@johnN: If your going to link an article from Investment News, copy & paste article title to Google. The vast majority of info from Investment News requires a subscription.
Regards,
Ted
Example:
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=gxWBXKnpFJi9jgS23KnwDw&q=10+things+to+know+about+TDFs&btnK=Google+Search&oq=10+things+to+know+about+TDFs&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3457.3457..4562...0.0..0.110.181.1j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.....0.hn42iVhEc4s

https://www.investmentnews.com/article/20190306/FREE/190309955/10-things-to-know-about-tdfs
10 things to know about TDFs
Facts advisers need to know about the increasingly popular 401(k) investments
Mar 6, 2019
By Greg Iacurci
Share
Target-date funds are booming, with combined assets in mutual funds and collective investment trust funds approaching $1.8 trillion, according to Sway Research. The average 401(k) plan holds roughly 22% of its assets in TDFs, up from 8% a decade ago, according to the Plan Sponsor Council of America.

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20190304/stepleman-do-target-date-funds-do-their-job
Buffet recommended these vehicles recently.
We have 10 % in 401k in tdf

Huh?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-target-date-funds-arent-way-go-175409855.html
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/40833/target-date-funds-buffett

Yahoo Finance reader Greg Woodruff from Bakersfield, California asked Warren Buffett, the CEO Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A, BRK-B), if target date funds are really adding value.
“No, probably not,” Buffett said during a wide-ranging interview with Yahoo Finance’s Andy Serwer. “The S&P 500 Index Fund is the one to use. That’s the one I used in that bet I made for ten years. It’s the one I’ve told the trustee for my wife to put 90% of the funds I leave her in to.”

Also, the idea with target date funds is to use them for substantially all of your assets. If you don't, you're working against the glide path which is designed for your overall portfolio.
Suppose the glide path for your age says you should be 50/50 stocks/bonds and you have 10% in the tdf and 90% in equity funds. Then your mix is 95/5. What's the point of using the tdf? If you want to control the portfolio allocation yourself, it's easier to work with fixed allocation funds than with ones that "glide".

Who is this guy? His arguments against target date funds are lame.

It's easy enough to find out who this guy is:

... He has also written on portfolio risk management for Barron’s Financial Weekly. Additionally, he assists in the management of the investment portfolio of the Community Foundation of Sarasota County.
Dr. Stepleman holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of Maryland and a B.S. in Physics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has taught at the University of Virginia and Rutgers University. He also spent 20 years at Exxon Research and Engineering Company and seven years with the RCA David Sarnoff Research Center. ...

Some of his arguments do seem lame. For example, on the one hand lamenting that there's not agreement on what a "correct" glide path is; on the other complaining about "one size fits all". There isn't agreement on a correct glide path precisely because one size doesn't fit all. Different glide paths are offered because what is correct for one person is not correct for another.
Some of his points IMHO not lame at all. "Research by Wade Pfau and Michael Kitces suggests a more optimal glide path ramps down even more severely to 10 percent stocks at retirement and then starts increasing the stock holding gradually to 50 percent. Their research indicates this glide path can provide better protection against sequence of return and longevity risks."
Of course I would think this part had substance. I have to. I said the same thing two days ago:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/111071/#Comment_111071

If this guy got paid to write article, he will write. It's an occupation...
They simulated a common glide path strategy over 141 years and found that an investor using a 50 percent stock and 50 percent bond allocation, and regularly rebalancing, would likely have had better results than the target-date fund.
Not even a statement of fact. Giving Research Affiliates a bad name in the process. No link to actual study. We don't know if there was such a study. 141 years - F me! Regular balancing - how regularly? Totally idiotic.
Anyone from Research Affiliates reading?

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/121515/8-high-risk-investments-could-double-your-money.asp?utm_source=personalized&utm_campaign=bouncex&utm_term=16199863&utm_medium=email
When an investment vehicle offers a high rate of return in a short period of time, investors know this means the investment is risky.
Given enough time, many investments have the potential to double the initial principal amount, but many investors are instead attracted to the lure of high yields in short periods of time despite the possibility of unattractive losses.

FYI: In his 2001 book “Fooled by Randomness,” author and fund manager Nassim Nicholas Taleb argued that chance plays a largely unacknowledged role in success, particularly in the finance industry. A new study of the returns generated by fund managers suggests that even the minority able to beat their benchmarks are lucky rather than good — and maybe not even that lucky.
Analysts at S&P Global examined the returns of more than 2,400 investors based in the U.S. Unsurprisingly to anyone who has followed the active-versus-passive debate in recent years, less than a third were able to beat their benchmarks in the three years to September 2015 on an annualized basis and once fees are taken into account.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-05/s-p-fund-manager-study-shows-luck-a-big-factor-in-outperformance

I did sep-ira at vanguard, very useful, saved so much tax $$, max distributions last yr 55K. interesting you can get private 401K or TSP + SEP-IRA..very happy about little pennies saved in taxations here and there
BUT still not happy about all the tax have to pay extras from div bonds income - think 15% cap gain from all div incomes
my next goals maybe getting DEFINED BENEFITS once find out more info about these programs

FYI: Reaching the maximum limit for 401(k) contributions (which is $19,000 in 2019 and an additional $6,000 for those 50 and older) is not an easy feat, and only a fraction of investors actually accomplish it. Only 13% of participants maxed out their 401(k) in 2017 (when the limit was $18,000), according to a 2018 Vanguard report about its investors. What’s more, these investors had higher incomes, were older and had longer tenure at their employers. Comparatively, 9.1% of workers whose 401(k) plans are managed by Fidelity Investments reached the cap, up slightly from 9% at the end of 2017 and 8.1% at the end of 2013. Boomers were most likely to max out their 401(k) plans, followed by Generation X, and lastly millennials.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/maxing-out-a-401k-is-surprisingly-rare-but-may-be-easier-than-you-think-2019-03-05/print

Right, the price of success. Look how short the first two close periods were.
Fund Closed to New Accounts: 12/31/2003 - 12/15/2008
Fund Closed to New Accounts: 5/16/2002 - 11/18/2002
Fund Closed to New Accounts: 4/3/1998 - 3/16/1999
Fund Closed to New Accounts: 2/9/1993 - 9/19/1993
Fund Closed to New Accounts: 3/6/1992 - 5/29/1992
I cannot recall when I dove in, and it probably was in retirement accounts only after its start-of-1990 launch date. (JT was ~30, at the outset, can that be?)
August 1990 I did join a company that had a Fidelity-based 401k and I bet that's when it was, or at least an increase if I was already a holder.
But I was paying Fidelity low loads long before then, in various Select funds, in and outside of retirement accounts.
Hard for me to believe now. But the 1980s were this crazy bull market, quite like now, until Oct '87 anyway. (Even then, in hindsight, that recovery was <2y.)

I doubt you bought the fund at inception. It appears that it was a (low) load fund then. In late 1992, Fidelity started waiving some loads in IRAs. The load was not removed on taxable accounts until 2003.
Chicago Tribune, 1990:

At one time only the Fidelity Magellan Fund had a front-end load of 3 percent. Now, almost all of Fidelity`s equity, or stock, funds have at least a 2 percent load.

South Florida Sun Sentinel, 1992https://sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1992-11-09-9202280589-story.html:

On Nov. 1, Fidelity dropped the low-load (usually 3 percent) sales charges on all their funds (except Fidelity Magellan and their Select sector funds) for those investing through their retirement accounts, such as IRAs and SEPs. Non-retirement accounts still have to pay the low-load as before.

FLPSX closed shortly thereafter (2/9/1993)
From the 1994 prospectus (the earliest online at SEC):

HOW TO BUY SHARES
ONCE EACH BUSINESS DAY, TWO SHARE PRICES ARE CALCULATED FOR THE FUND: the offering price and the net asset value (NAV). The offering price includes the 3% sales charge, which you pay when you buy shares, unless you qualify for a reduction or waiver as described on page .
WAIVERS. The fund's sales charge will not apply:
1. If you buy shares as part of an employee benefit plan ...
2. To shares in a Fidelity Rollover IRA account purchased with the proceeds of a distribution from an employee benefit plan ...
3. If you are a charitable organization ...
[you get the idea; not waived for retail investors]

From the Sept 26, 2002 supplement to the prospectus:

On June 19, 2003, the Board of Trustees of Fidelity Low-Priced Stock authorized elimination of the fund's 3.00% front-end sales charge. Beginning June 23, 2003, after 4:00 p.m. Eastern time, purchases of shares of the fund will not be subject to a sales charge. Information in this prospectus specific to front-end sales charges for this fund is no longer applicable

I don't know that it's accurate to say that FLPSX has ever changed strategies. It had lots foreign, if not a full third or more, before a decade ago, I recall from memory and also from early and mid-2000 writeups I am just recycling now that I found them.
I am hoping to uncover that I got in it in 1989, but don't think so.
It has always been more of a go-anywhere within the share-cost guidelines, $15, yes, and then I believe $25 and now another ten bucks higher. Its limited go-anywhere mandate can be found here
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/view-all/316345305
plus a fun list of its kinda random closing periods.
JT is 60 plus or minus so has time to run yet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/22/business/investing-with-joel-c-tillinghast-fidelity-low-priced-stock-fund.html
https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/kwo/spr08/alumni/tillinghast.htm
or
https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news_articles/2008/tillinghast.aspx
I was going to try and get into this as press but had a conflicting event:
https://theswellesleyreport.com/event/speaker-joel-tillinghast-portfolio-manager-fidelity-low-priced-stock-fund/

Look at top equity holdings:
Symbol Last Price Change
URBN 30.20 -0.93 -2.99% USD 4:00PM EST
CRI 95.33 -4.33 -4.34% USD 4:02PM EST
GCO 46.49 -1.78 -3.69% USD 4:02PM EST

A minor point, but I believe the fund originally started with $15 stocks. That's what I recall, and also what Kiplinger reports.
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T041-C009-S002-fidelity-low-priced-stock-a-good-eye-for-bargains.html
I also recall its move from small cap to mid cap as you describe. What I'm not sure of is whether it was always a closet global fund (> !53; foreign) or whether that was a change in the last decade or so.
While FLPSX has gotten additional managers, and while this fund has seen outflows, Tillinghast still has his hands full.
For example, he's the sole manager on two "internal" funds: the $23M Flex Intrinsic Opportunities Fund (FFNPX) and the $14B Series Intrinsic Opportunities Fund (FDMLX). The latter is nearly half the size of the "slimmed down" FLPSX. That doesn't begin to get into all the funds sold abroad that he's involved with.

I'm relieved to see that benefits will be increased for those $400K+ earners who will be paying more in FICA. Not a lot, but something.
FDR: " We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits."
https://www.ssa.gov/history/Gulick.html
Tax anyone, even the wealthier amongst us, more without providing an increased pension (SS check), and you break this bond. You've decoupled paying in from getting something out. All that's left is a welfare system. It doesn't have to be much, but all wage earners have to receive more if more of their wages are taxed.
The proposed legislation adds a third bend point (fourth rate) in the PIA (primary insurance amount) calculation. The current rates are 90%, 32%, and 15%. The proposed new rate for taxes paid on income above $400K is just 2%.
PIA calculation: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/piaformula.html
HR 1902 Social Security 2100 Act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1902

I would not. Just don't see how the risk-reward would justify that "bet".
Do you know SFGIX, though called an EM fund, is 50:50 Developed and EM markets (per M*)? NEWFX is 55% Developed, 45% EM. DWGAX 38% Developed market. If you look at an "International fund like DODFX, they have 20% in EM.
I guess where I'm going with that, many of these foreign funds are a mix of Developed and EM countries and their managers know more than me or you (well, me anyway). You have to dig into a funds portfolio to be pure one or the other. Maybe just leave it up to the EM fund manager to decide.

That latter strategy is what I generally use. One delegates country allocation to the fund manager of diversified foreign funds. By implication one is delegating EM allocation as well, unless one chooses a not-so-diversified foreign fund where the manager is limited to investing just in developed markets.
Of roughly 500 diversified foreign funds (i.e. foreign large or small cap; value, blend, or growth) in M*'s online database, a little over 1/3 fall into the 10% to 25% EM range. So while these funds are not rare, one may need to seek them out. (Add in funds having even higher EM exposure and the total percentage rises to around 2/5 of foreign funds.)

You better be a very disciplined investor to do that. Although the long term returns for EM might be good, they are extremely inconsistent. Spectacular returns some years, punctuated by equally bad returns other years. Even in good or average years, volatility is typically high. Personally, I wish that I had never invested in EM, but I’ve been in it so long that I figure that it’s due for a rebound. BTW, many diversified foreign funds hold 10-25% in EM stocks, which is probably enough for most investors.

Without discussing the merits of the proposal, let me highlight one paragraph:

On the cost side, the act would increase the Social Security tax rate by 1.2 percentage points, for both you as well as your employer. Landis downplays the significance of that increase, since it will take place over 24 years, meaning that the increase in any given year (for both you and your employer) will be 0.05 of a percentage point. He says that his “grocery and gasoline bills change more than that every month.”

While the price of your gasoline bill may fluctuate more than that every month, the rate of taxes on your gas bill doesn't.
This is important because we're talking tax rates, not dollars. Your wages go up year by year, which means that your payroll tax goes up year by year even when the tax rate remains constant. Increase the rate and you've now got two sources of higher taxes - increasing wages and an increasing percentage. Its a flawed analogy.
Regarding print friendly format: Had Gary done that, I wouldn't have seen all the reader comments. Specifically, Dink Singer (Marketwatch comments) seems very good on fact checking and filling in info.

All funds incorporate the expenses of their underlying funds as part of their total expense ratio. One of the knocks against funds of funds is that they slather a second layer of fees on top of those expenses.
For example, from M*'s classroom:

So what's the catch? Expenses, mostly. The fund of funds structure creates a double layer of costs. First, there are the expenses associated with running the fund of funds itself—management fees, administrative costs, etc. Second, there are the costs associated with the underlying funds—the same sorts of management fees, administrative costs, and so on.

By purchasing Investor class shares while qualifying for Institutional class shares, VTTVX is skimming investors' money and using it to make it seem that there's no second layer of costs. Vanguard certainly does claim a 0% management fee for VTTVX.
From the prospectus:

Fees and Expenses
The following table describes the fees and expenses you may pay if you buy and hold shares of the Fund. ...
Annual Fund Operating Expenses
(Expenses that you pay each year as a percentage of the value of your investment)

---

Management Fees                    None

---

12b-1 Distribution Fee               None

---

Other Expenses                         None

---

Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses 0.13%

---

Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses 0.13%

---

Compare that with the way Fidelity reports the fees in its funds of index funds. No deception there.
The acquired fees cost is 10 basis points lower. Fidelity uses fairly priced index funds while Vanguard uses overpriced Investor class shares that exists for no other reason than to be used in these funds of funds.
On the other hand, Fidelity calls out a true second layer of costs rather than reporting all those costs as "None".
From FQIFX summary prospectus:

Fee Table
The following table describes the fees and expenses that may be incurred when you buy and hold shares of the Fund. ...
Annual Fund Operating Expenses
(expenses that you pay each year as a % of the value of your investment)
Management fees                                  None
Distribution and/or Service (12b-1) fees None
Other expenses                                     0.15%
Acquired fund fees and expenses         0.03%
Total annual operating expenses     0.18%

Has anyone ever considered this? Is anyone doing this now? If you are doing it now are you retired or not?
EM valuations are attractive but outperformance is lumpy.
My EM is Seafarer G/I(which came to my attention on these boards,THNX), Matthews G/I. I have a slug of American funds that I am considering deploying to AF New World which buys EM stocks or stocks that obtain a significant amount of earnings from EM markets(small slug of EM bonds too).
This would make my EM 15% of the portfolio. I realize that the G/I funds are not pure EM but they lean that way.
Regards,
MikeM2