GDP’s 3rd revision came out this morn, and it was below consensus:

“Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 2.2% in the third quarter of 2009, (that is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the “third” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP decreased 0.7%.

The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the “second” estimate issued last month. In the second estimate, the increase in real GDP was 2.8%.

The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, private inventory investment, federal government spending, and residential fixed investment that were partly offset by a negative contribution from nonresidential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.”

Futures softened a bit, but are still positive.

Q3 GDP 3rd rev

chart courtesy of Barron’s Econoday

>

Source:
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: THIRD QUARTER 2009 (THIRD ESTIMATE)
(GDP) Q3 2009

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Previously:
Is the Recession Over ? Extended Transition Phase (October 29th, 2009)

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/10/is-the-recession-over-extended-transition-phase/

Big GDP Number: 3.5% (October 29th, 2009)

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/10/big-gdp-number-3-5/

Category: Economy

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

12 Responses to “Q3 GDP Slips Further to 2.2%”

  1. OkieLawyer says:

    But Green Shoots have to put roots down before they start to grow, don’t you know?

  2. crosey says:

    That makes Q3 flat. Govt stimulus accounted for 2.2% of Q3, to my recollection.

  3. CTX says:

    so Barry r you happy with these numbers?

  4. call me ahab says:

    yeah BR- there is a santa clause-

    his name is Ben Bernanke-

    and you can thanks him for supporting all asset prices- housing, equities, commodities-

    if Fusion did well- then please send BB a Xmas card

  5. wally says:

    Don’t forget to subtract out the debt that will be defaulted upon – it is growth that shows up as positive in the numbers but did not actually happen… and deficit spending by government that forces future inflation… and stimulus that merely pulls future demand forward, which requires a double entry on the ledgers.

    We are still in recession.

  6. VIX just dropped below 20. I’m calling complacency

  7. CTX says:

    how many traders at home have a big framed picture of Ben Bernanke near their trading desk?

  8. Moss says:

    It is all about the Fed, and cheap or free money. Boy this story is so familiar.
    All the ‘pros’ know the Fed and or Treasury will not let the market fall too much.

  9. HarryWanger says:

    Barry says: “More recent data has been more positive”

    Of course, until it too gets revised lower or isn’t as strong as initially thought or whatever other nonsense is thrown in.

    Look, it’s a rock and a hard place now. Dollar going higher on stronger home sales and more Euro fears. But now our GDP was revised down yet again suggesting growth isn’t so robust. What do you do now? Economy is obviously not strong enough to sustain with a strong dollar environment as it would in “healthier” times.

    It’s definitely starting to get more interesting. Too bad the holidays are in the mix this week or the real fun would begin.

  10. HarryWanger says:

    Fun with percentages!

    Let’s see the GDP was revised downward from its original estimate. Ok, so they were off a bit. Well, maybe a more than a bit to the tune of 37%. Not bad.

    Of course going forward, they’ll be much, much more accurate.