may be found in how we approach our working years

Two extra articles from Morningstar this weekend. Simonelle Mody looks at the best and worst performing ASX sectors this yearASX companies that could benefit from our ageing population, while Joseph Taylor highlights two ASX companies with traits of long-term winners.

Lastly, in this week's whitepaper, Franklin Templeton presents survey findings about the future of investing - for money, asset management, portfolios and advice.

****

Weekend market update

A cooler-than-expected November PCE print helped spur a snappy rebound in US stocks on Friday, though the S&P 500 relinquished roughly half its intraday gains into the bell to settle higher by about 1%.  Treasurys enjoyed some modest strength with 2- and 30-year yields each dropping two basis points to 4.3% and 4.72%, respectively, while WTI crude remained just below US$70 a barrel and gold bounced to US$2,623 per ounce. Bitcoin hovered south of US$96,000 and the VIX wrapped up the week at 18 and change, down nearly 10 points from Wednesday’s blow-off top.

From AAP netdesk:

The Australian share market on Friday dropped sharply for a second day to close at its worst level in 100 days and suffer its second-worst weekly performance of the year. The benchmark S&P/ASX200 index on Friday fell 1.24% to 8,067, its lowest close since September 11. The broader All Ordinaries fell 1.16% to 8,317.1. The ASX200 fell 2.76% for the week, its worst performance since mid-April.

Eight of the ASX's 11 sectors finished lower on Friday, with energy, utilities and tech higher.

Consumer discretionary shares were collectively the biggest mover, dropping 2.5% as Wesfarmers fell 5% to a more than one-month low of $69.56. Investors may have been concerned about the Perth-based conglomerate's announcement on Friday that it would sell its Coregas industrial gas manufacturer to a Japanese firm for $770 million.

The big four banks were down significantly for a second day, with CBA falling 3.7% to $150.26, NAB dipping 2.2% to $36.37, ANZ dropping 2.3% to $27.94 and Westpac retreating 1.2% to $31.67.

In the heavyweight mining sector, BHP fell 0.2% to $39.59 and Rio Tinto slipped 0.6% to $116.74 while Fortescue 2% to $18.20.

From Shane Oliver, AMP:

  • Shares got hit over the last week as the Fed cut rates again as expected but tilted a bit hawkish in foreshadowing less rate cuts next year than previously expected. Noise around a potential US Government shutdown probably hasn’t helped either. This came at a time when shares were already vulnerable after a surge to record highs left them overvalued, a bit over loved and technically overbought. For the week US shares fell 2%, Eurozone shares fell 2.1%, Japanese shares fell 1.9% and the Chinese share market lost 0.1%. The fall in global shares also weighed on the Australian share market which fell 2.8% over the week, with falls led by resources, financials and retail shares. From their highs earlier this month to their lows US shares fell 3.7%, global shares fell 3.5% and Australian shares fell 5%. Bond yields rose sharply on expectations for less Fed rate cuts which further weighed on share market valuations. Oil, metal and iron ore prices fell on prospects for less US rate cuts and as the $US rose. This also weighed on gold and Bitcoin with the latter falling back below $US100,000. The $A fell back to around $US0.62, but this is mainly a strong $US story.
  • Shares remain torn between the negatives of rich valuations, higher bond yields, uncertainties as to how much the Fed will cut rates, uncertainties around Trump and geopolitical risks on the one hand versus the positives of global central banks still being in an easing cycle, goldilocks economic conditions particularly in the US, optimism that Trump will reinvigorate the US economy and prospects for stronger profits ahead in Australia. Of course, over the last week the negatives got the upper hand and shares could still fall a bit further in the short term. However, lower than expected US core PCE inflation data for November suggests that the Fed may have gotten too negative on inflation and our overall assessment remains that the trend in shares is still up, including for Australian shares, but expect a far more volatile and constrained ride over the year ahead.
  • Out of interest, the Santa rally normally kicks in around mid-December on the back of festive cheer and new year optimism, the investment of any bonuses, low volumes and no capital raisings at this time of year. Over the last 15 years the period from mid-December to year end has seen an average gain of 0.5% in US shares with shares up in this two-week period 10 years out of 15. In Australia, over the last 15 years the average gain over the last two weeks of December has been 1.1% with shares up 10 years out of 15. Of course, it’s not guaranteed and so far Santa looks to have been absent – or may have come early in November - leaving markets overbought and now giving way to a focus on uncertainties around the impact of Trump’s policies and uncertainty about the Fed and RBA.

Curated by James Gruber and Leisa Bell

Latest updates

PDF version of Firstlinks Newsletter

ASX Listed Bond and Hybrid rate sheet from NAB/nabtrade

Monthly Bond and Hybrid updates from ASX

Listed Investment Company (LIC) Indicative NTA Report from Bell Potter

Plus updates and announcements on the Sponsor Noticeboard on our website

 

22 Comments
Tony Dillon
December 23, 2024

The abandonment of low cost, reliable, baseload energy has severely impacted manufacturing to the point where the manufacturing sector is now just 5% of GDP, the lowest of any OECD country. In 2000 it stood at 10% of GDP. That, and with high energy costs leaving little behind for investment spending and R&D, translates into the productivity growth problem we have baked into the economy.

Trevor
December 25, 2024

Centre for Independent Studies report conservatively quantifies subsidies paid by taxpayers and electricity customers to producers of renewable energy through Federal Government schemes at $29b for the ten years ended FY2022-23.

https://www.cis.org.au/publication/counting-the-cost-subsidies-for-renewable-energy/

James Gruber
December 27, 2024

Hi Tony,

Your point on energy is a good one. It underlies everything. Manufacturing is a small part of that.

High wages and rents are also factors too.

Best,
James

Steve
December 23, 2024

I think Australia's success rests largely on two planks. First we were a British colony, and whatever the Brits did, they did it better than any other coloniser. Australia, NZ, Canada, US - all pretty much top of the tree. Whether it be the legal system, the political system I'm not sure but I suspect if La Perouse landed a few days earlier we would be much less successful. The second is we are largely a nation of migrants. Very simplistically, someone who emigrates and takes their family to a whole new country has more drive and energy than the average person, I hope that is self-evident. So if you fill a country with people with drive and energy, and give them a good society (laws, education, opportunity) then that country should do very well. The fact we still have 25% of the population who were born overseas, and 50% of the population who have at least one parent born overseas shows we are still very much a nation of migrants so we should keep progressing.

john
December 22, 2024

Ultra high C level salaries is one of the ongoing problems. One example is in the early 2000's the govt brought in from the US a new CEO for Telstra(Sol Trujillo). He also brought in cronies from there. From memory his salary was like $12 million plus shares so on. At the same time the CEO of China Telecom was on about $200K with a customer base many times that of Telstra .

Economist
December 22, 2024

one outlier of an example doesn't prove a point, john. Need a lot more evidence that (a) C suite salary levels are 'ultra high' and (b) that if this is the case, then it is 'an ongoing problem'. In what sense a problem, by the way?

I can provide one illustration that does support what you're saying, though.

I suspect - and I use that word deliberately because I also do not have data to back it up, other than my casual observations of the corporate world - that if there's a problem with the C-suite it's that in some companies there are too many of them. Someone I know who now works for a top 100 company after the small, innovative firm he used to work for got taken over a few years back, told me that when it was a little company, a profitable project would generate a modest bonus to the main executive who ran the project. But now in a large, more bureaucratic entity, there are at least 10 executives all claiming to deserve a piece of the pie - and that instead of allocating 10% of the pie to them, the company expands the pie tenfold so they all get the same cut that the single executive used to.

Shareholders get screwed; the entity has to hold its prices up so the customer pays; divisions that are profitable, but don't look it, get cut back so the ordinary staff member pays; but the pigs with their snouts in the trough are happy.

If that's prevalent in corporate Australia, then that is a problem.

Steve
December 23, 2024

Yep, they all seem to think if they weren't there it would all go to heck in a handbasket. Of course when things go pear-shaped, they had minimal input or involvement. Office politics kills good companies. You think smaller companies can afford the bureaucratic overheads larger companies impose on themselves? Shareholders do get screwed because the executives get first bite at every cherry.

Dave Roberts
December 23, 2024

As a wage earner I’ve never understood why a highly paid exec’s salary needs to be supplemented by “bonuses”. Surely they would do the same job. If they need bonuses to perform they shouldn’t be in the job.

Graeme N
January 10, 2025

I am a raging free marketer BUT I think salaries of the uppers should be no more than a particular multiple of the lowest paid employee,. Say 10 or even 20 times. I know it could be gamed but it's something to think about

Goronwy
December 22, 2024

The rising levels or protectionism after 1900 made us poorer and not richer. We would be the richest country in the world by a country mile now if not for that and our convoluted industrial relations system. It meant that for 80 years or so we were investing in what we were not great at, instead of what we were best at. It took until the 1980s to start to change. However, hidden behind the benefit from China we have been going backwards on these for the last 20 years.

paul
December 20, 2024

One cause of low productivity is over employment. A whole new industry called traffic control.5 controllers on one crossing already managed by boom gates and automatic traffic lights. One controller on each side of a pedestrian crossing only 4 meters across. Excess of yellow jackets all hours of the day even Sunday when no traffic.
And local council workers: chatting, sitting in their trucks [ engine running for air con]. 4 workers to move a small dump of tree bark that I age 81 could disperse in half hour: 2 playing mobile phone,1 smoking and 1 picking up half spade and shuffling slowly. Supervisor approached within 10 meters. Said ''all right lads'' and walked away.
Notably its tax payers and rate payers footing the wages bill for this excessive employment and lack of management.

john
December 22, 2024

Agree 100%

James Gruber
December 27, 2024

Paul,

Anecdotal points but I'm interested in the broader issue without having a firm opinion on it yet.

There's a good book addressing the issue: Bullsh#* Jobs by David Graeber.

Dr David Arelette
December 20, 2024

The problem is that most of the politicans and know it all types have not been here even a dogwatch - I remember when I was 10 in 1961 then meeting my grandmother's older (like 80yo+) sisters who had outlived their husband farmers, they were still formidable ladies who still worked vegetable gardens in their homes in Hamilton. With a population of just 5 million, Australia sent five AIF divisions overseas and everyone but everyone pulled their weight to carry the 60,000 lost and 120,000 wounded from 1920 to the Koeran War boom of the 1950s. We need more lifters and laws to defund the leaners.

Steve
December 19, 2024

Australia's immigration policy is not refined: we are not accepting the best skills to advance productivity and service our economy. We have in fact imported many problems by not being selective enough of the people who come here. If instead of immigrants being productive, they are in fact non productive, they impose a burden on our economy as the government attempts to control or assist them. Immigration is essential, but, not as many at once because the economy can't absorb them readily enough.
Less immigration and better quality of immigrant will enhance the economy in the future.

John
December 19, 2024

What would be interesting would be to see how another resource rich country has seen gap growth. I am thinking norway.

They put on a high tax for oil that was exported. Australia was scared to tax our resource exports

Kurt Momodt
December 19, 2024

Spot on John, they are more independent and sovereign and less captured by the old mercantile class as we are.

Trevor
December 20, 2024

“Over the past four decades, the North West Shelf Project has paid more than $40 billion in royalties and excise,
provided employment and contracting opportunities to the Pilbara community and invested well over $300
million in social and community infrastructure” source Woodside.

Can’t complain about that. Wealth creation.

Kym
December 19, 2024

Examples from the 19th century include the transportation of convicts, the monopolization of grazing land by squatters, and the employment of immigrant, indentured labour on sugar plantations.
Stated like this leaves no doubt that Australia's prosperity was built on exploitation.
Perhaps today, there are less opportunities for this type of behaviour?

Lynn
December 19, 2024

Yes, we don’t have convicts any more, and we don’t need to exploit workers to make Australia prosper, or help the rich become richer

George Hamor
December 22, 2024

We just need workers to work.
See traffic control comment from Paul.

James Gruber
December 27, 2024

Kym,

Think you misinterpreted McLean's comments here. Or my writing of it wasn't clear enough!

He meant that we adapted when it became clear these things weren't sustainable.

James

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Joe Hockey on the big investment influences on Australia

Baby bust: will infertility shape Australia's future?

Changed visions: 2021 New Year resolutions

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian stocks will crush housing over the next decade, one year on

Last year, I wrote an article suggesting returns from ASX stocks would trample those from housing over the next decade. One year later, this is an update on how that forecast is going and what's changed since.

What to expect from the Australian property market in 2025

The housing market was subdued in 2024, and pessimism abounds as we start the new year. 2025 is likely to be a tale of two halves, with interest rate cuts fuelling a resurgence in buyer demand in the second half of the year.

Howard Marks warns of market froth

The renowned investor has penned his first investor letter for 2025 and it’s a ripper. He runs through what bubbles are, which ones he’s experienced, and whether today’s markets qualify as the third major bubble of this century.

The perfect portfolio for the next decade

This examines the performance of key asset classes and sub-sectors in 2024 and over longer timeframes, and the lessons that can be drawn for constructing an investment portfolio for the next decade.

9 lessons from 2024

Key lessons include expensive stocks can always get more expensive, Bitcoin is our tulip mania, follow the smart money, the young are coming with pitchforks on housing, and the importance of staying invested.

The 20 most popular articles of 2024

Check out the most-read Firstlinks articles from 2024. From '16 ASX stocks to buy and hold forever', to 'The best strategy to build income for life', and 'Where baby boomer wealth will end up', there's something for all.

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

The perfect portfolio for the next decade

This examines the performance of key asset classes and sub-sectors in 2024 and over longer timeframes, and the lessons that can be drawn for constructing an investment portfolio for the next decade.

Shares

The case for and against US stock market exceptionalism

The outlook for equities in 2025 has been dominated by one question: will the US market's supremacy continue? Whichever side of the debate you sit on, you should challenge yourself by considering the alternative.

Taxation

Negative gearing: is it a tax concession?

Negative gearing allows investors to deduct rental property expenses, including interest, from taxable income, but its tax concession status is debatable. The real issue lies in the favorable tax treatment of capital gains. 

Investing

How can you not be bullish the US?

Trump's election has turbocharged US equities, but can that outperformance continue? Expensive valuations, rising bond yields, and a potential narrowing of EPS growth versus the rest of the world, are risks.

Planning

Navigating broken relationships and untangling assets

Untangling assets after a broken relationship can be daunting. But approaching the situation fully informed, in good health and with open communication can make the process more manageable and less costly.

Beware the bond vigilantes in Australia

Unlike their peers in the US and UK, policy makers in Australia haven't faced a bond market rebellion in recent times. This could change if current levels of issuance at the state and territory level continue.

Retirement

What you need to know about retirement village contracts

Retirement village contracts often require significant upfront payments, with residents losing control over their money. While they may offer a '100% share in capital gain', it's important to look at the numbers before committing.

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.