Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
The Fraser Institute has different figures and says that the next few years are likely more deficit budgets. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/comm...t-smith-budget
And do you think that the Heritage Fund has done well because of anything the government has done, or because the investments have had the tailwind of good markt conditions since 2020? |
Fraser institute is biased as conservative. IMO, they want to project higher deficits to suggest the government needs to slash more spending. In reality, the opposite is probably true because the government has a contingency line in their forward looking budgets, which biases towards higher surpluses. I think it makes more sense to use the RBC fiscal tables as backward looking to see what governments have done as their track record. If you want to delve into forward looking projections, you would have to look at their assumptions around resource prices (and this revenues). I also think with Carney suppressing immigration, real wages will rise and spending will plateau, providing another driver for higher revenues without higher expenses.
By definition Heritage fund returns are a mix of both. Heritage fund growth = returns + new injections of capital. The returns are just market returns. But the new injections of capital are driven by conservative policies, with half of surplus paying down debt and half invested into heritage fund.