Atlanta Fed Slashes Q4 GDP Estimate From 3.6% To 2.4%

Tyler Durden's picture

When we looked at the latest disappointing spending data this morning, we warned that GDP would likely be weakned, however we had no idea by just how much. The answer was revealed moments ago courtesy of the Atlanta Fed, which moments ago updated its GDPNow model and said that its forecast for real GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2016 is 2.4 percent on November 30, down from 3.6 percent on November 23.

From the report:

The forecast of the combined contributions of real net exports and real inventory investment to fourth-quarter growth fell from 0.61 percentage points to 0.18 percentage points after last Friday's advance economic indicators report from the U.S. Census Bureau. The forecast of fourth-quarter real consumer spending growth fell from 3.0 percent to 2.2 percent after this morning's personal income and outlays release from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

And now, the sellside revisions will follow.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Hohum's picture

That revision demonstrates that this datapoint should be ignored.

Hal n back's picture

why waste time on this stuff--eliminate the activity, save the taxpayer money


cannot do that-it would cost a lot of jobs of people being unproductive and living off the taxpayer.



cowdiddly's picture

And it's Official.

Obama the only President EVER without a single 3% GDP growth.

Tanks fer da Legacy pinhead. Just get to packin yer shit.

A. Boaty's picture

Your comment assumes the Prez. can control the economy. Um,

LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture

Um... the president sets the policy direction. In Dear Leader Obama's case MASSIVE increases in regulation, costs to businesses, and promotion of dependance on the government (forcibly taking from people to pay others to not work, etc) instead of working for a living. Yes, that does impact the economy. Yes, the other branches of government are also responsible but the president if heavily in the mix. For example, see the disaster known as Obamacare and the slew of pen-and-phone executive orders that are harming the economy for reference.

A. Boaty's picture

Congress had to sign off on Obamacare. Prez. cannot spend a dime without Congress.

SoDamnMad's picture

He had 8 years to do something positive. Everything he touched was a failure. 

LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture

Try reading my comment, Sparky. If you need help let me know.

A. Boaty's picture

If the economy tanks over the next four years, will you blame our new Fearless Leader?

LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture

What part of my comment do you not understand? It seems to be this part:

"Yes, the other branches of government are also responsible but the president is heavily in the mix. For example, see the disaster known as Obamacare and the slew of pen-and-phone executive orders that are harming the economy for reference."

A. Boaty's picture

Do you give El Clinto credit for the '90s expansion? Do you blame Shrub for the Aug. 2007 meltdown? Deep state actors have a lot more economic power than the Prez. They messed up big time 2005-2007 and they have yet to regain control.

tarsubil's picture

And that is after cooking the books. And that is after one of the worst recessions in the last 100 years. And that is after adding around $10 trillion in debt. And I could go on.

Justin Case's picture

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan

“Our problem is not recession which is a short-term economic problem. I think you have a very profound long-term problem of economic growth at the time when the Western world, there is a very large migration from being a worker into being a of recipient of social benefits as it is called. And this is legally mandated in all of our countries. The size has got nothing to do with the rate of growth in economic activity, but if we stay down at the two percent economic growth in the United States and elsewhere, we’re not going to be able to fund what we are already legally obligated to spend,” he said.

LawsofPhysics's picture

All these eCONomists still believe in eCONomies that can growth infinitely in a biosphere with finite resources.

good luck with that guys!

bada boom's picture

More green shits.

angry_dad's picture

The margin of error in the GDP calculation is more than 2

YAWN as they reshuffle the deck chairs on the titanic

Obama's economic debacle can't be camouflaged buy these phony numbers.

Last of the Middle Class's picture

Damn, and just 3 days ago Black Friday and Cyber Monday were off the charts!  How the fuck does that happen? This is harder than herding cats. I'll say it one more; time It's the E C O N O M Y stupid! Bankers splitting up QE is NOT and I repeat NOT the economy I"m talking about. Duh!


NoWayJose's picture

But gold was down a few days ago when they revised GDP higher. Now with 'savings' higher (which lowers GDP) and this Fed report, you would think that gold would rip higher???? Or maybe the analysts can't say why gold is really getting hammered again today?

NoWayJose's picture

Consumer spending will soar in Q4 - based on what is being spent on recounts!

StreetObserver's picture

Gee, I wonder if Trump voters are voting again every single day by not spending anymore than they absolutely have to, in cash, at the end of the Obamanation?

Maybe they are hoarding their savings and are going to go out and spend like crazy once President Trump is in his first full month in office, February? His administration will get the credit for the tsunami in spending.

My friends and I are. The liquor cabinet gets replenished then, the car gets new tires, we order building material, get some new clothes and finally buy a new computer.

Sit on those wallets. It's easy, it's fun and you will save a lot of money because the desperate MSM advertisers will have huge sales in February. Make sure and charge everything too, because those numbers are reported every single week by the financial press.

Hal n back's picture

there was a quarter a while back that was 3.2% but everybody really knew it was bs. 

you do have to wonder how many people are needed to turn  out incorrect and intentionally misleading data.