The yield curve — Methodology

How the curve's record is kept and tested — and the seven other relationships that were tested the same way and did not hold.

The rule

The curve is FRED's daily 10-year minus 3-month Treasury spread (T10Y3M), from Jan 1982. Each month is read at its last close; a month below zero is an inverted month, and consecutive inverted months are one inversion. The rule is the documented one — inversion — from the research that first tied it to recessions (Estrella and Mishkin, 1996); it was fixed before any measurement and has not been tuned.

The basis

Treasury yields are market prices: recorded as they trade, and never revised. Each month's reading is its last close, known that day, so the record is first-published by construction — nothing in it depends on data published later. The NBER's peak and trough dates are set after the fact, often a year or more later; they are used only to score what followed, never to decide when the curve fired.

The test, and its five parts

Each inversion is scored on one question: did an NBER business-cycle peak follow within 18 months of the month it began? Inversions that begin inside a recession are recognition, not warning, and are not scored. An inversion is scored once 12 months have passed after its 18-month window closes — time for the NBER, whose longest announcement lag in this record is 12 months, to declare any recession inside it; until then it reads “No recession declared yet”, and after that, with none declared, it counts as a miss. The base rate is the same question, under the same rule, asked of every month in the record.

The curve scored 7 of 9 against a base rate of 16.5% — 4.71 times as often. Random placements of the same number of inversions scored a median of 1 and a 95th percentile of 3.

testresult
at least 5 scored firings from 4 separate episodespasses
a hit rate at least 1.5 times the base ratepasses
no more false alarms than hitspasses
the same with any one episode removedpasses
more hits than the 95th percentile of 500 random placementspasses

Removing one episode at a time.

episode removedscoredhitstimes the base rateholds
from May 1989754.32yes
from Jul 2000864.54yes
from Feb 2006655.04yes
from May 2019754.32yes
from Oct 2022875.3yes

The 2-year to 10-year curve

The same rule and the same test on FRED's 10-year minus 2-year spread (T10Y2Y), from Jun 1976: 8 of 11 scored inversions were followed by a recession within 18 months, against a base rate of 20.7% — 3.51 times as often; 3 were not. It passes every test. Read at month-ends it did not invert before the recession that began in Feb 2020. Its series has its own page.

beganlastedwhat followed, and when
Jul 202225 monthsNo recession within 18 months
May 2007one monthA recession: the NBER peak came 7 months later (Dec 2007)
Aug 20067 monthsA recession: the NBER peak came 16 months later (Dec 2007)
Jun 2006one monthA recession: the NBER peak came 18 months later (Dec 2007)
Dec 20053 monthsNo recession within 18 months
Feb 200010 monthsA recession: the NBER peak came 13 months later (Mar 2001)
Jun 1998one monthNo recession within 18 months
Aug 19892 monthsA recession: the NBER peak came 11 months later (Jul 1990)
Jan 19895 monthsA recession: the NBER peak came 18 months later (Jul 1990)
Jun 1982one monthBegan inside a recession (not scored)
Jan 19824 monthsBegan inside a recession (not scored)
Sep 198013 monthsA recession: the NBER peak came 10 months later (Jul 1981)
Aug 197821 monthsA recession: the NBER peak came 17 months later (Jan 1980)

Against this site's own signals

For each inversion that a recession followed: did it begin before the stress signal opened, and before the Slowdown or Contraction stage began, in the 24 months before the NBER peak? Both come from the site's own record as first published, which starts in Aug 1981 — nearly all first-published from Sep 2016; earlier years partly use today's revised data (how much). The curve came first 2 times of 7 against the stress signal, and 3 against the stage.

inversion beganNBER peakthe stress signalthe Slowdown stage
May 1989Jul 1990opened Feb 1989 — the curve came afteropened Aug 1989 — the curve came first
Oct 1989Jul 1990opened Feb 1989 — the curve came afteropened Aug 1989 — the curve came after
Jul 2000Mar 2001opened Sep 2000 — the curve came firstopened Feb 2001 — the curve came first
Jul 2006Dec 2007opened Dec 2006 — the curve came firstopened Jul 2007 — the curve came first
Jul 2007Dec 2007opened Dec 2006 — the curve came afteropened Jul 2007 — the curve came the same month
May 2019Feb 2020opened Feb 2019 — the curve came afterdid not fire; the curve came first
Jan 2020Feb 2020opened Feb 2019 — the curve came afterdid not fire; the curve came first

Seven relationships that did not hold

Until September 2026 this page followed eight cross-asset relationships, each documented by practitioners or researchers before it was tested here, each with a rule fixed before measurement. In September 2026 every one was tested against the outcome its page claimed, by the test above. The yield curve held. The records below are why the others are no longer followed: each is kept in full, firing by firing.

The S&P 500 outcomes are measured on total return · Shiller monthly convention, at month-end closes (see "The total-return basis" on the Confluence methodology).

These records are as measured in September 2026: a firing whose window ran past the NBER dates then known (through July 2026) reads “not yet scored”. The curves above are scored by the rule under “The test”, and follow on their own.

The quality spread (Baa − Aaa)

Its page read a firing as corporate credit stress arriving with a recession; it was tested on whether each firing was followed by a recession under way or within 6 months. Does not discriminate.

Moody's Baa − Aaa (from Dec 1990): 2 of 7 scored firings were followed by a recession under way or within 6 months, against 12.6% of all months; 5 were not. More false alarms than hits, no better than random timing and its result rests on one episode.

beganlastedfollowed by a recession under way or within 6 months?
Mar 20202 monthsyes (Feb 2020) · began inside a recession
Oct 20155 monthsno
May 20124 monthsno
Jan 200819 monthsyes (Dec 2007) · began inside a recession
Sep 20022 monthsno
May 20022 monthsno
Dec 20014 monthsno

BBB − AAA option-adjusted: its history is too short for the rule to be tested at all.

Gold and the dollar rising together

Its page read a firing as acute systemic stress, in the moment; it was tested on whether each firing was followed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 6 months. Does not discriminate.

From Nov 2000: 5 of 17 scored firings were followed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 6 months, against 15.8% of all months; 12 were not. More false alarms than hits, no better than random timing and its result rests on one episode.

beganlastedfollowed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 6 months?
Nov 20252 monthsno
Jan 20252 monthsno
Feb 20245 monthsno
Dec 20215 monthsyes (May 2022)
Mar 20203 monthsno
Jul 20193 monthsno
Nov 20182 monthsno
Jun 20163 monthsno
Jan 20152 monthsno
Sep 20112 monthsno
Mar 20104 monthsno
Dec 20092 monthsno
Dec 20084 monthsyes (Mar 2009) · began inside a recession
Jun 20082 monthsyes (Oct 2008) · began inside a recession
Sep 20054 monthsno
Jan 20023 monthsyes (Jun 2002)
Jun 20012 monthsyes (Sep 2001) · began inside a recession

Copper / gold

Its page read a firing as weaker growth ahead; it was tested on whether each firing was followed by a recession within 12 months. Does not discriminate.

From Jul 2005: 1 of 6 scored firings were followed by a recession within 12 months, against 11.8% of all months; 5 were not. More false alarms than hits, fewer hits than one and a half times the base rate, no better than random timing and its result rests on one episode.

beganlastedfollowed by a recession within 12 months?
Jul 2024 (knowable Sep 2024)25 monthsno
Jun 2019 (knowable Aug 2019)17 monthsyes (Feb 2020)
Apr 2017 (knowable Jun 2017)2 monthsno
Oct 2015 (knowable Dec 2015)13 monthsno
Aug 2012 (knowable Oct 2012)2 monthsno
Oct 2011 (knowable Dec 2011)2 monthsno
Nov 2008 (knowable Jan 2009)5 monthsnot scored: began inside a recession

Gold / oil

Its page read a firing as fear together with weakening demand; it was tested on whether each firing was followed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 12 months. Does not discriminate.

From Jul 2005: 1 of 8 scored firings were followed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 12 months, against 18.6% of all months; 7 were not. More false alarms than hits, fewer hits than one and a half times the base rate, no better than random timing and its result rests on one episode.

beganlastedfollowed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 12 months?
Apr 202430 monthsno
Aug 201920 monthsno
Feb 20178 monthsno
Nov 201425 monthsno
May 20128 monthsno
Jun 20116 monthsno
May 20108 monthsno
Nov 20087 monthsyes (Mar 2009) · began inside a recession

Gold / silver

Its page read a firing as liquidity stress; it was tested on whether each firing was followed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 6 months. Does not discriminate.

From Jul 2005: 2 of 9 scored firings were followed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 6 months, against 12.9% of all months; 7 were not. More false alarms than hits, no better than random timing and its result rests on one episode.

beganlastedfollowed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 6 months?
Nov 20249 monthsno
Dec 20235 monthsno
May 20232 monthsno
Apr 20227 monthsyes (Jun 2022)
Jul 201736 monthsno
Nov 20155 monthsno
Jun 20154 monthsno
Oct 20145 monthsno
Oct 20083 monthsyes (Feb 2009) · began inside a recession

Stocks / gold

Its page read a firing as a deep risk-off turn; it was tested on whether each firing was followed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 12 months. Does not discriminate.

Dow / gold (from Jul 2005): 2 of 6 scored firings were followed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 12 months, against 18.6% of all months; 4 were not. More false alarms than hits, no better than random timing and its result rests on one episode.

beganlastedfollowed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 12 months?
Aug 20125 monthsno
Feb 201116 monthsyes (Sep 2011)
Apr 20109 monthsno
Sep 200730 monthsyes (Mar 2008)
Feb 20072 monthsno
Sep 200512 monthsno

S&P 500 / gold (from Jul 2005): 1 of 6 scored firings were followed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 12 months, against 18.6% of all months; 5 were not. More false alarms than hits, fewer hits than one and a half times the base rate, no better than random timing and its result rests on one episode.

beganlastedfollowed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 12 months?
Aug 20124 monthsno
Mar 201115 monthsno
Apr 20109 monthsno
Sep 200730 monthsyes (Mar 2008)
Jan 20073 monthsno
Nov 200511 monthsno

Lumber / gold

Its page read a firing as a risk-off regime; it was tested on whether each firing was followed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 6 months. Too few to say.

Lumber / gold, the legacy contract (from Nov 2000): 7 of 38 scored firings were followed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 6 months, against 17% of all months; 31 were not. Too few separate episodes to test: its 38 scored firings come so often that they chain into two, and what it claimed followed 7 of them, against 17% of all months.

beganlastedfollowed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 6 months?
Mar 202215 monthsyes (Jun 2022)
Jun 20215 monthsno
Oct 20202 monthsno
Feb 20204 monthsyes (Mar 2020)
Sep 2019one monthyes (Mar 2020)
Apr 20194 monthsno
Jul 20186 monthsno
Jan 2018one monthno
May 20173 monthsno
Oct 2016one monthno
Aug 2016one monthno
Jun 2016one monthno
Jan 20162 monthsno
Aug 20153 monthsno
Jan 20155 monthsno
Feb 20146 monthsno
May 20132 monthsno
Aug 20122 monthsno
Mar 2012one monthno
Aug 20114 monthsno
Mar 20114 monthsno
May 20104 monthsno
Aug 20093 monthsno
Oct 20086 monthsyes (Feb 2009) · began inside a recession
Aug 20078 monthsno
Jan 20074 monthsno
Jan 200611 monthsno
Apr 20058 monthsno
Sep 20043 monthsno
Jul 2004one monthno
Sep 20034 monthsno
Apr 2003one monthno
Feb 2003one monthno
Dec 2002one monthno
Apr 20027 monthsyes (Jul 2002)
Aug 20014 monthsyes (Sep 2001) · began inside a recession
Feb 2001one monthno
Dec 2000one monthyes (Mar 2001)

Lumber / gold, the current contract (from Nov 2022): 0 of 6 scored firings were followed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 6 months, against 5% of all months; 6 were not. Too few separate episodes to test: its 6 scored firings come so often that they chain into one, and what it claimed followed 0 of them, against 5% of all months.

beganlastedfollowed by a 10% fall in the S&P 500 within 6 months?
Aug 20262 monthsnot yet scored
Apr 2026one monthnot yet scored
Aug 20257 monthsno
Apr 20253 monthsno
Oct 2024one monthno
Apr 20245 monthsno
Sep 20234 monthsno
Nov 20227 monthsno

One more was retired in July 2026, before the others were tested, when it failed the test it was built on. Its record on the same test:

Real yields and gold rising together

Its page read a firing as an economic turn; it was tested on whether each firing was followed by a recession within 12 months. Does not discriminate.

From Apr 2003: 1 of 11 scored firings were followed by a recession within 12 months, against 10.5% of all months; 10 were not. More false alarms than hits, fewer hits than one and a half times the base rate, no better than random timing and its result rests on one episode.

beganlastedfollowed by a recession within 12 months?
Dec 20252 monthsnot yet scored
May 20252 monthsno
Oct 20242 monthsno
Mar 20244 monthsno
Oct 20232 monthsno
Jan 20224 monthsno
Nov 20182 monthsno
Jan 20183 monthsno
Jun 20092 monthsnot scored: began inside a recession
Jun 20082 monthsnot scored: began inside a recession
Dec 20063 monthsyes (Dec 2007)
Mar 20064 monthsno
Aug 20055 monthsno
Jul 20033 monthsno