"M* reports that the fund's no-load share class gained 14.2% annualized during his tenure (through 01/26/2026)."
Not that it matters with such a spectacular record, but that figure doesn't take into account the 3% sales charge that was in effect at the time. That is, no investor got quite that rate of return, even by holding through the entire period. Though it was close (3% load amortized over decades is a pittance.)
In the 1980s and '90s Fidelity was a "low load" family, where most of its growth funds charged 3% on purchase (aside from its Destiny plans) and its growth and income funds charged 2% on purchase + 1% on redemption. The load on Contrafund was dropped on June 23, 2003.
"Jason Weiner is co-manager of the fund, which he has managed since November 2006. He also manages Fidelity funds. "
Is AI now writing M*'s manager data? This reads like a description of some other (non-Fidelity) fund Weiner manages. Otherwise, he'd also manage other Fidelity funds. Fidelity gives the identical bio on other funds saying that he's managed those funds also since 2006. See, e.g. the people page for FDCAX.
Here's a better description of the remaining fund managers, provided by Fidelity:

For years, Will has been working alongside Jason, Asher, and the entire Equity division, sharing how he manages the Contrafund franchise, his investment philosophy and approach, and best practices and key learnings over different market cycles.
Jason and Asher have a long history of discussing stocks and collaborating with Will and the broader team. Will has worked with Jason for 34 years and with Asher for 17 years. Jason served as assistant portfolio manager with Will on Contrafund from 1994 to 1996. Jason and Asher have been serving as co-portfolio managers for more than seven years on Fidelity Advisor Equity Growth Fund and Fidelity Growth Discovery Fund. Additionally, they have co-managed Fidelity Capital Appreciation Fund together for over six years. This partnership provides strong continuity across the Contrafund strategies and the team. Their investment philosophy is highly aligned to Will’s approach.

https://etf.wi.gov/boards/deferredcompensation/2025/06/05/dc10d5/direct

Bespoke Investment Group:
Summary
° Most country ETFs are sitting on solid year-to-date returns.
° Here we take a look at a snapshot of more than forty country ETFs traded on US exchanges.
° The average year-to-date change of all these country ETFs is already above 7%, while eleven are already up 10%+ and three are up 20%+.
Read
As domestic equities have struggled to hang onto gains so far this year, most country ETFs are already sitting on solid year-to-date returns.
Below is a snapshot of more than forty country ETFs traded on US exchanges. The average year-to-date change of all these country ETFs is already above 7%, while eleven are already up 10%+ and three are up 20%+. Peru (EPU) is up the most at +25%, followed by Colombia (COLO) and South Korea (EWY) at just over 20%.
Note that all seven G7 country ETFs (highlighted in light blue) are up less than the overall YTD average, with Japan (EWJ) up the most of this small group at +4.8%. The US (SPY) ranks 2nd to last of the G7 with its 1.6% YTD gain in front of only France (EWQ) at 1.5%.
Three country ETFs are in the red so far this year: Vietnam (VNAM), Kuwait (KWT), and India (INDA).

Peter Lynch’s Magellan returned 29% from 1977-1990, double the 15% for SP500.
However, the average investor in Magellan returned only 7% while the fund returned 29%. This is frequently cited by Morningstar and was discussed by Lynch himself in his later years.
https://ritholtz.com/2023/08/mind-the-gap/
Two reasons for big gap;
1. Late Arrivals: The fund was private for the first four years (1977–1981) when Lynch had his most explosive gains (e.g., up 70% in 1980). By the time the public piled in, the fund had grown so large that it was harder to maintain that pace.
2. Panic Selling: During Lynch's rare "bad" years (like 1984, where he returned 2% vs. the S&P's 6%), investors saw the lag, assumed he "lost his touch," and pulled their money out—only to miss the recovery.
Morningstar is going to use my panic selling in their next mind the gap study.

As if "apologies" even happened. Our preening Secretary of the Treasury teed it up for Carney.
Carney says Bessent full of beans.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Tuesday he told U.S. President Donald Trump that he meant what he said in his speech at Davos, and told him Canada plans to diversify away from the United States with a dozen new trade deals.
Carney rolled his eyes and rejected U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s contention to Fox News that he aggressively walked back his comments at the World Economic Forum during a phone call with Trump on Monday.
“To be absolutely clear, and I said this to the president, I meant what I said in Davos,” Carney said to reporters as he arrived for a Cabinet meeting in the capital, Ottawa.
“Canada was the first country to understand the change in U.S. trade policy that he initiated, and we’re responding to that. ”

Europe? What a joke. It’s been in decline for the past two decades.
The real beneficiary here is India.
Only a small fraction of Indians will ever buy high-end European goods. Europe’s main exports, vehicles and pharmaceuticals, are nonstarters. India already produces cheaper pharmaceuticals domestically, and only about 4% of its vehicles come from Europe.
The balance of advantage is clearly one-sided.
Read https://philipskogsberg.substack.com/p/why-europe-doesnt-innovate
Lack of capital for startups and scaleups. The US and East Asia have more robust private investment ecosystems, and startups have access to more capital. In particular, a late-stage funding gap for scaleups makes it harder for them to grow as fast as their US peers.
Employee protections. In European countries, it’s generally harder for employers to fire employees, which is good for individuals but often bad for companies’ (especially startups) competitiveness and financial agility.
Employee compensation. In the EU, a startup employee's ability to easily get compensated with stock options is more complicated and highly taxed than in the US.
Regulatory barriers and higher taxes. The EU has a higher regulatory density, tax rates, and a more heavy-handed government policy than the US.
Lack of a large, unified market. Despite the EU's single market and geographic proximity, the European market is fragmented with many different national bureaucratic processes and legal frameworks.
Lower R&D spend and innovation. While there are national and EU-wide innovation initiatives like Horizon Europe, the EU spends considerably less on R&D as a share of GDP compared to the US.
Risk-averse and “lazy” working culture. The perception is that Europeans are generally more risk-averse or less entrepreneurial and prefer more leisure time to making money.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1593547/000139834426001230/fp0097323-1_497.htm
497 1 fp0097323-1_497.htm
THE ADVISORS’ INNER CIRCLE FUND III
(the “Trust”)
Democracy International Fund
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated January 26, 2026 to the Fund’s Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”),
each dated May 1, 2025, as supplemented
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI, and should be read in conjunction with the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI.
The Board of Trustees of the Trust, at the recommendation of Democracy Investment Management LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser of the Fund, has approved a plan of liquidation providing for the liquidation of the Fund’s assets and the distribution of the net proceeds pro rata to the Fund’s shareholders. The Fund will create and redeem creation units through February 16, 2026 (the “Closing Date”), which will be the last day that the Fund’s shares trade on NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange”), the Fund’s principal listing exchange. The Fund is expected to cease operations and liquidate on or about February 23, 2026 (the “Liquidation Date”).
In anticipation of the liquidation of the Fund, the Adviser may manage the Fund in a manner intended to facilitate the Fund’s orderly liquidation, such as by holding cash or making investments in other highly liquid assets. As a result, during this time, all or a portion of the Fund may not be invested in a manner consistent with its stated investment strategies, which may prevent the Fund from achieving its investment objective.
Shareholders of the Fund may sell their Fund shares on the Exchange on or before the Closing Date. Customary brokerage charges may apply to such transactions. After the Closing Date, there can be no guarantee that there will be a market for the Fund’s shares. For those Fund shareholders that do not sell their shares on or before the Closing Date, the Fund will distribute to each such shareholder, on or promptly after the Liquidation Date, a liquidating cash distribution equal in value to the shareholder’s interest in the net assets of the Fund as of the Liquidation Date.
The liquidation distribution amount will include any accrued income and capital gains, will be treated as a payment in exchange for shares and will generally be a taxable event for shareholders investing through taxable accounts. You should consult your personal tax advisor concerning your particular tax situation. Shareholders remaining in the Fund on the Liquidation Date will not be charged any transaction fees by the Fund. However, the net asset value of the Fund on the Liquidation Date will reflect costs of liquidating the Fund. Shareholders will receive liquidation proceeds as soon as practicable after the Liquidation Date.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
DEM-SK-003-0100

The official announcement, emphasis added on the transition piece.
Dear Leuthold research readers,
It is with heavy hearts that we share the news of the passing of Doug Ramsey, Leuthold’s Chief Investment Officer.  Doug died unexpectedly of a brain aneurysm. He is survived by his wife of more than 30 years, Diane; son Adam; and daughter Allie.
This year, we celebrated Doug’s 20th anniversary with The Leuthold Group, though our relationship with Doug extended back to the 1990s when he was first a research client. Doug’s encyclopedic memory and deep grasp of market history made him an ideal fit for The Leuthold Group.  In 2011, Doug became our CIO, leading our investment team and serving as a major contributor to our monthly research publication, Perception for the Professional. He helped build on the legacy of our founder, Steve Leuthold, and fostered a deep and loyal following through his sharp intellect, timely insights, and sense of humor.
Doug had an extraordinary ability to identify and articulate key market trends, bringing them to life through engaging commentary on topics such as the Major Trend Index, the All Assets No Authority (AANA) model, and his lighthearted “Bridesmaids” analysis on the momentum factors that can drive asset class performance.  His discipline and dedication to delivering meaningful market analysis—to clients and to a broader audience through scores of media interviews—were unrivaled. He also worked closely with and helped develop a talented investment team that will carry on his legacy.  Doug began his investment career in 1990 after receiving a master’s degree in economics from The Ohio State University, including stints at SCI Capital Management, Principal Global Investors, and others.  He joined us in 2005, working closely with Steve Leuthold for eight years before assuming the CIO role upon Steve’s retirement.
We are proud of the team members who have stepped up to fill in for Doug over the last few months as he worked through an apparently unrelated back injury. Our deep, long-tenured bench of investment professionals will continue to provide the research and portfolio management our clients rely on as we transition Doug’s responsibilities.
Please don’t hesitate to reach out to either of us or to others at The Leuthold Group with any questions. Doug will be missed by all who had the fortune of meeting him.
Sincerely,
Jeff Leadholm and John Mueller 
Co-CEOs 

Howdy folks,
As OJ pointed out, at our age, we had pretty much put our investments on Cruise Control. However, being a 'stacker' for some 70 years, AND a student of our own Gary Smith, I have been trained to look for divergences and explore them for opportunities to momentum invest. When silver diverged, the alarms and sirens around my house were disturbing the neighbors. Gee, it looked like New Year's Eve in NYC or Vegas. From my youth, I remembered, when it's time to party . . . pass the bong. Besides, at my age, who knows how many parties I'll have left so no Half-Stepping . . . just load the boat.
In my main retirement account, I'm up to 63% PMs. Granted, a lot of this is recent appreciation (which has resulted in nose bleeds for many). Historically, on this board, I had been recommending 3-7% for EVERYONE while All the major banks and advisors, scorned the metals. Now some are suggesting 20%. feh. I'm not rebalancing. No good options other than silver for gold.
My gains have been very obscene, in a delightfully orgasmic way. That said, I'm not spending my paper gains, just like I recommend against paper metals. The PMs could drop 20% tomorrow like they did in 1980 and 2011. While I don't believe that will happen based upon the fundamentals, WTF do I care, I bought my first roll of Silver Eagles at $4/oz.
The fundamentals all point to a continued bull market. There are so many facets to the demand equation, they have to take a number. Sovereign wealth funds, Central banks, debasement trade, Sell America, TACO trade, Industrial demand, speculation, CYA, and so forth. The Supply equation is equally crowded. Mining limitations, international strategic export restrictions, hoarding and stockpiling, etc. And, unlike gold, when silver is used in many applications, it's effectively destroyed.
So, I'm long up to my eyebrows and staying that way for the foreseeable future.
And so it goes,
peace,
rono

Howdy folks,
Whelp, silver blew through $100 and closed at $103. Gold is sitting a couple bucks shy of $5,000. Works for me.
We could see some profit taking at these numbers, but I don't see that changing any of the fundamentals. Observant summed it up pretty well with,
"The eye-popping gains — eclipsing even gold’s historic rally — have come as a surge of speculation
by retail investors has collided with a five-year shortfall in silver supply.
At the same time unusually high silver stockpiles in the US and China have drained supplies of bullion
from vaults in London, where global prices are set.
'It is the perfect storm,' says Philip Diehl, former director of the US Mint.
'We have been in a long-term supply deficit, and it is just getting worse.'”
On the demand side, we have Sovereign wealth funds and Central banks accumulating with the Debasement trade and the Sell America issue. We have enormous industrial demand and lastly, we have the Uncertainty / CYA trade. It all adds up and collides with a Supply issue. Perfect storm. The GSR is at 51 but seems to want to go lower. It peaked at 120 but the historical average (er, 2000 years) is 15. Personally, I'm waiting for it get down around 30 and at that point will start trading silver for gold. Not dollars on your life. The dollar is trash. Just garbage and it's going to zero. It will take a long while because they have no choice but to lower short term rates and print more money. With a $38T debt, they have the choice between breaking promises or paying it back with cheaper dollars. The latter is more politically attractive. They'll continue to lie about inflation while we all experience the truth. And internationally, the Sell America trade is picking up and will force long term rates higher. This is the beginning of the end of fiat currencies world wide. A fifty year experiment gone awry as it has done, repeatedly, since the Romans. Currencies backed by gold and silver restrict politicians from promising more than they can deliver so they ditch gold and silver and go fiat so they can print more money. Every time it happens it always end the same way -with runaway/hyper inflation and political upheaval. That, my friends, it where we're headed. It will take a while and at my age, my grandkids will benefit, but so what.
Some reading material.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/silver-price-continue-rise-200002982.html
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gold-tracks-best-week-since-2020-silver-breaches-100-in-stunning-rally-155625500.html
A silver 1964 circulated quarter is now worth $18. Back in Rome, an ounce of gold would buy you a nice toga and sandals. In the roaring twenties, an ounce of gold would buy a nice complete suit of clothes. Today, at $5000, an ounce of gold will still buy you an nice suit of clothes. Do you see the pattern? Gold and silver are still worth the same as forever but the value of the currency has gone down the toilet. Since 1913, the dollar has lost about 98% of its purchasing power.
Oh, and please dear God, stop believing any data out of Washington. Cripes, the calculations used to be accurate but the formulae were designed to dink the numbers. All of them - CPI, GNP, Employment. Now, the calculations are bullshit and anyone who ever shops for anything knows it.
BTW, I did add some copper miners with COPP and COPJ.
Cover your asses people.
And so it goes,
peace,
rono

FYI, often stated he was moving Smead Capital to a red state. all costs ultimately borne by clients.
doesnt seem great again. but i read the quarterly letters, much shorter nowadays.

SMEAD Capital Management was previously headquarted in Seattle before moving to Phoenix.
The firm's founder, Bill Smead, was sometimes a guest on a locally-produced finance show.
Bill Smead's thoughts and comments were often very insightful.
The firm's original fund—Smead Value Fund—had performed extremely well until that time (>10 years ago).
I really liked Smead Value Fund but avoided it because of the high expense ratio.
I haven't been following the fund or the firm closely in recent years.

[snip]
@Observant1 - I went through a similar exercise a year or so ago looking for global stock funds w/o much Mag7. Not easy to find.
FPACX might work. Many people seem fond of it. And it holds only three of the Mag7 - Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon. Those constitute "only" about 20% of the total equity in the fund (10% / 50%). Excellent returns and a moderate max drawdown (-21%). But its ER is over 1% and it was holding (as of Sept) 40% in cash.
FEBIX might also work. It doesn't seem to hold any Mag7. Very good returns and a "low" max drawdown of 16%. It is way underweight in tech and way overweight in consumer defensive. And it holds 9% in gold - I'm not a fan of that but many others are. Biggest question mark may be recent manager/analyst turnover.
I just took a very quick look at a few of the funds to see if anything jumped out at me. Nothing did.

Thanks for the info.
The account where this fund will be held is at Fidelity.
The following four funds were under consideration after the initial screening process.
M* places these funds in the "Global Moderate Allocation" category
except for SGENX which it classifies as "Global Moderately Aggressive Allocation."
SGENX - NTF, load-waived, 1.10% er
SGENX gained 31.57% in 2025 vs. "only" 17.66% for FPACX.
SGENX allocated 11.0% of its portfolio towards gold bullion as of 09-30-25.
Gold gained ~67% in 2025 which was its best performance since 1979.
On Dec. 11, 2025, First Eagle announced it would acquire Diamond Hill by the third quarter of 2026.
PE firm Genstar Capital acquired First Eagle from Blackstone, Corsair, and their co-investors in August 2025.
FPACX - $49.95 TF, 1.06% er
Top-decile category returns for the trailing 3Y, 5Y, 10Y, and 15Y periods.
Three long-tenured portfolio managers have invested over $1M each in the fund.
IFAFX - NTF, 0.63% er
Top-decile category returns for the trailing 5Y, 10Y, and 15Y periods.
There are ten portfolio managers total with four managers that have more than 10 years of tenure.
Eight managers have invested over $1M each in the fund.
VGWLX - $100.00 TF, 0.43% er
Top-quintile category returns for the trailing 5Y period (11/02/17 inception date).
Sub-advised by Wellington Management.
One portfolio manager has invested over $1M in the fund while the other manager has invested over $500K.
I asked Fidelity if the TF could be waived or reduced but was informed that this was not possible.
IFAFX vs. SGENX vs. FPACX
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=26yMudA0dEmABdTOAvcl8F
FPACX vs. AMECX (IFAFX info was inaccurate)
FPACX had higher CAGR, Sharpe, and Sortino ratios with lower volatility and max. drawdown.
https://testfol.io/?s=keoymL8x3O8
My top choices are FPACX and IFAFX.

Gold
Symbol % Stock % Bond % Cash
TRAIX ~60-65% ~30-35% ~5%

Weird how M* uses TRAIX rather than PRWCX for TRP Capital Appreciation.

Both PRWCX (M* moderate) and PRCFX (M* moderate-conservative) have "capital appreciation" prominent in their names. So, expect them to be more aggressive within their M* categories for their equity and fixed income sleeves. "Other" can be derivatives, convertibles, preferreds, alternatives, even cash within Holdings.
My simulation for them is through TCAF & PYLD. I don't have access to PRWCX and didn't bother with PRCFX.

Morningstar has a list of The Best Balanced Funds and ETFs - Jan 2026
Gold
T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation TRAIX
American Funds Moderate Growth & Income RBAFX
T. Rowe Price Balanced RBAIX
Vanguard Wellington VWELX
Silver
T. Rowe Price Spectrum Moderate Allocation TRPBX
Vanguard Balanced Index VBINX
American Funds American Balanced AMBFX
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF CGBL
Bronze
BlackRock Balanced MKCPX
JHancock Balanced SVBIX
Dodge & Cox Balanced DOXBX
MFS Total Return MTRIX
Fidelity Advisor FBAVX
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/best-balanced-funds

@crash, i made a mistake on my statement above (correction made). Capital preservation is #1 objective. BTW, i invest with D. Sherman funds as they have done well and minimize the risk. At Fidelity, they charge $49.95 for initial purchase. Additional purchases can be done for $5. Schwab has similar fee schedule. I use this approach to build a large position over.a year or so. Institutional shares of OEFs have lower expense ratio that pay for the transaction fee itself. I hold RSIIX for over 5 years.
Single country ETFs are inherently volatile due to the lack of sector and company diversification. If the top 10 holdings are over 50%, the fund is very concentrated. Panama is in frontier market i believe. The other thing to watch out for is the small daily trading volume (getting narrow spread between bid and ask prices). I prefer broadly diversified OEFs and ETFs (typical daily trading volume at 100K to several millions shares).
@Derf, we don’t own any PRCFX since we have PRWCX. For last several years, we have been reducing PRWCX as part of our risk reduction. US and foreign bonds are more attractive at this point.
Quite honestly i am not qualified to advise you on the amount of risk you should assume. Think a financial advisor may serve you better.

As the world is changing rapidly, the political stability (not including their currencies) of many foreign countries have improved while US has worsen! As investors, we would like to invest where there is a better likelihood of “return on my money, and not return of my money”.
There is still opportunities to reallocate your funds. Diversified and inexpensive index funds would be a good starting point for stocks.

******************************************************************
As investors, we would like to invest where there is a better likelihood of “return on my money, and not return of my money”.
Rings a bell! Our David Sherman (CrossingBridge) puts it the other way 'round: He runs his funds with the idea that return of capital is more important than return on capital; if the principal is diminished or lost entirely, the approach taken in order to make more money is worthless in that case. Every day, I sit and wish I could get into his funds without transaction fees at Schwab.
*********
Anyhow: I'm into EWS now. Singapore. A very concentrated ETF. And as mentioned before, also Panama and P.R. But they both use the dollar. Is that true diversification? (Panamanian balboa = $1.00.) In any case, they're serving me well. (BLX and FBP). Schwab grants the former an A rating, and the latter a B rating. For a brief moment, it rose to an A, as well.
It's tempting, on this Sunday afternoon, to throw some money into a fund mentioned in the Precious metals thread: GRHAX.

The article suggests that speculation by retail investors coupled with a supply deficit
has led to the strong rally in silver.
"The eye-popping gains — eclipsing even gold’s historic rally — have come as a surge of speculation
by retail investors has collided with a five-year shortfall in silver supply.
At the same time unusually high silver stockpiles in the US and China have drained supplies of bullion
from vaults in London, where global prices are set.
'It is the perfect storm,' says Philip Diehl, former director of the US Mint.
'We have been in a long-term supply deficit, and it is just getting worse.'”

quick update:

the name was bond. tax-free bond.
smid-duration active tax-free sector has been a great haven from gop chaos so far...low fees via vanguard for me.
since initiating post-election 2024 :
sharpe change +1.
ulcer index cut in half to 0.2. [probably cannot go much lower]
100bps total return above t-bills, with decent amount distributed tax free payments.
sentiment and odds favor trump eventually getting his destructive* rate cuts, making this a hold.
i see the kleptocracy escalating risk for gains as trump reaches halfway point; the tax-free sector is too boring and doesnt have enough suckers for them. would reconsider my cashlike allocation bucket if gop loses both houses in midterms.
*(at least gop voters no longer care about affordability...plus they already voted trump and have nothing much of value to offer him)