imagedelivery.net · Original source page
Image provenance
Inherited source visual. Image capture date and exact event relationship were not established again in this expansion. Owner publication review pending; credit does not grant permission.
Original assetThe signal
Filed to Signal Atlas's method desk, this entry is about a timing problem: a signal built to move before the economy can only be checked against a turning point that is itself dated well after it happens. The Conference Board's own page on its Leading Economic Index describes the index as "a predictive tool that anticipates, or 'leads,' turning points in the business cycle by around seven months," built from ten components including weekly manufacturing hours, jobless claims, new orders, building permits, stock prices and an interest-rate spread.
The evidence
The benchmark against which any leading indicator is ultimately judged is the recession date itself, set by the National Bureau of Economic Research's Business Cycle Dating Committee. Its own page on how it dates turning points states that its approach "is retrospective" and that "the committee tends to wait to identify a peak until a number of months after it has actually occurred," doing so, in its words, until "sufficient data are available to avoid the need for major revisions." Its most recent cited pair of dates, a February 2020 peak and an April 2020 trough, was named only once the committee judged the drop "so great and so widely diffused" that the classification was clear.
Timeframe and confidence
Together these documents describe a structural asymmetry: a leading index is built and published monthly, in real time, while the yardstick used to say whether it actually led anything is published only after a deliberate delay. That does not make the seven-month lead time meaningless, since the Conference Board states it as the index's design purpose, but it does mean a reader cannot fully score a leading indicator's recent performance until the dating committee has ruled on the period in question, which by its own account can take months.
What would change the reading
A published, dated retrospective comparing the index's signal at the time against the committee's eventual ruling, repeated across several cycles, would show the indicator's real lead time and error rate rather than the single seven-month figure it is designed around.
- Has the committee already dated the turning point this indicator is being checked against, or is that date still pending?
- Is the indicator being read in real time, or with the benefit of later, revised dating?
- Which of the ten underlying components is driving the current reading, and does that component have its own revision history?
A leading indicator's whole claim is that it moves before the event it tracks. The event's own official date, by the dating committee's own account, is set only well after the fact, which is the gap any reader of a real-time signal has to hold in mind.
Source trail
- US Leading Indicatorswww.conference-board.org · Source publication: not established · Retrieved 2026-09-16
States the Leading Economic Index's ten components and its designed seven-month lead time.
- Business Cycle Datingwww.nber.org · Source publication: not established · Retrieved 2026-09-16
States that the committee's dating of recession peaks and troughs is retrospective and deliberately delayed until sufficient data are available.
- Event date
- No single event
- First source date
- Unknown
- Source-record publication
- Not supplied — draft retained
- Preparation
- 2026-09-16