Quiet desk scene suggesting market research forecasts versus real-world outcomes
Year-end targets are opinions with dates — useful as one input, dangerous as a plan.

Tom Lee’s Predictions Track Record: How Accurate Are His S&P 500 Calls?

Tom Lee is one of the most visible bulls on Wall Street. If you watch financial TV or follow year-ahead strategist targets, you have probably heard Fundstrat’s head of research call for higher S&P 500 prices — again. The fair question for US investors is not whether he is optimistic. It is whether Tom Lee’s predictions track record is strong enough to treat his targets as a planning input.

Short answer: Lee’s recent year-end S&P 500 calls make a mixed but genuinely interesting scorecard. Scored on his last formally published year-end target, he landed within about 3% of the actual close in 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024. His clear miss was 2022, when he stayed bullish through a bear market. In 2025 the market finished above his published 6,600 target, while his more aggressive late-year TV calls (7,200–7,500) overshot. Like other high-profile strategists, he revises targets during the year — so “accuracy” depends on whether you score his initial outlook, his final published number, or his latest on-air comment.

This article is a sourced track-record review in the same spirit as our Michael Burry predictions track record post: hits, misses, patterns, and what US investors should (and should not) do with the forecasts. It is education, not a buy or sell recommendation.

Who is Tom Lee (Fundstrat)?

Thomas “Tom” Lee is a co-founder and managing partner of Fundstrat Global Advisors and serves as its head of research. He launched the independent research boutique in September 2014 after roughly 15 years at J.P. Morgan, where he had been chief equity strategist (PR Newswire founding announcement, Sep. 15, 2014).

Media shorthand often labels him a perma-bull. That reputation is directionally fair — his year-ahead S&P 500 targets usually sit on the optimistic side of Wall Street consensus, and his biggest documented misses (2015, 2018, 2022) were too high. The nuance matters: “always bullish” is not the same as “always wrong.” In several recent bull years his starting target actually turned out too low, and the market forced him to raise it.

Lee also comments frequently on themes that matter to retail investors — liquidity, inflation, AI/tech leadership, and crypto. Those thematic calls can be interesting context, but this article scores what is easiest to audit: dated S&P 500 year-end targets versus official year-end closes.

How we scored the track record

Wall Street “accuracy” headlines often compare apples to oranges. We used simple, transparent rules:

  • Primary score: Lee’s last formally published S&P 500 year-end target for a calendar year (outlook note or announced revision, as reported by dated news coverage) versus the S&P 500’s year-end closing level.
  • Secondary score: His initial year-ahead outlook versus the same close — because that is what many investors heard in December or January.
  • Late on-air calls: Where Lee gave a higher number on TV late in the year without a formal target change (December 2024 and late 2025), we show it separately rather than hide it.
  • Hit band: Within roughly ±3% of the year-end close counts as a “tight hit” (the same band AnaChart’s strategist tracker uses). Direction and magnitude are discussed separately.
  • Early vs wrong: Calling a rebound that later arrives can be early. Holding a bullish year-end target through a bear year that never recovers is closer to wrong for that year.

S&P 500 year-end closes used below (checked against Macrotrends and Yahoo Finance historical data):

  • 2020: 3,756.07
  • 2021: 4,766.18
  • 2022: 3,839.50
  • 2023: 4,769.83
  • 2024: 5,881.63
  • 2025: 6,845.50

Tom Lee’s S&P 500 scorecard, 2020–2025

Percentages show how far each target sat above (+) or below (−) the actual year-end close.

  • 2020 — tight hit (final)
    • Earliest verified target: 3,450, which Lee was still holding in May 2020 (Business Insider, May 20, 2020) — −8.1% vs close
    • Raised to 3,525 on Aug. 13, 2020, then to 3,800 on Nov. 19, 2020 (CNBC, Nov. 19, 2020)
    • Final 3,800 vs close 3,756.07: +1.2%
  • 2021 — tight hit (final)
    • Initial: 4,300, from his December 2020 outlook (CNBC, Dec. 17, 2020) — −9.8%
    • Raised to 4,600 in June (CNBC, Jun. 30, 2021), 4,700 in July, and 4,800 in October (CNBC, Oct. 20, 2021)
    • Final 4,800 vs close 4,766.18: +0.7%
  • 2022 — large miss
    • Initial: 5,100, from his December 2021 outlook (Business Insider, Dec. 2021) — +32.8%
    • Lowered to 4,800 by September (CNBC, Sep. 22, 2022), then to a 4,400–4,500 range in late November (Business Insider, Nov. 28, 2022)
    • Final 4,400–4,500 vs close 3,839.50: +14.6% to +17.2%
  • 2023 — tight hit (initial and final)
    • Initial: 4,750, from his December 2022 outlook — −0.4% (Business Insider, Dec. 28, 2023)
    • Raised to 4,825 on July 3, 2023 (CNBC, Jul. 3, 2023; Fundstrat mid-year note)
    • Final 4,825 vs close 4,769.83: +1.2%
  • 2024 — tight hit (final published target); late on-air call overshot
    • Initial: 5,200, from his December 2023 outlook (Business Insider, Dec. 28, 2023) — −11.6%
    • Signaled roughly 5,800 in June (CNBC, Jun. 24, 2024); discussing a 6,000 year-end target by October (CNBC, Oct. 2, 2024)
    • Final published 6,000 vs close 5,881.63: +2.0%
    • Late on-air call: in early December he told CNBC a move to 6,300 was “very doable” before year-end (CNBC, Dec. 5, 2024) — +7.1%
  • 2025 — narrow miss (market beat his target); late on-air calls overshot
    • Initial and final published: 6,600 year-end, with 7,000 expected by mid-year (Fundstrat 2025 Outlook, Dec. 10, 2024; CNBC, Dec. 11, 2024) — −3.6%
    • Late on-air calls: 7,500 by year-end (CNBC, Nov. 3, 2025) and 7,200–7,300 “likely” in December (CNBC, Dec. 1, 2025) — +5.2% to +9.6%

Bottom line for 2020–2025: On final published targets, that is 4 tight hits in 6 years (2020, 2021, 2023, 2024), one narrow miss on the low side (2025), and one large miss on the high side (2022). On initial targets, only 2023 landed inside the ±3% band — in four of the other five years the market finished above his starting number, and in 2022 it finished far below.

A note on third-party trackers: AnaChart’s public strategist page lists different “final” targets for 2021 (4,600) and 2022 (4,800) than the dated CNBC and Business Insider reports above, and it counts a late-2025 TV range as a final target but not the similar December 2024 call. Its headline “3 of 11 years” hit rate therefore depends on those choices; we rely on the dated primary reports instead.

Hit list: calls that aged well

1) March 2020 rebound thesis (direction + timing)

On March 24, 2020, with markets still reeling from the COVID crash, CNBC reported Lee’s view that if a bottom formed that week, the S&P 500 could reclaim roughly 2,800 as soon as April — about a 25% rally — and perhaps reach all-time highs by year-end, citing historical “V-shaped” recovery patterns (CNBC, Mar. 24, 2020). The index’s closing low had come the day before, at 2,237.40 on March 23. It first closed above 2,800 on April 14, 2020 (2,846.06) and set a new record close on August 18, 2020 (3,389.78), according to Yahoo Finance historical data. Fundstrat then lifted its year-end target to 3,525 in August and 3,800 in November, and the index closed 2020 at 3,756.07 — within about 1% of that final mark.

Lesson: This is the call that cemented Lee’s media reputation. It was not a vague “stocks go up over time” slogan. It was a specific, timely rebound thesis when fear was extreme.

2) 2021: a revision ladder that ended on target

Lee started 2021 at 4,300 — too low, as it turned out. He raised the target three times (4,600 in June, 4,700 in July, 4,800 in October), and the S&P 500 finished at 4,766.18, within 1% of the final number (CNBC, Jun. 30 and Oct. 20, 2021; Business Insider, Oct. 2021).

Lesson: The final score looks excellent; the initial score looks conservative. Both are true, which is why the revision trail matters.

3) 2023 soft-landing / out-of-consensus bull year

Heading into 2023, many investors still expected the 2022 bear market’s hangover to dominate. Lee’s call for a soft landing and a strong equity year stood out. Business Insider reported on Dec. 28, 2023 that his initial 4,750 target came the closest to the S&P 500’s actual level among strategists tracked by Bloomberg, with the index then near 4,785 (Business Insider / Markets Insider, Dec. 28, 2023). His mid-year raise to 4,825 also finished within 1.2% of the 4,769.83 close.

Lesson: In 2023, optimism plus a disinflation / soft-landing framing was closer to reality than the “inevitable hard landing” crowd — at least for the S&P 500’s year-end print.

4) 2024 bull year and upward revisions

Lee entered 2024 with a year-end target of 5,200 (Business Insider, Dec. 28, 2023). As the AI-led rally extended, he moved up: roughly 5,800 signaled in June (CNBC, Jun. 24, 2024) and a 6,000 year-end target discussed on CNBC in October (CNBC, Oct. 2, 2024). The S&P 500 closed 2024 at 5,881.63, within about 2% of 6,000. CNBC later framed him as a strategist who “nailed 2024’s rally” when covering his next-year outlook (CNBC, Dec. 11, 2024) — though the same article noted the market “surpassed his original S&P 500 target of 5,200,” and his early-December on-air call for 6,300 was about 7% too high.

Lesson: Chasing strength with revisions can look like moving the goalposts — and sometimes it is. Score initial, final, and latest TV numbers separately so you do not confuse luck, flexibility, and foresight.

Miss list: where the bull case broke (or overshot)

1) 2022 — the clearest recent miss

2022 is the year that tests any perma-bull brand. Lee entered the year at 5,100. The S&P 500 closed at 3,839.50, so his starting target was about 33% above the actual finish.

The miss was visible in real time, too. On July 29, 2022, CNBC reported Lee arguing the bear market bottom was in and that stocks could make new highs before year-end, with the S&P 500 potentially breaking back above 4,800 (CNBC, Jul. 29, 2022). His year-end target was still 4,800 in September (CNBC, Sep. 22, 2022) and was trimmed to 4,400–4,500 only in late November (Business Insider, Nov. 28, 2022) — still roughly 15–17% above where the index finished. The same July CNBC piece noted he had admitted in March that the correction had been “far deeper” than Fundstrat expected.

Fair framing: Direction for the full year was wrong. This was not merely “early.” The bull thesis for a year-end rebound failed.

2) 2025 — beat the published target, missed the late TV calls

Lee’s December 2024 outlook for 2025 called for a “tale of two years”: roughly 7,000 by mid-year and 6,600 by year-end (Fundstrat 2025 Outlook dated Dec. 10, 2024; CNBC, Dec. 11, 2024). The S&P 500 closed 2025 at 6,845.50 — about 3.7% above that year-end target. CNBC itself noted in December 2025 that the index was “exceeding Lee’s 6,600 forecast” (CNBC, Dec. 11, 2025).

Late in 2025, though, his on-air numbers ran hotter. On CNBC he said the S&P 500 could reach 7,500 by year-end (Nov. 3, 2025) and that 7,200–7,300 was likely in December (Dec. 1, 2025). Against the actual close, those calls were roughly 5–10% too high.

Fair framing: If you score the published outlook, 2025 was a narrow miss on the conservative side — a good year for anyone who followed his general bullishness. If you score his late-year TV calls, he was too high. Both facts can be true.

3) Crypto optimism can outrun reality

Lee is also a high-profile bitcoin bull, and his crypto calls have been hit-and-miss. In early December 2024 he told CNBC bitcoin would top $100,000 before year-end, which happened within days (CNBC, Dec. 5, 2024). But his 2025 outlook said bitcoin had “upside to $250,000” that year (Fundstrat 2025 Outlook; CNBC, Dec. 11, 2024). Bitcoin peaked near $126,000 intraday in early October 2025 and ended Dec. 31, 2025 around $87,500 (Yahoo Finance and StatMuse daily closes) — roughly 65% below the $250,000 upside case. That is a large miss on magnitude, whatever you think of the long-term crypto debate. This is a scorecard of a past forecast, not a view on where bitcoin goes next.

Lesson for readers: Equity year-end targets and crypto upside cases are different products. Do not blur them into one “Tom Lee is always right/wrong” slogan.

4) Older high misses (context, not the whole story)

Earlier Fundstrat outlooks show large high-side misses. For 2015, Lee’s year-ahead target was 2,325 (Business Insider, Dec. 18, 2014) versus a close of 2,043.94 — about 14% too high. For 2018, his outlook target was 3,025 (USA Today, Jan. 12, 2018) versus a close of 2,506.85 — about 21% too high. Those older prints matter for anyone claiming a flawless prophet. They matter less than 2020–2025 for readers weighing today’s Fundstrat commentary — but they reinforce the pattern: when Lee is badly wrong, he is usually wrong optimistically.

Pattern: perpetual optimism, AI/tech framing — what it means

Zoom out from single-year scorekeeping and a few patterns show up:

  • Bullish base case is the brand. Lee’s public posture rarely sounds like a recession-first default. That helped in 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024. It hurt badly in 2022.
  • Revisions follow the market. He raised targets as rallies extended (three raises in 2021 alone) and cut only gradually in the 2022 bear market. His late-year TV numbers have tended to run above his published targets.
  • Starting targets have often been too low in bull years. In 2020, 2021, 2024, and 2025 the market finished above his earliest verified number — a useful reminder that “most bullish strategist” and “most accurate strategist” are not the same thing.
  • Narrative packaging travels. Soft landing, Fed “puts,” AI/tech leadership, wall-of-worry bull markets — these frames are sticky on TV and social feeds. Sticky is not the same as correct.
  • The 2026 call is still open (as of September 2026). CNBC reported a 7,700 year-end 2026 target on Dec. 11, 2025. In a mid-year update reported by CNBC on June 25, 2026, Lee raised it to 8,000, citing higher expected earnings (EPS) for 2027 even with a lower target P/E. On CNBC’s “Closing Bell” on Sept. 15, 2026, he went further on air, saying the index “could easily be above 8,200 by the end of the year.” Do not score an unfinished year — and expect the number to move again. For how other forecasters framed this year, see our 2026 stock market prediction roundup.

For a broader look at how bullish vs bearish media narratives pull on investor behavior, see Permabulls vs Bear Porn.

Lessons for US investors (do not copy the forecast)

A strategist’s track record is research entertainment and a bias check — not a portfolio mandate. Practical takeaways:

  • Treat year-end targets as scenarios, not GPS. Even a “tight hit” can be luck plus a wide path during the year. Your savings rate, costs, and asset allocation matter more than whether December closes at 6,600 or 7,300.
  • Separate direction from magnitude. “Stocks finish higher” can be right while “stocks finish at X” is wrong. Trading or reallocating as if a single price target were destiny is how retail investors turn commentary into concentrated bets.
  • Watch the revision trail. If you only remember the final target that aged well, you will overrate foresight. If you only remember the most bullish mid-year sound bite, you will underrate people who later adjusted.
  • Know which number you are hearing. A formal outlook target, a mid-year revision, and an off-the-cuff TV range are different claims. Headlines rarely say which one they are scoring.
  • Do not outsource diversification. A bull strategist who likes tech/AI leadership can be directionally right on the index while you still over-concentrate in a handful of names. For a plain-English primer on owning the broad market, see How to invest in the S&P 500.
  • Costs and behavior still win. Expense ratios, contribution consistency, tax location, and not panic-selling usually matter more than forecast accuracy for long-horizon US investors.
  • Use famous voices as one input. Pair bullish research with bear cases, valuation context, and your own written plan. The opposite of blind faith in Tom Lee is not blind faith in the loudest bear — it is a rules-based process.

If you want the principles side of Lee’s approach rather than the scorecard, see our 10 investing lessons from Tom Lee. This article focuses on how his dated calls actually aged.

FAQ

Does Tom Lee have a good track record?

Mixed, with notable recent hits. Scoring his last formally published year-end targets for 2020–2025, he landed within about 3% of the S&P 500’s close in 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024, badly missed 2022, and finished a bit too low in 2025 (6,600 vs 6,845.50). His initial targets were less precise, and his late-year TV calls in 2024 and 2025 overshot. Older outlooks (2015, 2018) missed high by double digits. “Good” depends on whether you value directional bullishness in bull markets or pin-point year-end price accuracy.

How accurate are Tom Lee’s S&P 500 predictions?

For final published year-end targets versus closes, recent tight hits include 2020 (3,800 vs ~3,756), 2021 (4,800 vs ~4,766), 2023 (4,825 vs ~4,770), and 2024 (6,000 vs ~5,882). The standout miss is 2022 (a 5,100 starting target, cut to 4,400–4,500, vs ~3,840). Always check whether a headline is scoring his January outlook, an October revision, or a TV comment.

What is Tom Lee’s S&P 500 target for 2026?

As of September 2026, his published year-end 2026 target is 8,000, raised from 7,700 in a mid-year update (CNBC, Dec. 11, 2025 and June 25, 2026). In a CNBC interview on Sept. 15, 2026, he said the index “could easily be above 8,200” by year-end. Targets can change again; treat them as dated research, not guarantees.

Was Tom Lee right about the COVID crash rebound?

Yes, directionally and on timing. CNBC coverage from March 24, 2020 documented his V-shaped recovery framing, including a possible move back to ~2,800 as soon as April. The S&P 500 closed above 2,800 in mid-April and hit a new record in August 2020. His final 2020 year-end target of 3,800 finished close to the 3,756 close.

Why do people call Tom Lee a perma-bull?

Because his public base case is usually constructive on US equities, he is frequently among the more optimistic strategists, and his largest documented misses came from targets that were too high (especially 2022, and earlier 2015 and 2018). The label is a caricature of a real pattern — not proof that every bullish call fails. In several recent bull years, the market actually beat his starting target.

Should I invest based on Tom Lee’s predictions?

No single strategist should run your portfolio. Forecasts work best as one scenario among many. Many long-term investors instead rely on a diversified plan (often including broad index exposure), low costs, and rules for contributions and rebalancing set before the next viral target hits their feed.

How does Lee’s track record compare with Michael Burry’s public predictions?

Different jobs, different products. Burry is widely followed for dramatic crash/bubble warnings; our Burry track-record review focuses on how those warnings aged after 2017. Lee is an independent strategist publishing explicit index targets. Comparing “who is smarter” is less useful than asking which type of claim you are evaluating and how you will respond without abandoning your plan.

Sources

Educational disclaimer

This article is for general educational purposes for a US audience. It is not investment, tax, or financial advice, and it is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security, index, cryptocurrency, or fund. Strategist targets are opinions that can and do change. Past forecast accuracy does not guarantee future accuracy. Verify figures against primary sources and consider your own time horizon, risk tolerance, and diversification needs — ideally with a qualified professional when appropriate.

Research snapshot: figures and news citations above are as reported in the named sources; S&P 500 year-end closes per Macrotrends and Yahoo Finance historical data; open 2026 targets noted as of September 2026.

You might also like

BEFORE YOU GO

More Reading

Post navigation

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *