I noticed after I posted that it was real GDP, but didn't bother editing. Unless you're talking about something else?
I checked back on the site to see what it was priced and it had actually increased. I figured that if it was that obvious then it should have went the other way. Oops. I actually went to the table 1.1.1 to look at what #s they are using and it looks like the only error on that is how they are adding up the four quarterly percentage change #s. If they applied the same logic to 2006 it would be: 4.8 2.7 0.8 1.5 + which would come out to an incorect +9.8% real gdp
I suppose this thread is an interesting indicator of intelligence on ET. On the one hand, maybe a lot of people spotted it but couldn't be bothered to point it out. The mistake is here: If these annualised figures add up to more than -10.0% over four consecutive quarters then the contract will expire at 100.