Scan: Will there be a recession in 2026?

← Back to scans

Will there be a recession in 2026? — Starts

KXRECSSNBER-26 · Economics · 2026-05-04

18%

Agent

21%

Market Price

-3.0%

Edge

60%

Confidence

Volume: 1,900,461

Spread: 1.0c

Days to resolution: 272

Markets in event: 1

Final Rationale

My independent estimate of 16% was built on Q1 2026 GDP printing +2.0%, no negative quarters in 2025, and a residual ~13-18% probability of two consecutive negative quarters in Q2-Q4 2026. I PARTIALLY ACCEPT the critique on sub-question structure (sq1/sq2 shouldn't drag the average since recession can still start mid-2026) and on under-weighting the stagflation+Iran oil shock combination, which historically is a potent recession trigger — adjusting up ~2 points. I REJECT the NBER definitional challenge for this specific question since the resolution criterion explicitly states 'two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth... according to the BEA,' so the strict technical definition applies, not NBER judgment. The market at 20% (highly liquid, 192K depth) likely embeds some NBER-methodology premium that doesn't apply here, justifying my modest 2-point deviation below market.

Price vs. prediction

How the market moved after the agent's call. Solid blue line is the actual market price; dashed line is the agent's static forecast at $t{=}0$.

$n = 58$ follow-ups

Re-scan Context

This market has been scanned before. Previous predictions:

Date	Predicted	Market Price	Confidence
2026-04-03	28%	30%	50%

1. Planner Opus · Fermi decomposition + tool plan

Tools chosen: kalshi_data kalshi_orderbook fred_data article_search web_search code_execution wikipedia_lookup

Sub-questions (Fermi decomposition)

Did Q1 2025 or Q2 2025 GDP already show negative growth, putting the US on track for a technical recession in 2025? (w=0.25)
Will Q1 2026 GDP growth be negative according to BEA? (w=0.25)
Will there be two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth in 2026 (any pair among Q1-Q4 2026)? (w=0.35)
Are current leading economic indicators consistent with a trajectory toward sustained negative GDP growth by mid-2026? (w=0.15)

Planner reasoning

This question resolves YES if BEA reports two consecutive quarters of negative real GDP growth in 2025 OR 2026. As of May 4, 2026, we have BEA data through Q4 2025 (final) and likely Q1 2026 advance estimate (released late April 2026). Key analytical steps: (1) Determine whether 2025 already produced two consecutive negative quarters - if so, question resolves YES immediately. (2) If not, assess Q1 2026 GDP result - if negative, Q2 2026 becomes pivotal. (3) If Q1 2026 is positive, the question requires two consecutive negative quarters from Q2-Q4 2026. Causal mechanisms driving 2026 recession risk include: tariff-induced supply shocks from 2025 trade policy escalation, potential consumer spending pullback from elevated prices and uncertainty, labor market deterioration feeding through to demand, and whether the Fed has room to cut rates to cushion any downturn. The technical definition here (BEA two consecutive negative quarters) differs from NBER's holistic recession dating, which means the question could resolve YES even with mixed signals, or NO even in a weak economy if quarters alternate. Reference class: post-WWII US has experienced roughly 12 technical recessions over 78 years, a base rate around 30-35% per year. The two-year window (2025+2026) raises the unconditional base rate to roughly 50-55%, but current elevated uncertainty from tariffs, slowing growth, and policy uncertainty pushes conditional probability higher. The temporal path to YES most likely runs through Q1 2026 (already released) being negative followed by Q2 2026 (reported July 2026) also being negative.

2. Research Parallel tool calls · legacy v2

Tool	Status	Time	Items
kalshi_data	OK	2.1s	-
kalshi_orderbook	OK	0.3s	-
fred_data	OK	1.5s	-
article_search	OK	0.7s	-
web_search	OK	43.5s	-
code_execution	OK	0.1s	-
wikipedia_lookup	OK	1.5s	-

3. Evidence Synthesis Sonnet · 22 items · legacy v2

#	Strength	Credibility	Direction	Source	Claim	Priced In
1	STRONG	92	↓ DOWN	article_search	Q4 2025 GDP final estimate was revised down to 0.7% (from initial 1.4%), reflecting a significant slowdown but still positive growth. Full year 2025 GDP grew 2.1%.	Yes
2	STRONG	90	↓ DOWN	article_search	Q3 2025 GDP grew at 4.4% annualized rate before slowing sharply in Q4 2025 due to a 43-day government shutdown that subtracted ~1 percentage point from growth.	Yes
3	STRONG	95	↓ DOWN	web_search	Q1 2026 GDP advanced estimate showed +2.0% annualized growth (released April 30, 2026), confirming no negative GDP quarter in Q1 2025, Q2 2025, Q3 2025, Q4 2025, or Q1 2026.	Yes
4	STRONG	93	↓ DOWN	fred_data	FRED GDPC1 data shows 24174.527 as of 2026-01-01, consistent with positive Q4 2025 GDP; no negative quarter observed in recent FRED data.	Yes
5	STRONG	97	↓ DOWN	web_search	BEA advance estimate released April 30, 2026 showed Q1 2026 real GDP grew at +2.0% annualized rate, definitively not negative. This rules out Q1 2026 as a negative quarter.	Yes
6	STRONG	90	NEUTRAL	web_search	Q1 2026 growth of 2.0% was below the 2.3% consensus expectation, and PCE inflation surged to 4.5% Q/Q SAAR (highest since Q1 2023), indicating stagflationary pressures even as growth remained positive.	Yes
7	MODERATE	85	↓ DOWN	web_search	Q1 2026 rebound from Q4 2025's 0.5% final estimate was driven by investment (AI buildout), exports, consumer spending, and government spending, though net exports subtracted 1.30% as imports surged.	Yes
8	STRONG	78	↓ DOWN	kalshi_data	Kalshi market for 'Recession in 2026 — Starts' (KXRECSSNBER-26) is priced at 20%, down 10% over the past 30 days, with high liquidity (depth 192,171 contracts).	Yes
9	MODERATE	72	↓ DOWN	kalshi_orderbook	Orderbook shows yes_bid at $0.01, no_bid at $0.60, with a wide spread of $0.39 but very high depth (192,171 contracts), indicating strong market conviction toward NO resolution.	Yes
10	MODERATE	68	↓ DOWN	web_search	Polymarket traders price approximately 76.5% probability of NO U.S. recession by end-2026, consistent with Kalshi's ~20% YES probability.	Yes
11	MODERATE	72	↑ UP	article_search	As of late March 2026, recession probability forecasts ranged widely: Goldman Sachs 30%, Moody's Analytics 48.6%, Wilmington Trust 45%, EY-Parthenon 40% for next 12 months — elevated but not majority-view recession.	Yes
12	STRONG	82	↑ UP	article_search	The US-Israel attack on Iran (Feb 28, 2026) caused a historic oil supply disruption, with ~20% of global crude/gas flowing through the Strait of Hormuz potentially affected, raising stagflation risk.	Yes
13	MODERATE	85	NEUTRAL	article_search	Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in February 2026 that IEEPA-based tariffs are illegal, but Trump signaled he would use other authorities to maintain or escalate tariffs, leaving significant trade policy uncertainty ongoing.	Yes
14	MODERATE	72	↑ UP	article_search	One year after 'Liberation Day' tariffs, 80-85% of tariff costs were absorbed domestically (by corporations or passed to consumers), with retail, automotive, and pharma sectors still navigating supply chain disruptions.	Yes
15	STRONG	93	↑ UP	fred_data	Unemployment rate is 4.3% as of March 2026 (up 0.1% YoY), with total nonfarm payrolls at 158,637K (up only 152K YoY), indicating a dramatically slowing labor market compared to prior years.	Yes
16	MODERATE	88	↓ DOWN	fred_data	Initial jobless claims are 189,000 as of April 25, 2026 — down 41,000 YoY — suggesting the labor market is not yet deteriorating sharply despite broader macro headwinds.	Yes
17	STRONG	90	↑ UP	fred_data	CPI is up ~10.5 index points YoY as of March 2026, indicating persistent and elevated inflation running well above the Fed's 2% target, consistent with stagflationary conditions.	Yes
18	MODERATE	82	↑ UP	fred_data	University of Michigan consumer sentiment is 53.3 as of March 2026, up slightly (+1.1) YoY but still at historically depressed levels, suggesting weak consumer confidence.	Yes
19	MODERATE	88	NEUTRAL	fred_data	Federal funds rate is 3.64% as of April 2026, down 69 bps YoY, suggesting the Fed has been easing but has limited room to cut further given 4.5% PCE inflation in Q1 2026.	Yes
20	STRONG	90	↑ UP	web_search	Core PCE inflation accelerated to 4.3% Q/Q SAAR in Q1 2026 (highest since Q1 2023), severely constraining the Fed's ability to cut rates to cushion any growth slowdown — a stagflation trap.	Yes
21	MODERATE	65	↓ DOWN	kalshi_data	Kalshi 'Recession in 2027' market is priced at 38%, up 3% over 30 days, with a range of 33-38% — higher than the 2026 market (20%), suggesting recession risk is being pushed out to 2027.	Yes
22	MODERATE	68	↑ UP	article_search	Job growth in 2026 is concentrated almost entirely in healthcare (72% of job growth from an 11% share of jobs), while broader job market is described as 'sluggish,' indicating structural labor market weakness.	Yes

Information Gaps

No Q2 2026 GDP data available — this is the pivotal quarter given Q1 2026 was positive; the advance estimate won't be released until late July 2026
No detailed breakdown of Q1 2026 consumer spending subcategories to assess whether households are still resilient or beginning to pull back
Unclear current status of the Iran war / oil supply disruption — whether the Strait of Hormuz blockage has worsened, improved, or resolved since late March 2026 articles
No specific Q3 and Q4 2026 GDP forecasts from major institutions post-Q1 2026 data release
No information on what tariff authorities Trump is using to replace IEEPA tariffs following the Supreme Court ruling, or the current effective tariff rate on US imports
No data on business investment intentions or capital expenditure plans for Q2-Q4 2026 that would indicate forward-looking demand
No information on whether the Fed has cut rates further since April 2026 despite the stagflationary Q1 data
Q1 2025 and Q2 2025 GDP figures are referenced only indirectly — explicit confirmation that neither was negative would be useful
No data on housing market conditions, credit conditions, or credit spreads that could indicate financial stress
Unclear whether the BEA Q4 2025 final estimate (0.5% per web_search vs 0.7% per article_search) represents a further downward revision or a data discrepancy

Key Uncertainties

Duration and severity of the US-Iran war and its effect on global oil prices — an extended conflict could push energy costs high enough to tip Q2/Q3 2026 GDP negative
Whether stagflation dynamics (4.5% PCE inflation + slowing growth) prevent Fed from cutting rates sufficiently to prevent a hard landing
Whether Q1 2026's 2.0% growth is revised significantly downward in the May 28 second estimate — a downward revision toward zero would increase Q2 2026 recession risk
Whether Trump's replacement tariff mechanism (non-IEEPA) results in higher, lower, or similar effective tariff rates post-Supreme Court ruling
Whether the labor market continues its slow weakening or stabilizes — very weak YoY payroll growth (+152K total) could become negative if Iran war/inflation accelerates
Whether consumer spending holds up despite 4.3% core PCE inflation eating into real purchasing power
Imports drag (-2.62% contribution to Q1 GDP) may reverse or intensify in Q2 2026 depending on trade policy clarity
The apparent discrepancy in Q4 2025 final GDP estimate (0.5% per web_search vs 0.7% per article_search) needs clarification — if true 0.5%, Q4 was very close to zero

Market Context

Price: 0.2 · 7d: -0.01 · 30d: -0.10
Volume: HIGH — 10,184 average daily contracts · Depth: VERY HIGH — 192,171 depth
Reliability: HIGH — very liquid market with strong orderbook depth; the 30-day decline from ~30% to 20% reflects Q1 2026 positive GDP print reducing near-term recession odds; note Kalshi market appears to track NBER recession dating rather than the strict two-consecutive-negative-quarters BEA definition used in this question, which could create a slight definitional mismatch

4. Independent Forecaster Opus · No market price · legacy v2 Did NOT see market price

Independent estimate: 16% (67% confidence)

base rate

13%

70% conf

evidence driven

13%

70% conf

contrarian

22%

62% conf

Spread

9pp

Moderate

sq1: Did Q1 2025 or Q2 2025 GDP already show negative growth?

Evidence definitively states full year 2025 grew 2.1%, Q3 2025 was +4.4%, Q4 2025 was +0.5-0.7%. No negative quarters in 2025 reported. Small residual uncertainty for revisions but essentially settled NO.

sq2: Will Q1 2026 GDP be negative?

BEA advance estimate already released April 30, 2026 at +2.0%. Subsequent revisions could theoretically flip to negative but extremely rare for a 2.0% advance to revise below zero. Near-zero probability.

sq3: Will there be two consecutive negative quarters in 2026?

18%

Given Q1 2026 is +2.0%, the only paths to YES are Q2+Q3 negative or Q3+Q4 negative. Base rate for any 2-consecutive-negative-quarter event in a given year is roughly 15-20% historically. Bullish factors: Q1 came in at 2.0% with strong investment, low jobless claims (189K), Fed easing. Bearish factors: stagflation risk (4.5% PCE), Iran war oil shock, tariff drag, slowing payrolls (+152K YoY). Forecaster recession probabilities cluster 30-48% for full 12-month recession (NBER definition, broader than technical). Technical recession probability is lower than NBER recession probability typically. With one quarter already locked positive, probability of two consecutive negative in remaining three quarters is ~15-20%.

sq4: Are leading indicators consistent with trajectory toward sustained negative GDP?

30%

Mixed signals: stagflationary pressures (4.5% PCE, weak payrolls, depressed sentiment, Iran oil shock) push UP. But low jobless claims, Fed cutting, positive Q1 growth, AI investment boom push DOWN. Indicators suggest elevated risk but not imminent contraction trajectory. ~30% reflects elevated but not majority recession risk.

Show full reasoning trace

base rate: Post-WWII US technical recessions: ~12 over 78 years, ~15% per year base rate. For a 2-year window, ~28%. But 2025 is already confirmed no negative quarters, and Q1 2026 is positive, so the effective window is now 3 quarters (Q2-Q4 2026) for two consecutive negatives, which has a base rate around 12-15%.

evidence updates: Strong DOWN: Q1 2026 +2.0%, no 2025 negative quarters, low jobless claims, Fed easing room. Strong UP: stagflation (4.5% PCE), Iran war oil shock, weak payroll growth, tariff disruption. Forecaster consensus recession probability ~30-45% (12-month NBER), but technical 2-consecutive-negative threshold is harder to hit than NBER recession.

combination method: Weighted average across sub-questions, with recognition that sq1 and sq2 are largely resolved NO, making sq3 the dominant driver.

final: With Q1 2026 at +2.0% and no 2025 negative quarters, the question reduces to whether Q2+Q3 or Q3+Q4 2026 will both be negative. Given mixed but not collapsing indicators, ~13% probability.

ensemble: {'ensemble_count': 3, 'perspectives': {'base_rate': {'p_yes': 0.13, 'confidence': 0.7}, 'evidence_driven': {'p_yes': 0.13, 'confidence': 0.7}, 'contrarian': {'p_yes': 0.22, 'confidence': 0.62}}, 'spread': 0.09, 'individual_p_yes': {'base_rate': 0.13, 'evidence_driven': 0.13, 'contrarian': 0.22}}

5. Devil's Advocate Sonnet · legacy v2 Market price revealed

Missing Info Reasoning Flaw Asymmetric Evidence

Challenges

Definitional mismatch is potentially the most important issue: the Kalshi market 'KXRECSSNBER-26' explicitly references NBER methodology (broader, judgment-based, includes employment, income, production), while your sub-question 3 reasoning treats this as a strict 'two-consecutive-negative-quarters' technical definition. If the resolution criterion is NBER-based, your forecast is too low because NBER recessions can be declared without two consecutive negative GDP quarters (e.g., 2020 was only one quarter of decline by some measures, and 2001 had no two consecutive negative quarters). You should clarify the resolution criterion before anchoring at 16%.
Sub-question structure double-discounts. sq1 and sq2 are essentially resolved at ~2-3%, but they contribute almost nothing to a 2026 recession START — a recession could start in Q2, Q3, or Q4 2026 regardless of Q1. By including them as low-probability sub-questions and then combining via weighted average, you may be artificially pulling the combined estimate down. The combination logic should focus on sq3/sq4 with sq1/sq2 only used to rule out very early-2026 starts.
The contrarian perspective in your ensemble (0.22) is closer to the market (0.20), and given significant stagflationary signals (4.5% PCE, Iran oil shock with 20% global supply disruption, weak payrolls concentrated in healthcare, rising unemployment), the contrarian view may deserve more weight than 1/3. The 'job growth concentrated in healthcare' signal is a classic late-cycle indicator historically associated with recessions.
You note the Iran war oil shock as STRONG UP evidence but don't quantify it. A ~20% global oil supply disruption is historically associated with recessions (1973, 1979, 1990). If the Strait of Hormuz situation is ongoing, the 16% estimate likely understates tail risk from this single factor.
Information gap on current Iran/oil status, Fed actions post-April, and Q2 2026 nowcasts is significant given 272 days to resolution. This uncertainty should widen the distribution, not narrow it — your 0.673 confidence may be too high.

Suggested adjustment: +4pp

Adjust upward modestly (not to match market, but) because: (1) potential definitional mismatch — if resolution is NBER-based as the Kalshi ticker suggests, the strict two-quarter framing understates probability; (2) the contrarian ensemble member at 22% deserves more weight given the stagflation + oil shock combination, which is a historically potent recession trigger; (3) the late-cycle healthcare-concentrated job growth signal is underweighted. These are reasoning issues independent of market price.

Market comparison: Forecaster: 16%, Market: 20%. The 4-point divergence is small and within reasonable disagreement range. Market is highly liquid (192K depth, 10K daily volume) and has already adjusted down 10 points on the Q1 print, suggesting it's incorporating the same positive evidence. The main concern is not the divergence itself but that the market may be pricing NBER methodology while the forecaster is pricing technical recession — these can differ by several percentage points.

6. Aggregator Opus · final calibrated forecast

18% (60% confidence)