InTrade's Strangely Misnamed Recession Bet

Tuesday, August 05, 2008 | 07:24 AM

US Recession 2008

Chart via Intrade

I am only a partial believer in The Wisdom of Crowds.

Why? Most of the time, the crowd is correct. However, at turning points, or in manias, the crowd can be totally and expensively wrong. That's why I always watch the trend, and what the crowd is doing, and whether we are in one of those rare moments when the profitable thing to do is fade popular opinion.

Hence, it caught my attention in the Spring when the Intrade Recession forecast for 2008 suddenly went into freefall. The Economist community dropped the odds of recession dramatically over the same March to June period. Was the population of betters suddenly like minded?

This was one of those things I have been meaning to address. I nearly forgot about it, too, until suddenly a spate of articles and television pundits began relying on the above Intrade chart as evidence there will not be an economic contraction.

Off I go to the Intrade site to see what there was to see. It didn't take very long to discover the flaw in their betting process. According to Rules and Legal Info at the site, this bet actually is defined as:

"For expiry purposes, a recession is defined as two successive quarters of negative real GDP growth.

Expiry will be based soley on the data reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 1.1.1, "Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product") as reported by the BEA.

If the table as reported at that time indicates that any two consecutive quarters between (and including) Q4 of the previous year and Q4 of the year specified in the contract are negative, then the contract will expire at 100. Otherwise, the contract will expire at 0. For example, if Q4 of 2007 and Q1 of 2008 both experience negative growth then the contract for 2008 will expire at 100."

Aha! This bet is misnamed -- it is not a trade based upon whether the US is in a Recession; rather, it is a bet as to whether the US has 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. As we have so painstakingly discussed, is not the definition of a recession.

Intrade recognized that GDP numbers tend to get revised long after the fact. So thety added yet another twist to this strange bet:

"The final figures will be used for expiry - not the advance or preliminary numbers...Any changes to the result after the contract has expired will not be taken into account - Exchange Rule 1.4."

So it is the Final GDP numbers, reported on the 3rd month after the quarter has ended, that will be the basis of determining the winner, and not the more accurate revised data, such as we just had for Q4 2007.

Astonishing. What a strange wager: It does not use the actual definition of recession, and it does not use the most accurate data available.

Regardless of the title, this is not a recession bet. Perhaps the trade "USA two Consecutive Quarters of Negative Final (but Unrevised) GDP" has less of a ring to it than USA Recession 2008.


Continual Spot Price, US RecessionPrice for US Economy in Recession (*see contract rules for definition*) at


Update: August 5, 2008 10:30am

Portfolio's Felix Salmon points out that Don Fishback made a similar observation -- Don observes that according to Intrade's bet, there was no recession in 2001 !


Recessions Often Begin With Positive GDP Data (May 2008)

Why Prediction Markets Fail (January 11, 2008)

Pervasive Pollyannas of Prosperity (July 2008)

Whining US CEOs: Economy is "Dismal"  (July 2008)


Intrade Recession Bet

Rules and Legal Info

Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions 
National Bureau of Economic Research

Tuesday, August 05, 2008 | 07:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0) add to | digg digg this! | technorati add to technorati | email email this post



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference InTrade's Strangely Misnamed Recession Bet:


Yeah. And where can I place my bet that the homeland security threat level gets elevated prior to Nov. 3? What happens if they change the definition of GDP growth?

Posted by: jf | Aug 5, 2008 8:11:04 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

December 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      


Complete Archives List



Category Cloud

On the Nightstand

On the Nightstand

 Subscribe in a reader

Get The Big Picture!
Enter your email address:

Read our privacy policy

Essays & Effluvia

The Apprenticed Investor

Apprenticed Investor

About Me

About Me
email me

Favorite Posts

Tools and Feeds

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Subscribe to The Big Picture

Powered by FeedBurner

Add to Technorati Favorites


My Wishlist

Worth Perusing

Worth Perusing

mp3s Spinning

MP3s Spinning

My Photo



Odds & Ends

Site by Moxie Design Studios™