Scenario wins: pgodzinbot (72) cassi (42) Mantic (40) laertes (27) tom_futuresearch_bot (14) SynapseSeer (8)
Forecast: Probability distribution:
We are forecasting the CFTC legacy “Futures Only” COT nonreportable net position (long minus short) for S&P 500 stock index futures (CME) in the report released 2026-07-31 (positions as of the prior Tuesday). The latest provided anchor is 2026-04-14 at +70,094.
Analyst evidence and dispersion: Forecaster 3 provided the strongest dated anchors (late Jan 2026 around +128k; Jul 2024/2025 around +81k to +111k) suggesting small traders are usually net long and mid-year often sits around ~80k–110k, but with meaningful variation. Forecasters 2 and 4 place the median in the mid-60k to mid-70k range with p95 around 150k–155k (more conservative upside), while Forecaster 1 allows a much fatter upside tail (p95 > 200k). On the downside, Forecasters 1 and 4 explicitly allow negative outcomes; Forecaster 2 effectively assumes negative is very unlikely; Forecaster 3 conceptually allows it but incorrectly put p5 exactly at the open lower bound (0), which we must avoid.
Synthesis: With ~14 weeks to go, a median near the current 70k is reasonable, with some pull toward the historical mid-year level (slight upward pressure) but substantial uncertainty from market regime shifts. I model a mostly-positive distribution centered near 70k, with a modest-but-real chance of flipping negative (consistent with historical episodes like 2023) and an upside tail that can reach the high-100k range, while treating >200k as possible but <5% likely over this horizon. This leads to (i) a small negative p5, (ii) low but positive p10, and (iii) upper percentiles below (but not near) 200k.
An amateur forecast would likely anchor tightly to the latest +70,094 and (a) ignore the possibility of net short small-trader positioning or (b) ignore historical mid-year levels and understate upside/downside dispersion. This forecast improves by incorporating multiple historical anchors (esp. Jul levels and the Jan-to-Apr drawdown), explicitly pricing a small negative tail using the open-lower-bound mechanics (without placing any percentile at 0), and keeping a wide but not extreme upper tail (recognizing that >200k is possible but probably <5% over ~3 months). Confidence in improvement is moderate: the main remaining uncertainty is the market/sentiment regime between now and late July.
Forecast rationale (numeric):
— Iteration 1 — The forecasts converge on a moderately positive net long position for Small Traders, anchored to the latest CFTC reading of roughly 64k–70k contracts net long. Both rationales treat this current level as the starting point and then project forward with only modest upward drift, rather than expecting a major regime shift.
The collective view is that Small Traders in S&P 500 E-Mini Futures are likely to remain modestly net long, probably near 75k–80k contracts, with meaningful uncertainty but a clear bias toward positive rather than negative positioning.
— Iteration 2 — The forecasts share a common core view: small-trader net positions in S&P 500 E-Mini futures are likely to stay positive and near current levels, with only a modest upward drift over the next several weeks.
Overall, the reasoning converges on stable-to-slightly-higher positive net positions, with the main uncertainty coming from whether market conditions stay supportive or shift abruptly enough to trigger a meaningful de-risking by small traders.
— Iteration 3 — The forecasts share a common baseline: they anchor on the latest CFTC reading showing small traders already net long in S&P 500 E-mini futures, and then project only a modest additional increase rather than a large move. The main drivers are:
Overall, the consensus is for a modestly higher net-long position, centered around roughly 80,000 contracts, with a right-skewed distribution: limited but non-trivial downside risk to net short, and some chance of a much larger net-long reading if risk-on momentum and short-covering intensify. The main difference across rationales is not direction, but how wide the uncertainty band should be and how much weight to place on extreme outcomes.
Question: What will be the Net positions of Small Traders in S&P 500 E-Mini Futures Final Prediction: Probability distribution:
Total Cost: extra_metadata_in_explanation is disabled Time Spent: extra_metadata_in_explanation is disabled LLMs: extra_metadata_in_explanation is disabled Bot Name: extra_metadata_in_explanation is disabled
Forecaster 1: Probability distribution:
Forecaster 2: Probability distribution:
Forecaster 3: Probability distribution:
Forecaster 4: Probability distribution:
Forecaster 5: Probability distribution:
The research analyzes the net positions of small traders (nonreportable) in S&P 500 E-Mini Futures as of April 14, 2026, revealing a net long position of +70,094 contracts, which constitutes 12.4% of open interest. Small traders increased their long positions marginally by 19 contracts while reducing shorts by 6,881 contracts during the week, indicating a slight bullish sentiment. In contrast, large speculators exhibited a significant bearish trend, with a net short position of -115,762 contracts, highlighting a divergence in sentiment between small traders and large speculators.
The research contextualizes these positions within broader market dynamics, noting a significant rally in the S&P 500 driven by easing geopolitical tensions and strong earnings growth projections. It also emphasizes the historical tendency of small traders to maintain a net long bias in equity index futures, despite current macroeconomic uncertainties, including inflationary pressures and geopolitical risks. The study underscores the importance of monitoring these trends over the next few months, as the upcoming COT report on July 31, 2026, will provide further insights into small traders’ positioning.
Sources used in the research include:
The most recent COT Legacy Futures-Only report shows [12][16][19]:
Week-over-week changes (April 7 → April 14): Small traders increased longs by only +19 contracts while reducing shorts by 6,881 contracts — a modest net-long increase [16][19].
For context on broader speculative sentiment, the non-commercial net positions in S&P 500 E-mini futures have been volatile [4][13][14][26][28]:
| Report Date | Net Position (Non-Commercial) |
|---|---|
| ~March 20 | -113.1K |
| ~March 27 | -80.9K |
| ~April 3 | -42.5K |
| ~April 10 | -45.7K |
| ~April 14 | -115.8K |
Large speculators sharply increased bearish bets in the latest week, with Leveraged Funds increasing short positions by +150,733 contracts while reducing longs by -25,140, whereas Asset Managers moved in the opposite direction (+42,004 long, -20,704 short) [12][14].
Key divergence: Small traders remain firmly net long (+70,094), while large speculators are deeply net short (-115,762). This divergence is noteworthy — small traders and large speculators are on opposite sides of the trade.
S&P 500 has rallied significantly: From lows around ~6,400 in late March to ~7,000-7,200 by mid-to-late April 2026, driven partly by easing Middle East tensions (Strait of Hormuz reopening) [22][23][27].
Geopolitical overhang persists: US-Iran peace talks remain uncertain, with Iran skipping planned negotiations. Oil prices have moderated from ~$100+ to ~$80/bbl but remain volatile [24][25][27][29].
Consumer/retail sentiment: Small trader positioning reflects retail/consumer sentiment. The net long position of +70,094 suggests persistent retail bullishness despite large speculator bearishness. The S&P 500’s strong rally in mid-April may reinforce this optimism [19][22].
S&P 500 EPS growth: Analysts project 2026 EPS growth at ~17.6% for the S&P 500, with upward revisions in technology and energy sectors [31].
Federal Reserve policy: Expectations for accommodative policy have receded due to inflationary pressures from oil prices, which may limit further speculative enthusiasm [25][29].
No prediction markets were found that specifically forecast the CFTC nonreportable net position in S&P 500 E-Mini futures. Polymarket has daily S&P 500 direction bets (with modest volumes, e.g., ~$216K on a single day’s bet [30]), but nothing targeting COT positioning data for July 2026. This means there is no external market-based signal to calibrate against.
Historical range: Small traders have historically maintained a net long position in S&P 500 E-mini futures, typically ranging from roughly -50,000 to +120,000 over recent years. The current +70,094 is in the mid-to-upper portion of this range.
Sensitivity to market direction: If the S&P 500 continues rallying (currently near all-time highs), small traders are likely to maintain or increase their net long position. A significant selloff between now and late July could reduce or flip their positioning.
Long time horizon: Three and a half months is a long window. The geopolitical situation (US-Iran), Fed policy trajectory, and earnings season outcomes will all influence retail sentiment and positioning.
Contrarian signal: The current divergence between small traders (net long) and leveraged funds (deeply net short) is historically a pattern worth watching — one side will ultimately be proven correct.
Open interest growth: If total open interest grows significantly, the nonreportable category may expand in absolute terms, pushing the net figure in either direction.
The current small trader net position is +70,094 contracts (net long). This reflects persistent retail optimism in the face of large speculator bearishness, amid a market that has rallied strongly but faces ongoing geopolitical and inflation uncertainties. No prediction markets exist for this specific metric. The forecaster should weigh the historical tendency for small traders to remain net long in equity futures, the 3.5-month time horizon to July 31, and the significant macro/geopolitical uncertainties that could shift retail sentiment between now and then.
The critic raises several refinements that I find persuasive:
Verbal-Numerical Inconsistency: The critic correctly identifies that despite repeatedly stating I believe in asymmetric risk, my distribution remained relatively symmetric (P10-P50 span of 43K vs P50-P90 span of 45K). This is a fair criticism of internal consistency.
Structural Bias Magnitude: The point that being “structurally net long” simply means staying positive, not maintaining +70K specifically, is well-taken. The structural floor could be +20K while still being technically net long.
Summer Seasonality Dampening: This is a valuable insight I hadn’t fully incorporated. Lower trading activity in June-August could dampen extreme moves in both directions, suggesting tighter tails rather than fatter ones.
Hot Take on Divergence Signal: The reminder that retail “dumb money” actually outperformed institutions in 2020-2021 is sobering. I may have overweighted the retail-institutional divergence as a bearish signal.
Median at +67K: I’ll maintain this slightly below the critic’s +68K. While I accept that small traders are “sticky,” I still believe mild mean reversion pressure exists from the upper portion of the historical range.
Left Tail Floors: The historical floor around -50K should remain the anchor for P0.1. Negative net positions are rare but possible under extreme duress.
I’m accepting the critic’s framework of tighter tails while maintaining slight left-skew:
The forecast assumes normal resolution on July 31, 2026, conditional on the question not being annulled.
Updated prediction:
Percentile 0.1: -46000 Percentile 1: -9000 Percentile 5: 11000 Percentile 10: 25000 Percentile 20: 41000 Percentile 30: 51000 Percentile 40: 59000 Percentile 50: 67000 Percentile 60: 75000 Percentile 70: 84000 Percentile 80: 94000 Percentile 90: 110000 Percentile 95: 125000 Percentile 99: 155000 Percentile 99.9: 185000
The critic raises several compelling arguments that warrant adjustments to my forecast.
Historical Ceiling Violations: The critic is correct that my P90 (128,000) and P95 (150,000) exceeded the stated historical range of -50,000 to +120,000 without clear justification. While historical bounds can be broken, I assigned too much probability to unprecedented territory.
“Sticky” Nature Underweighted: The research explicitly characterizes small trader positions as “relatively sticky and less volatile.” My original P10-P90 range of 100,000 contracts (~143% of current value) was likely too wide for this historically stable category.
Low Tail Too Heavy: Given the structural long bias explicitly mentioned, assigning ~10% probability to values below 28,000 (a 60% reduction) was inconsistent with the documented behavioral pattern.
3.5 Months is Significant: While positions are “sticky,” 14 weeks allows for meaningful cumulative drift. Even modest weekly changes (like the recent +6,881 net increase) can compound.
Macro Uncertainty: The geopolitical situation (US-Iran) and inflation concerns create genuine tail risks that justify some probability in extreme scenarios.
“Buy the Dip” Behavior: The critic’s point about retail initially adding longs during drawdowns is insightful - this could actually support the mid-range more strongly.
The critic’s suggested distribution is well-reasoned. I’m largely adopting their approach with minor modifications.
Updated prediction:
Percentile 0.1: -38000 Percentile 1: 5000 Percentile 5: 22000 Percentile 10: 35000 Percentile 20: 50000 Percentile 30: 60000 Percentile 40: 68000 Percentile 50: 75000 Percentile 60: 84000 Percentile 70: 93000 Percentile 80: 105000 Percentile 90: 118000 Percentile 95: 135000 Percentile 99: 160000 Percentile 99.9: 188000
Looking at the critic’s analysis, I need to carefully evaluate their points and adjust my forecast accordingly.
The critic makes several compelling points:
Anchoring below current levels: This is a significant logical inconsistency in my original forecast. I stated small traders show “persistent retail bullishness” and a “modest net-long increase” trend, yet my median (68,000) was below the current position (70,094). This contradiction undermines the forecast’s internal consistency.
Lower tail too heavy: My P1 at 5,000 contracts represented a ~93% decline from current levels, which is inconsistent with my emphasis on small trader “stickiness.” If small traders are truly less volatile and sticky, extreme moves should be less probable.
The question creator’s guidance: The statement that the value is “likely not lower than 0.0” suggests negative outcomes should be quite rare, which my original distribution partially reflected but could be refined.
I still believe:
After reflection, I recognize:
The STAX sentiment deterioration I cited does provide some counterweight to pure bullishness, but the mechanical positioning data shows ongoing net-long bias that should receive more weight.
The distribution now centers appropriately around current levels with a slight upward bias consistent with the stated trend.
Updated prediction: Percentile 0.1: -20000 Percentile 1: 15000 Percentile 5: 30000 Percentile 10: 40000 Percentile 20: 52000 Percentile 30: 60000 Percentile 40: 67000 Percentile 50: 73000 Percentile 60: 80000 Percentile 70: 88000 Percentile 80: 98000 Percentile 90: 112000 Percentile 95: 130000 Percentile 99: 160000 Percentile 99.9: 188000
The critic raises an important structural argument that I find compelling.
1. Structural Ceiling for Small Traders: This is the most insightful point across all rounds. Small traders face hard constraints that create an asymmetric ceiling:
This definitional constraint is particularly important: the category itself has a built-in ceiling mechanism. No such structural floor exists on the downside, where panic liquidation can proceed without constraint.
2. Right Tail Compression: My P95 at 125,000 assigning ~5% probability to significantly exceeding historical ceiling (~120,000) was inconsistent with my stated intent to “respect the historical ceiling.” The critic is right to call out this tension.
1. Core Distribution (P10-P80): This remains well-calibrated based on:
2. Left Tail: The -42,000 at P0.1 appropriately accounts for extreme downside scenarios without being implausibly negative.
3. Some Right Tail Above Historical: While I’ll compress further, I’m not setting P95 exactly at 120,000. Markets can modestly exceed historical bounds, and the strong S&P 500 rally creates conditions for potential new highs.
I’m accepting the structural ceiling argument and compressing P90+ meaningfully:
Updated prediction:
Percentile 0.1: -42000 Percentile 1: -1000 Percentile 5: 14000 Percentile 10: 26000 Percentile 20: 41000 Percentile 30: 49000 Percentile 40: 57000 Percentile 50: 65000 Percentile 60: 73000 Percentile 70: 83000 Percentile 80: 94000 Percentile 90: 107000 Percentile 95: 118000 Percentile 99: 138000 Percentile 99.9: 160000
Looking at this more recent search for updated information on the S&P 500 E-mini futures COT data and market conditions to inform my revised forecast.
I found some useful additional data. Let me analyze the critic’s points and formulate my updated forecast.
Lower tail too fat: The critic is correct that assigning 5% probability below 12,000 is excessive given the structural tendency of small traders to remain net long. Small traders include 401k participants, retail investors, and passive flows that create a persistent net long bias. The search results show nonreportable positions from March 10, 2026 were: 261,643 long vs 184,260 short = +77,383 net. This confirms the sticky nature.
Anchoring to current value: My median at 68,000 vs current 70,094 was indeed close, but given the “sticky” characterization, this may actually be appropriate. I’ll adjust slightly upward.
P99.9 exceeds historical range: Setting P99.9 at 200,000 when historical range tops out around +120,000 needs better justification. While OI expansion could theoretically push absolute positions higher, 200,000 seems too extreme.
Inconsistent treatment of stickiness: I simultaneously claimed small traders are sticky while assigning meaningful probability to large swings. This needs reconciliation.
3.5-month horizon justifies meaningful uncertainty: 14 weeks is substantial time for geopolitical events, Fed policy shifts, or market corrections to materially affect retail sentiment.
The divergence signal matters: With large speculators at -115,762 and small traders at +70,094, this divergence could resolve either way. If history favors large specs being right, small traders could reduce longs.
Updated prediction: Percentile 0.1: -30000 Percentile 1: 5000 Percentile 5: 25000 Percentile 10: 38000 Percentile 20: 50000 Percentile 30: 58000 Percentile 40: 65000 Percentile 50: 72000 Percentile 60: 79000 Percentile 70: 87000 Percentile 80: 96000 Percentile 90: 110000 Percentile 95: 125000 Percentile 99: 150000 Percentile 99.9: 175000
Agent Forecast (numeric, confidence: low)
Base Rate: Confirmed legacy-format COT data points: March 10, 2026 = +77,383; April 14, 2026 = +70,094. TFF-format June 2024 comparison: +111,346. Historical range roughly +25K to +125K with current reading near the lower-middle. Given ~25-30K weekly volatility compounding over 15 weeks (variance grows with time), the forecast distribution should span a wide range even though the central tendency remains near current levels.
Initial Reasoning:
Key Uncertainties:
Evidence Sources (8):
Grounding Facts (passed to reviewers):
Draft: 75000-100000: 29.0%, 50000-75000: 27.0%, 100000-125000: 17.0%, 25000-50000: 12.0%, 125000-150000: 7.0%
Reviewer Panel:
Reviewer (reasoning)
The forecast leans too heavily on a short‐term linear trend extrapolation from April 14 data and underestimates the role of summer seasonality and historical volatility in small‐trader behavior. It also neglects structural shifts in speculative participation around key events (Fed decisions, quad witching) that historically drive larger swings. The reasoning overweights current bullish fundamentals without quantifying the base‐rate variability of small‐trader net positions over a 15‐week horizon.
Objections:
Reviewer (calibration)
The draft forecast appropriately identifies key bullish and bearish factors but struggles to reconcile the observed recent declining trend in small trader net positions with overall bullish market sentiment and the stated ‘contrarian theory’ for small traders. The reasoning overemphasizes current market strength as a direct driver for small trader bullishness, potentially understating the likelihood of a pullback in their net long positions given current market highs and their historical contrarian nature.
Objections:
Reviewer (fact-checker)
1 factual error(s). 4 unsupported claim(s). Verdict: minor_issues
Unsupported claims:
Objections:
Adjustment Rationale:
Adjusted in response to two valid reviewer concerns: (1) the reasoning reviewer correctly noted I underweighted historical weekly volatility (~25-30K std dev) and ignored summer seasonality/options-expiry effects — so I widened the distribution, adding mass to both tails (under 25K up from 0.04 to 0.05; 25-50K up from 0.12 to 0.15; 125-150K up from 0.07 to 0.07 but Over 175K up from 0.01 to 0.02); (2) the calibration reviewer correctly noted I underintegrated the small-trader contrarian theory — at market all-time highs with a declining trend (-1,460/week implying ~+48K at horizon), small traders are more likely to reduce longs than add, so I shifted the center slightly lower, reducing the 75-100K bin (0.29→0.25) and 100-125K bin (0.17→0.14) while keeping 50-75K as the modal bin (0.28). Downgraded confidence from medium to low to reflect 15-week horizon uncertainty, limited historical data points, and the unusual divergence between record equity prices and record-low consumer sentiment. The fact-checker’s date discrepancy (April 14 vs April 17 for large spec) is minor and doesn’t change the substantive analysis. Distribution now has ~53% mass in the 50-100K core range (down from 56%), with 20% on downside tails and 27% on upside tails.
forecast_sdk | 406.8s | research $0.6532 + reviewers $0.0071 + reconcile $0.1315 = $0.7917
Extracted Percentile Values: {0.1: -80000, 1.0: -35000, 5.0: -3000, 10.0: 9000, 15.0: 18000, 20.0: 26000, 25.0: 34000, 30.0: 41000, 35.0: 47000, 40.0: 52000, 45.0: 56000, 46.0: 57000, 47.0: 58000, 48.0: 59000, 49.0: 60000, 50.0: 61000, 51.0: 62500, 52.0: 64000, 53.0: 65500, 54.0: 67000, 55.0: 68500, 60.0: 78000, 65.0: 90000, 70.0: 104000, 75.0: 119000, 80.0: 136000, 85.0: 154000, 90.0: 175000, 95.0: 198000, 99.0: 235000, 99.9: 300000}
Model’s Answer: Step one was anchoring on the current level. The best direct anchor is the April 14 report, around 70,094 on the series used in the market background, with a nearby official-source reading closer to 63,767 on a closely related CFTC line. I treat the starting point for the resolved series as roughly the mid-to-high 60,000s.
Step two was estimating drift through late July. Over a bit more than three months, these nonreportable positions can move a lot, but the strongest base case is still persistence with partial mean reversion, not a full regime flip. Consumer sentiment has weakened sharply, which nudges my center lower than the current value, but not dramatically, because the latest observed weekly change still showed small traders becoming more net long.
Step three was widening the uncertainty. This series can swing meaningfully with retail sentiment, open-interest shifts, and macro shocks, and I do not have a clean long historical panel for the exact resolution line. So I want a broader distribution than a simple extrapolation would imply. I put real mass on outcomes near flat or slightly negative, while keeping a thinner but meaningful right tail above 200,000 if a summer risk-on rally pulls small traders into aggressive long exposure.
The assumptions doing the most work are that the resolution series is effectively the same one referenced in the background rather than the nearby alternative CFTC line; I assign about a 20% chance that this is off enough to shift the center by roughly 5,000 to 10,000 contracts. Another assumption is that small traders remain structurally net long in this contract; I put about a 25% chance that this fails, which is the main route to a flat or negative July value. The third is that there is no major macro shock before the late-July observation week; I give that about a 30% chance of failure, and it is the main source of both tails.
A low outcome would come from worsening geopolitics, recession fears, or an equity drawdown that causes retail de-risking and pushes nonreportables toward neutral or net short. I think a subzero outcome is possible but still a minority case. A high outcome would come from a strong summer equity rally, better inflation or growth news, and retail upside chasing. Outcomes above 200,000 are unlikely, but not so unlikely that they should be ignored.
Percentile .1: -80000 Percentile 1: -35000 Percentile 5: -3000 Percentile 10: 9000 Percentile 15: 18000 Percentile 20: 26000 Percentile 25: 34000 Percentile 30: 41000 Percentile 35: 47000 Percentile 40: 52000 Percentile 45: 56000 Percentile 46: 57000 Percentile 47: 58000 Percentile 48: 59000 Percentile 49: 60000 Percentile 50: 61000 Percentile 51: 62500 Percentile 52: 64000 Percentile 53: 65500 Percentile 54: 67000 Percentile 55: 68500 Percentile 60: 78000 Percentile 65: 90000 Percentile 70: 104000 Percentile 75: 119000 Percentile 80: 136000 Percentile 85: 154000 Percentile 90: 175000 Percentile 95: 198000 Percentile 99: 235000 Percentile 99.9: 300000
Forecast (percentiles, aggregated):
Per-model forecasts:
Rationale: Summary The estimate for the July 31, 2026, CFTC COT report targets a median net nonreportable position of 58,000 contracts for S&P 500 E-Mini futures. This reflects a modest continuation of the recent downward trend combined with mild mean reversion. As of mid-April 2026, the net position stands around 70,000, which is a sharp decline from the highs of roughly 136,000 observed in early January 2026. Historically, this figure is highly volatile, with weekly swings of 10,000 to 25,000 contracts being common. The long-term historical median is substantially lower, sitting between 10,000 and 20,000. The wide distribution, spanning 10,000 to 115,000 at the 10th and 90th percentiles, accommodates the high uncertainty and potential for massive sentiment swings over the next 3.5 months.
Strongest Arguments for Higher Values
Strongest Arguments for Lower Values
Key Uncertainties
In formulating our forecast for the net positions of small traders in S&P 500 E-mini futures, we primarily relied on historical Commitment of Traders (COT) data, recent retail sentiment shifts, and upcoming regulatory changes.
Our thinking centered on the “inside view” of 2026’s specific trajectory contrasted with “outside view” historical benchmarks for late July. We noted that while the S&P 500 has recently traded near all-time highs, small trader net long positions have significantly cooled from their January peaks. This divergence, coupled with depressed consumer sentiment and rising inflation expectations, suggests a more cautious retail environment than in previous years.
A key factor in our reasoning was the expected elimination of the “Pattern Day Trader” rule in mid-2026. We analyzed this as a potential structural catalyst that could lower barriers to entry and increase retail participation. However, we also weighed this against a growing preference for Micro E-mini contracts, which currently show different positioning trends.
Ultimately, our forecast reflects a balance between a baseline of continued moderate net-long positioning and the possibility of either a “buy the dip” resurgence or a sentiment-driven retreat. We accounted for the inherent volatility of this series by looking at historical July lows and highs to define the plausible range of outcomes.