Stock market paradoxes that will surprise investors: is high GDP growth bad for returns?
Mark Tovey is a finance journalist with bylines in The Guardian, The Motley Fool, and more. He digs into data and FOI-based investigations, and makes finance easier to understand.
Last updated 17th September 2025
12 min read
History shows that not every sign of economic strength is a gift to investors. In fact, some of the strongest numbers have coincided with weak market returns.
There are plenty of examples, but we're going to discuss three cases today:
- a roaring jobs market,
- GDP growth, and
- a strong currency.
Sometimes these signals really are good news for stock market returns.
However – paradoxically – they're also often bad for investors.
But first a disclaimer: they say if you put two economists in a room, you'll get three opinions. Economics isn't physics; it's a social science. People don't behave like falling rocks (unless they're literally falling). Because economic variables are determined by millions of human actions, no one can predict exactly how they'll fluctuate. We're really looking at interesting patterns that have often repeated in the past – but aren't guaranteed to in the future.
Investing in the right kind of growth
Many investors believe that countries or industries that are growing fast offer the best investment returns. The truth isn't so simple, which we'll explore below.
But if you want to see the bigger picture at all times, look no further than MoneyWeek. Their refreshingly balanced approach to investing gives you a clear overview of supposed "hot growth" areas and out-of-favour markets that might offer better value.
MoneyWeek is one of our favourite publications and their goal is to give you all the information you need to help you make (and keep!) more money in a fast-changing world.
You can get six issues of MoneyWeek in print and on the app absolutely free: use the special offer code DAMIEN here. You’ll continue to save an extra £5 on a quarterly subscription too.
It’s a no-brainer to check this one out.
Thanks to MoneyWeek for sponsoring this feature.
Financial Interest provides guidance, not advice. If you’re unsure about anything, speak with a qualified adviser. When investing, your capital is always at risk. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Let's begin with the first of the three paradoxes.
1) Ultra-low unemployment can be bad for returns
Unemployment scraping the floor seems like the kind of headline that should send markets higher.
It signals a strong economy, a confident consumer, and workers finally in a position to demand better pay.
But for investors, those same headlines are often the point where the music stops.
When the job market runs too hot, wages climb. That pushes up costs and eats into profit margins, particularly for smaller companies that can't easily pass those costs on to customers.
Goldman Sachs once calculated that every one-point jump in US wage inflation knocks roughly two percent off small-cap earnings – about double the hit suffered by bigger firms.
Low unemployment also tends to be a late-cycle signal: it often arrives just before the economy stalls.
The last four times the US jobless rate has dipped below four percent (in the 1950s, the late '60s, the dotcom boom, and just before the pandemic) a recession followed – though correlation doesn't equal causation.
Markets price in trouble early, typically faltering before jobless numbers start climbing.
| Cycle Low Date | Level | Month that marked unemployment +0.5% from a sub-4% low | Level | Recession start month | Timeframe vs. unemployment trigger month |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar. 1957 | 3.7% | Jun. 1957 | 4.3% | Aug. 1957 | 2 months Later |
| Sep. 1968 | 3.4% | Jan. 1970 | 3.9% | Dec. 1969 | 1 month before |
| Apr. 2000 | 3.8% | Mar. 2001 | 4.3% | Mar. 2001 | Same month |
| Jan. 2020 | 3.5% | Mar. 2020 | 4.4% | Mar. 2020 | Same month |
So the next time you see low unemployment figures trumpeted as good news, remember: markets don't always celebrate for long. When the economy runs too hot, a cooldown might follow.
Just as a rock-bottom unemployment rate isn't automatically bullish for stocks, another seemingly obvious predictor of market success, GDP growth, also turns out to be far less straightforward than many assume.
2) GDP growth is no crystal ball for stock market success
On paper, it makes perfect sense: a fast-growing economy should mean fat returns for investors.
Except it doesn't usually work that way.
Decades of data across dozens of countries show that rapid GDP growth doesn't reliably translate into strong stock market returns. In some cases, it's the opposite.
One landmark study by MSCI Barra (a firm that builds stock market indices and crunches global financial data) found that countries with the fastest long-term growth often delivered middling or even negative equity performance.
Other researchers have come to the same conclusion: a booming economy isn't a guaranteed ticket to a bullish stock market.
| Country (1969 - 2009) | Real GDP growth rate | Real stock price return |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3.1% | 0.0% |
| Norway | 3.0% | 2.7% |
| Spain | 3.0% | -1.4% |
| Canada | 2.9% | 2.5% |
| United States | 2.8% | 1.6% |
| Japan | 2.8% | 1.5% |
| Austria | 2.6% | 0.6% |
| Netherlands | 2.4% | 1.9% |
| France | 2.3% | 1.7% |
| Belgium | 2.3% | 0.6% |
| United Kingdom | 2.2% | 1.1% |
| Sweden | 2.1% | 5.8% |
| Italy | 2.0% | -1.7% |
| Germany | 1.8% | 1.6% |
| Denmark | 1.7% | 3.6% |
| Switzerland | 1.5% | 2.6% |
| Average | 2.4% | 2.0% |
| MSCI ACWI | 2.7% | 2.1% |
As you can see, it’s not the booming economies that always boom for investors. Meanwhile, some of the slowest-growing economies, like Denmark and Switzerland, quietly outperformed.
But why? Shouldn't greater GDP mean higher corporate profits, higher earnings per share (EPS) growth, and finally stock price increases?
That is indeed what standard supply-side models would have us believe, but with empirical studies failing to confirm a positive relationship between GDP growth and stock prices, here are some explanations for the paradox.
Dilution of ownership
An economy that's booming encourages new businesses to open, with startups floating on the stock market. Established firms may also see new investment opportunities, issuing new shares to raise cash. As a result, the overall economic pie is bigger, but it's also being cut into an increasing number of slices.
The earnings per share (the investments you actually own) don't grow as fast as you might hope.
Over time, that "share dilution" effect can knock about two percentage points a year off the growth you'd otherwise expect, according to one analysis of US data.
Valuation changes
Just because a company's earnings per share go up, it doesn't necessarily mean the share price will too. The relationship between the two is called the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio, and it reflects how optimistic investors are about the company's future. The higher the P/E ratio, the more people will pay for a given level of earnings.
In hot economies where GDP is growing fast, good vibes are plentiful, and investors are willing to pay more, betting on endless good news.
That's fine while the story holds, but it leaves no margin for disappointment. When the pace of growth eases even slightly, or when it simply fails to beat the lofty expectations already priced in, investors start reassessing how much they're willing to pay for the same companies with the same earnings.
What follows is a "compression in valuations". The P/E ratio drops, and stock prices come down with it if earnings growth can't compensate.
This is why strong economies can coexist with weak stock market performances: the companies are still earning, but the market no longer believes those earnings deserve the same rich price tag.
The S&P 500 today offers a live example. Prices have risen faster than profits, so the index now trades well above its 'usual' valuation levels. If investor optimism cools or interest rates stay high, those valuations could fall back to normal – meaning stock prices could drop even if company earnings don’t.
Growth already priced in
Markets are forward-looking beasts.
Let's say you've just read a glowing forecast about a country growing seven percent this year. By the time you've found it on a map, Googled its capital city, and had a root around on your online broker for ETFs with exposure to that location, investors have already priced that into the market.
That means you're unlikely to find a neat, year-by-year positive relationship between stock prices and GDP growth, because today's market has already factored in consensus forecasts not only for this year but for the next five or even ten.
When the official data comes out, it's old news.
Meanwhile, if the numbers come in even a tad under expectations, prices can plummet. Japan in the late 1980s is the textbook cautionary tale: sky-high growth forecasts pushed valuations to extreme levels, and when reality inevitably disappointed, Japanese stocks spent decades going nowhere.
On the other hand, a country that everyone has written off can surprise to the upside, with even modest growth sparking a rally.
After years of recession, Greece’s steady return to growth in the late 2010s restored investor confidence, setting the stage for the Athens stock market to surge nearly 40% in 2023.
What about global GDP growth and global stock returns?
One limitation the MSCI Barra researchers pointed out is that comparing a country's GDP growth with its local stock market performance assumes a closed system.
Take Switzerland: the fortunes of companies like Lindt or Nestlé depend far more on global demand than on domestic chocolate consumption, which makes up only a sliver of their revenue.
To get around this, the researchers compared global GDP growth to global equity returns. The gap narrowed, but it didn't disappear.
Between 1969 and 2009, the world economy grew by roughly 2.7% in real terms, while global equities returned about 2.1% above inflation.
That sounds close, but when they drilled further down into the numbers, they found real earnings per share (the profit attached to each share, adjusted for inflation) had only grown by roughly 0.6% a year. That suggests companies issued a lot of new shares over that period, effectively chopping the growing pie into more pieces.
The fact that stocks returned 2.1% above inflation over the period, despite earnings per share only growing 0.6%, also shows that valuations expanded: investors became willing to pay more for the same earnings. But even with this tailwind, stock prices failed to keep up with GDP growth on a global level.
Importantly, the negative relationship found at the national level for many countries in the study washed out once the researchers zoomed out to a global level.
When sterling drops, the headlines almost always scream crisis – and on at least one memorable occasion the Prime Minister ended up in a race against a lettuce.
Holidays abroad cost more, imports get pricier – and rare bedfellows like Brussels bureaucrats, Daily Mail columnists, and your grandfather who never got over decimalisation suddenly agree Britain is going to the dogs.
Yet for Britons' stock portfolios, a softer pound is often more tonic than toxin.
The reason is simple.
Let's start with large-cap UK stocks on the FTSE 100. These global giants (BP, GlaxoSmithKline, Diageo) earn around three-quarters of their revenues overseas. When the pound weakens, their earnings denominated in foreign currencies translate into more pounds.
The same logic applies if you hold foreign shares: for example, the S&P 500 (denominated in dollars) increases its value in pounds when sterling drops, and the same dollar-value dividends paid out also become worth more when converted into pounds.
Think of it like this: if you bought $100 of Apple stock and the pound weakens, that $100 is now worth more pounds than when you bought it – even if Apple's share price stays exactly the same (and everyone's complaining about the exchange rate at the airport).
In 2022, the pound dropped more than 10% against the dollar. The UK economy looked ropey, but the FTSE 100 rose 4.5%, cushioned by its foreign revenues. The same thing happened after the Brexit referendum in 2016: sterling fell sharply, and the FTSE 100 surged.
The more domestically focused FTSE 250 fell nearly 20% in 2016, lacking any foreign exchange boost.
Of course, a weak pound isn't good for everyone. Or even most people. Import-heavy firms see higher costs, and small-cap companies that sell mostly to UK customers don't get any benefit.
In short...
Ultra-low unemployment looks like strength, but in stock markets it can be a late-cycle tell. Wage growth and tighter policy squeeze margins, so shares roll over before the jobless rate rises.
Faster GDP growth reads well, yet shareholders often get thinner slices: earnings per share trails GDP because of dilution in the form of new share issuance. Meanwhile, optimism sends P/E multiples soaring to levels where even the slightest hint of a setback sends valuations tumbling.
A weaker pound looks grim on the front page, yet it has lifted FTSE 100 earnings and any dollar assets via translation. On the other hand, UK-focused companies don't get the lift (and see their prices falling as a result).
What does this all mean for you?
All of this is worth knowing – especially if you want to flex some niche knowledge at a dinner party. But ultimately, you probably don’t need to lose sleep over job numbers or GDP prints if you're a long-term passive investor.
If you start reacting to every economic signal, you don’t just dodge potential dips: you also risk missing the rallies that often follow.
For instance, if you’d pulled out of the US market during the March 2020 unemployment low, you’d have missed a 60%+ rebound in the S&P 500 over the next 20 months – one of the fastest recoveries in market history.
If anything, it's valuable to know that "good news" can be a bad sign for returns, and "bad news" can be a good sign. How is the average person meant to know how to react to the headlines if they never know how things will actually impact their portfolio?
That’s why the most effective strategy (especially if you're not making a living from terminal screens and cortisol) is often the simplest. Build a sensible portfolio (something boring in the best way) and give it time to work.
Remember: while the market doesn’t always make sense in the short term, over the long term, patience tends to pay.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. All investments have risk. Nothing we say is financial advice. We are not financial advisers.
Financial Interest provides guidance, not advice. If you’re unsure about anything, speak with a qualified adviser. When investing, your capital is always at risk. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
