How Fisher Investments’ 2026 Forecast Is Holding Up at Mid-Year

Heading into the midpoint of July 2026, global equity markets had delivered returns of around 9% across both US and international stocks. For investors tracking Fisher Investments’ annual outlook, that number carries a twist: it is ahead of schedule. The firm’s original forecast called for a muted, back-and-forth first half, with the real strength building toward year-end. Instead, most of the projected annual return arrived in the first six months.

That gap between expectation and result makes the mid-year mark a useful moment to pause. Fisher publishes one of the more widely followed institutional market outlooks each year, and checking how that forecast has held up halfway through offers a concrete lens on how big-picture market calls are constructed, absorbed, and revised in real time.

Not all institutional managers share the same conviction: the bull market 2026 outlook from BlackRock, J.P. Morgan, and Fidelity reflects continued overweight equity positioning, while Morgan Stanley and Bank of America hold a late-cycle view that flags a 10-20% drawdown as plausible even within a broadly positive year.

Here is what the mid-year data reveals: not just whether Fisher’s numbers are tracking, but what the review tells you about how professional forecasters define success, handle surprises, and set expectations for the months ahead. The framework that emerges is one you can apply to any institutional forecast you encounter, not just this one.

A stronger first half than Fisher expected, but not a broken forecast

The number itself is straightforward. Global equities, covering both US and non-US markets, posted gains of roughly 9% across the opening six months of 2026. Against a full-year forecast calling for returns above 10%, that means the vast majority of the anticipated annual move has already arrived.

The original outlook told a different story about when that return would show up. The forecast pointed toward subdued, choppy conditions in the first half, with equity strength expected to gather pace later in the year and reach its high point in Q4. What happened instead was front-loaded strength, not a different destination but a faster route.

Ken Fisher, Founder, Executive Chairman, and Co-Chief Investment Officer of Fisher Investments, framed the deviation in measured terms.

Ken Fisher characterised the first half as “a little stronger in the first half of the year than we thought it would be” and the overall trajectory as “not too far off” the beginning-of-year forecast.

That language matters. A forecast being beaten on its timeline does not automatically mean the forecast was wrong. Understanding that distinction is what separates investors who evaluate predictions rigorously from those who treat any deviation as either vindication or failure.

Two surprises Fisher did not see coming, and why neither changed the call

Two events that were absent from the original 2026 forecast emerged during the first half. Neither, in Fisher’s assessment, altered the underlying bull-market thesis. The firm’s logic for dismissing each is more instructive than the events themselves, because it reveals the triage process professional forecasters apply when reality deviates from the plan.

The operative question Fisher applies to any unexpected development is not “did we anticipate this?” but “does this materially alter earnings, growth, or risk premia?” That distinction matters. Not all forecast misses carry equal weight, and the evaluative framework tells you which unexpected events deserve to recalibrate your positioning and which do not.

The Iran conflict

The war in Iran was absent from Fisher Investments’ published forecast at the start of the year. Ken Fisher assessed the event as having limited lasting market impact, concluding that it had not derailed the bull market or the full-year forecast.

The firm’s treatment of this geopolitical shock illustrates how it evaluates risk: the question is not whether the event occurred, but whether it is sufficient to damage the macroeconomic conditions underpinning the thesis. In this case, Fisher’s answer was no.

The triage logic Fisher applies to the Iran conflict mirrors a well-documented pattern: geopolitical risk and stock market behaviour have diverged repeatedly across recent major events, with equity prices driven by earnings fundamentals rather than proportional headline shocks in each case.

The spring 2026 European rate hike

The decision by European monetary authorities to raise rates during spring 2026 was similarly absent from what the firm had projected at the outset. Ken Fisher characterised it as a minor adjustment rather than a regime change in global rates.

Interest rate conditions more broadly remained largely stable, in line with what the firm had originally projected. The European hike was treated as isolated rather than systemic, meaning it did not challenge the forecast’s core assumption about the global rate environment.

• Iran conflict: Not anticipated. Assessed as having limited lasting market impact. Bull-market outlook unchanged.
• European rate hike: Not anticipated. Characterised as a minor adjustment. Broader rate conditions stable and in line with projections.

How Fisher Investments defines a forecast: direction first, timing second

Most investors apply a binary test to market predictions: right or wrong. Fisher’s framework operates differently, and understanding the distinction changes how you evaluate any institutional outlook.

The 2026 forecast was framed in probabilistic terms from the start. It was not a point prediction (“the S&P 500 will close at X”). It was a regime call: the most likely outcome was a global equity return above 10%, with the odds skewed toward a positive year, weaker than 2025. That framing is deliberate. A probabilistic call is evaluated against whether the regime it described materialised, not whether the index hit a specific number in a specific month.

Fisher applies a clear hierarchy when assessing forecast accuracy:

Tetlock’s superforecasting research identifies probabilistic, regime-level thinking as the hallmark of accurate forecasters, distinguishing those who score themselves on whether the broad environment they described materialised from those who stake credibility on hitting precise numerical targets.

1. Direction: Did markets move in the predicted direction? This is the primary test. Markets were expected to be up, and they are up.
2. Regime: Are the broad patterns holding? Non-US and value leadership, US tech participating but not dominating. This is the secondary test.
3. Timing: Did the returns arrive in the expected quarters? This is explicitly treated as the least important layer.

That hierarchy explains why Fisher’s mid-year language, “not too far off” and “working out pretty well,” reads as confidence rather than concession. By the firm’s own scoring system, the forecast is passing its primary and secondary tests. The timing miss is real but sits at the bottom of the evaluative stack.

When timing shifts do not mean the thesis broke

H1’s approximately 9% gain represents strength arriving earlier than modelled. The annual story the forecast told, a positive year with global equities returning above 10%, is not changed by this. If you hold long positions through volatile periods, this is a concept worth internalising: intra-year timing can be wrong while the annual outcome still aligns with the original call. Evaluating a forecast by whether the index hit a specific number in a specific month is applying the wrong standard.

The macro conditions Fisher built the 2026 thesis on

The bull-market forecast did not rest on a single claim. It was built on three macro pillars, each of which you can assess independently at the halfway mark.

1. Modest but steady global growth: The original thesis assumed continued economic expansion, not acceleration. Through H1 2026, global growth has broadly tracked this expectation, supporting the earnings backdrop the forecast depended on.
2. Cooling inflation: Easing price pressures were expected to keep monetary conditions accommodative enough to sustain equity valuations. Rates across major markets held broadly steady through the period, with the European central bank’s spring move standing as an isolated exception rather than the start of a tightening trend.
3. US political gridlock following midterm elections: Fisher argues that legislative gridlock historically acts as a tailwind for stocks in the period following midterm elections. With divided government limiting the scope of major policy shifts, this condition remains in place.

Global central bank divergence adds a layer of complexity to the rate stability assumption embedded in Fisher’s thesis: the Fed holding at 3.50-3.75%, the ECB poised to hike into near-recession conditions, and the BOJ tightening faster than expected each represent distinct pressures on the macro environment Fisher’s model assumes will remain accommodative.

Fisher highlights that US midterm elections tend to produce legislative gridlock, which historically has been a tailwind for stocks in the back half of the election year and the subsequent first half.

For investors holding globally diversified equity positions, these three pillars are the specific conditions to monitor through H2. If they shift materially, the ongoing forecast deserves revision. If they hold, so does the outlook.

Cross-market leadership and where relative performance stands at half-time

The aggregate return figure tells one story. The relative performance picture underneath it tells another, and Fisher’s original forecast carried explicit calls at this level too.

The 2026 outlook favoured non-US stocks over US stocks, value over growth, and US tech “doing fine but not leading the world.” These were not throwaway observations. They were testable, layered predictions that investors with style or geographic tilts can evaluate independently of the headline index return.

At the mid-year mark, Ken Fisher characterised global stocks as having behaved largely as expected, with some segments modestly better and some modestly worse. His summary of the year: “working out pretty well, not perfectly.”

If your portfolio carries a tilt toward value or non-US equities, these are the specific positions Fisher’s original thesis favoured. The mid-year data suggests those relative bets are broadly tracking as intended. Relative performance analysis is often overlooked in favour of absolute return figures, but a well-constructed forecast carries layers, and it deserves evaluation at each one.

What H2 2026 needs to deliver for Fisher’s forecast to hold

Fisher’s greater-than-10% full-year forecast remains intact as of the mid-year review.

With H1 delivering approximately 9%, the full-year target of above 10% requires only modest additional gains in the second half to be met.

That arithmetic is favourable, but it does not mean the forecast has already been settled. The original outlook carried specific expectations about how H2 would unfold, and these remain open questions that you can monitor against a defined set of markers.

• Non-US and value leadership continuing: The original thesis predicted these segments would lead for the full year, not just H1. Watch whether this pattern holds or reverses.
• US tech participating but not dominating: A sharp rotation into US tech leadership in H2 would represent a deviation from the forecast, even if index-level returns remain positive.
• Political gridlock supporting markets: The post-midterm legislative environment remains a tailwind as long as gridlock persists. Any shift toward unified policy action would test this pillar.
• Q4 as a period of strength: The original outlook specifically flagged the fourth quarter as the anticipated peak. Whether Q4 delivers a further leg up or markets consolidate after H1’s front-loaded gains is the timing question the forecast still needs to answer.

Forecasts only deliver value to investors who know how to track them in real time. These four markers turn Fisher’s mid-year update into a live monitoring framework you can apply through year-end.

What this mid-year check tells you about forecasting itself

The Fisher mid-year review is useful beyond its specific numbers. It embeds three lessons about how institutional forecasting works, lessons that apply to any market outlook you encounter.

• Direction matters more than precision. Fisher’s framework scores itself on whether the regime it described, a continued bull market with positive global returns, is playing out. Exact quarterly timing is explicitly secondary. When you evaluate any forecast, ask whether the regime call was right before asking whether the numbers were exact.
• Not all surprises break a thesis. The Iran conflict and the European rate hike were genuine misses. But Fisher’s triage logic asks whether a surprise materially alters earnings, growth, or risk premia, not simply whether it was anticipated. That question is more useful than “did the forecaster miss this?”
• Mid-year reviews serve a dual purpose. The update simultaneously reports performance and reinforces confidence in the forecasting process. Recognising that dual function helps you read any institutional update more critically, separating the data from the reassurance.

Fisher’s triage question, whether a surprise materially alters earnings, growth, or risk premia, is itself a partial answer to a deeper problem: forecasting blind spots in any model, whether human or algorithmic, are concentrated in the tail outcomes that consensus tools systematically compress away, making explicit scenario analysis a necessary complement to any probabilistic regime call.

Ken Fisher’s summary of the year as “working out pretty well, not perfectly” is itself a forecasting lesson. It tells you that the firm defines success as getting the regime right, not getting every detail right.

The skill of evaluating forecasts is itself worth developing. Knowing when a prediction has genuinely broken down versus when it is simply taking a different path is worth more than knowing whether any specific number was hit. That is the reusable takeaway from this mid-year check, and it applies well beyond Fisher’s 2026 outlook.

This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Investors should conduct their own research and consult with financial professionals before making investment decisions. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Financial projections are subject to market conditions and various risk factors.