Unless there are substantial unexpected negatives, US corporate margins will be up in 2017.
Resolved true The record shows it happened or was so.
Prediction: Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
Said for an organisation they lead or work for; it counts on both records.
What would count as true or false
Compare US corporate profit margins for calendar 2017 with 2016. The main measure is the S&P 500 aggregate net profit margin; NIPA corporate profits as a share of GDP or gross value added is the cross-check. TRUE: the 2017 margin is above the 2016 margin on the main measure. MOSTLY TRUE: margins rose on one measure and were roughly flat on the other (within about 0.2 percentage points). MIXED: the measures clearly disagree in direction, or margins fell but contemporaneous sources identify a substantial unexpected negative as the clear cause (the claim's own escape clause). MOSTLY FALSE: margins were flat or slightly down on the main measure and there was no substantial unexpected negative. FALSE: margins clearly fell in 2017 on both measures and there was no substantial unexpected negative.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (4)
-
E1 S&P 500 Profit Margin History Dqydj (Dq Yield Dollar Journal) · 29 October 2026
“| 12-2016 | 2246.630000 | $94.55 | $1,150.68 | 8.22% |”
-
E2 S&P 500 Profit Margin History Dqydj (Dq Yield Dollar Journal) · 29 October 2026
“| 12-2017 | 2664.340000 | $109.88 | $1,231.57 | 8.92% |”
-
E3 Gross Domestic Product, 4th quarter and annual 2017 (third estimate); Corporate Profits, 4th quarter and annual 2017 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
“In 2017, profits from current production increased $91.2 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $44.0 billion in 2016.”
-
E4 The Fat Pitch The Fat Pitch (blog) · 23 February 2018
“Profit margins expanded to a new all-time high of 10.8%.”
Reasoning
Dqydj's S&P 500 Profit Margin History table shows the margin at 8.22% in December 2016 (E1) and 8.92% in December 2017 (E2). The rows are unlabelled, but in each one earnings divided by sales gives the percentage shown, so the main measure rose. BEA data (E3) show NIPA corporate profits from current production rose $91.2 billion in 2017 after falling in 2016. That does not give a margin figure but is consistent with margins rising. Under the criteria, a higher 2017 margin on the main measure resolves the claim as true.
Cite this claim
Jeremy Grantham, “Unless there are substantial unexpected negatives, US corporate margins will be up in 2017.” (said 2017). Verdict: resolved true. Reliability API, claim c_258b111bab0e, method 0.1.0+28da144b, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_258b111bab0e
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More prediction claims by Jeremy Grantham
-
Resolved false
“we can conclude that the final low for this market might be well into 2024.”
The final low of this bear market might come well into 2024.
-
Mixed
“near certainty it was a year ago, is much more likely than not.”
A continued market decline of at least substantial proportions is much more likely than not.
-
Mostly false
“after a bloodbath is not unusual and may very well not outlive January.”
-
Mostly true
“may help to support the market for a few more months.”
The Presidential Cycle's positive influence may help support the market for a few more months.
-
Resolved true
“Each cycle is different and unique—but every historical parallel suggests that the worst is yet to come.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.