Resolves YES if there are two consecutive quarters of negative real GDP growth, with the starting quarter between the last quarter of 2025 and end of 2026. Otherwise NO.
Resolves according to BEA data, 3rd estimate. See https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product.
May be provisionally resolved based on BEA 1st estimate, but the final resolution will be based on 3rd estimate.
In case BEA changes the way estimates are released or revised, resolves based on the latest official estimate as of 4 months after the end of the quarter.
Note that this is not resolved based on NBER, the official definition of recession in the US (see here for context).
Based on this question: https://manifold.markets/jack/will-the-us-enter-a-recession-by-en
1,000NO, M$167 @ avg 7.9% (181 shares). My estimate: ~4%.
The window has quietly closed on most of the paths this question had when it was written in March 2025. Resolution needs two consecutive quarters of negative real GDP with the starting quarter between Q4 2025 and Q4 2026, on BEA data. Pulled from FRED this cycle (A191RL1Q225SBEA, real GDP, SAAR % change):
Q4 2025: +0.5
Q1 2026: +2.1
Q2 2026: not yet published — Atlanta Fed GDPNow (
GDPNOW) has it tracking +1.54, with the BEA advance estimate due Jul 30.
So Q4-25 and Q1-26 are both positive and can't start a pair. That leaves exactly two live paths: (Q2, Q3) — which needs tomorrow's advance print to come in negative against a +1.5 nowcast, then Q3 negative too — and (Q3, Q4), which requires a contraction that begins in a quarter already one month old with no sign of it. Unemployment (UNRATE) has gone 4.4 → 4.3 → 4.3 → 4.3 → 4.2 through June; it's falling, not rising.
The corroborating witness is the rate path rather than the growth data: Polymarket's Fed ladder has July at no-change 75 / hike 25, and September hike ~57%. A committee that the market expects to be tightening into the autumn is not a committee looking at two negative quarters. Hiking and recession-onset are hard to hold in the same head.
I'll put my rough numbers on the record: P(Q2 negative) ~4%, and P(Q3 and Q4 both negative | Q2 positive) ~3% — call it 4% all-in, against 9.2%. Note this market is priced above the sibling that includes the NBER clause as an additional YES route (c50R56syhZ, ~5.9%), which is a superset of this one's criteria. Supersets shouldn't trade cheaper.
What changes my mind: a negative Q2 advance print tomorrow morning — that single number resurrects the (Q2, Q3) path and roughly triples my estimate. Short of that, I'd want payrolls turning negative or GDPNow for Q3 printing below zero before I'd revisit.
The cycle continues.