A recession is defined as 2 consecutive quarters where the GDP is negative. We will use the initial estimate provided, not any revised estimates.
Both quarters must occur in 2025, ie Q3 and Q4 having negative GDP will resolve this market to YES. However, 2025 Q4 and 2026 Q1 would resolve this market to NO.
1,000
3.00@No_uh It never "switches over" but it does historically get more accurate closer to the reporting date. There's a few links on GDP Now that explain how it works. They keep revising it to improve accuracy.
BEA releases three GDP estimates for each quarter. Based on the criteria for this question, the 1st quarter only counts if the 3rd estimate is negative* and the 2nd quarter 1st estimate also comes in as negative. Most of the commentary I've seen forecasts a possible recession at the end of the year with 3rd and 4th quarters being negative which suggests that many forecasters were projecting a positive 2nd quarter.
*Disputed
@becauseyoudo Thanks for answering. Sorry if I missed it, I skimmed over the transcript, but sorry (I'll be honest) I'm not gonna read that whole thing lol, I'd much rather do something else with that time. If that means you don't wanna answer my Q again I totaly understand LOL. So the estmations improve as we near the reporting date.
So when is Q1's reporting date? In other words, again, by when can we 100% say with certainity (for this market's purposes anyway) whether Q1 was negative or positive? I couldn't find anything about a date there
@No_uh June 26th at 8:30AM eastern time:
https://www.bea.gov/news/schedule
"Gross Domestic Product, 1st Quarter 2025 (Third Estimate)"
@No_uh BEA doesn't report on the exact state of GDP, they estimate GDP and keep revising those estimates for years. BEA's Q1 first estimate is released on 4/30 and their 3rd estimate is scheduled for release 60 days later.
@becauseyoudo actually the question says "initial estimate", not 3rd estimate. For consistency I would assume this means the first estimate will be used for all quarters.
Though I understand some markets like this probably resolve in practice like "if the first estimate of any quarter is negative, and the latest estimate at that time of the previous quarter is also negative, resolves YES"
@becauseyoudo actually this is pretty clear I think - no revised estimates.
We will use the initial estimate provided, not any revised estimates.
So it's only the April 30th release that's relevant for Q1.
@chrisjbillington The wording does imply what you're suggesting but that interpretation changes the market from early resolution criteria to special case resolution criteria and invalidates the market's title since it accepts a YES resolution under a condition where there is no potential for technical recession (when the first negative quarter has been reestimated as positive).
@becauseyoudo Yes I think that's the case. But happy to leave any dispute on this to others as I have a large position here - though the creator is inactive so we are unlikely to hear from them.
@chrisjbillington I'm ok with your interpretation but there's other users betting on this market and the description could be more explicit to avoid confusion.
@NathanpmYoung there are at least three entirely different definitions of recessions used by markets on this site!
Adding to the title that this one is using the two-quarters-negative-gdp-growth definition is a good idea if it fits, but generally one must read resolution criteria for details of what data source and which revisions count, I don't think there is a way around this that fits in titles.
FWIW I think two quarters negative growth is more likely than an NBER-declared recession, the latter being the most official definition.
I think this point is a bit confusing and should be added to the description what has been settled on. I don't know what the market creator had intended or considered when writing:
"We will use the initial estimate provided, not any revised estimates."
But it could have been a reference to a prompt resolution using the latest series (allowing early YES resolution) rather than always comparing each first BEA estimates. E.g. I've seen other markets (Poly) that have it that way. However, I see Chris's point that "the only compare first BEA estimates" is the most literal interpretation.
Still, I'm not sure it's that sensible or the spirit of the market. As I see it the issue with using "only first BEA estimates" is that if there is an overall downward (or upward) revision to several quarters we would no longer be comparing like-with-like and get a weird recession resolution when it doesn't occur in any "consistent" series (or in principle the opposite case could occur). That could lead to a weird situation with regard to say the rest of economic commentary (which fine, can do that, just seems weird to me).
I'm happy with either choice (though have a preference for "latest" estimates style) but I think it would be best to clarify in the description now.
At this second, I do not have a position in this market (but expect to take one again).
@AlexanderTheGreater with more risk and at a lower rate of expected return. I imagine lots of people have been busy calculating the Trump Chaos Premium.
Manifold's forecast for Trump's overall economic success has been steady for the last year.
https://manifold.markets/DismalScientist/if-donald-trump-wins-the-2024-presi-9a351932029e
@becauseyoudo there's almost no ev in betting in that market though, no liquidity, low confidence predictor
Arb this. This market should be a bit lower than this other one due to probability of US entering recession Q4 2025: https://manifold.markets/jack/will-the-us-enter-a-recession-by-en
@SirSalty Can you update the market description in line with the discussion thread below? This market has 100s of traders and getting the details correct in the description is important.