Heavily (Ṁ60k) subsidised short-fuse meta-forecasting (resolves in ~3 weeks):

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-16/china-halts-orders-of-american-boeing-planes-trump-tariffs/105181864?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link

Ṁ50k NO limit order at 65% if anyone's interested

@chrisjbillington I’ll do 20k at 57%

@NGK limit order up for 1h

When does the Atlanta Fed GDP Now forecast switch from 'estimations' to quarter 1 into 'reports' from q1? or does it ever?

my question is, when will we know FOR SURE/DEFINITIVELY whether Q1 2025 qualifies as negative gdp growth, and satisfy the first half of this questions resolution criteria?

@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.

https://www.atlantafed.org/podcasts/transcripts/economy-matters/220908--discussing-science-of-measuring-gdp

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"

@chrisjbillington @turtlepurple This point might need clarification.

@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.

The definition of a recession is well defined. If we intend to use something that will resolve differently than that we should make that clear and put it in the title. I also hold a large position, but this comment seems irrelevant of that.

@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).

@Judd Yeah, whilst I think strictly speaking it's unambiguously worded, I nonetheless think there would be argument if the data and revisions came in in an unlucky way. FWIW my arguing about it being unambiguous is without any idea which side of the market would benefit from which revisions being included, I've got no clue what direction revisions are normally in, if any.

Moderators without a position should make a decision on what to clarify and we can get the description updated if need be.

@mods ?

Summary for (other) mods (but don't trust me too much, I have a large stake):

This market resolves YES on two quarters of negative GDP growth in 2025. GDP data releases come out as a series of estimates - "1st estimate", "2nd estimate" some months later, and "3rd estimate" later still. By the time the "1st estimate" for e.g. Q2 is released, the 3rd estimate for Q1 will already have been released. This market says:

We will use the initial estimate provided, not any revised estimates.

And we're seeking clarification for whether the market would resolve YES if, for example, Q2's 1st estimate was negative, and Q1's third estimate (available at the time of the Q2 1st estimate release) is negative, but Q1's first estimate was not negative.

Even if (other) mods think the answer to the above is no, it might be worth updating the description to really spell this out, because if the above scenario happens, headlines will be shouting that there have been two quarters of negative growth and disputes here seem reasonably likely (and obviously if mods think the answer is yes, then the description definitely needs an update).

@chrisjbillington seconded that this is important for mods to specify now and that I don't really care which way they specify as long as they do it now, well in advance of it becoming an issue ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I agree with Chris, the language is very clear. Initial estimate is what it says, any other reading required assuming the words don't mean what they say

may I also suggest my better specified market

@chrisjbillington It seems clear to me based on the description that this market will only use the initial estimates, even if better ones become available.

I don't think the conclusion either of bagel or jack have come to are illogical, but I'm a bit sad regardless.

I find it more probable using the earlier quarters' 3rd estimate with the latter quarters' 1st estimate more often will match the spirit of the market's question, and also be significantly less likely to create the whiplash of this market potentially resolving 'yes' while other media reporting will say no (or vice versa)

@No_uh I agree that it's a suboptimal criteria, and I also suspect most traders dont actually think it's an important difference currently (obviously in a future where it's very close then people would care). But it's possible some informed trader has made a bet based on the distinction, and we shouldn't punish them for that. If traders unanimously agreed to change the criteria then I'd support that.