@Ted, You’ve posted 17 new threads just this morning. Other than the one on @Catch22 (which I’ve bumped over to the active discussions) none of yours have yet received comment. By contrast, I’ve posted one new thread over the last week and it’s received several comments.
When you’re done denigrating me, you can get back to work over in the boneyard!
:)

Why are we fretting over a 1-day performance figure?

Maybe because discussing mutual funds is what we do here.
Personally I find fretting about whether the market is “overbought” or “oversold” somewhat trivial. But I understand that some find it of interest.

First, the fund is terrible, absolutely terrible.
But really... Why are we fretting over a 1-day performance figure?

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

@msf I'm curious what diversified foreign funds you like. Thx

The one that you mentioned, DODFX, looks good. On the growth side, VWIGX has been getting a lot of attention (including from me) in another thread.
In small cap, PRIDX has been quite reliable though it is closed now. In looking for alternatives, GISYX popped up. It's from a fund family that's popular here, and this particular fund is reasonably priced both for the family and for a mid cap int'l fund. Not concentrated and low turnover.
On the value side of small/mid cap is QUSIX. This fund is one I've been aware of for some time, but I didn't realize that the institutional share class could be purchased by retail investors (e.g. in Fidelity IRAs). The retail share class costs 1/3% more.
Another fund in the same space, and somewhat of a surprise to me, is FISMX. It's a surprise because I'd generally given up on Fidelity a decade or more ago. But this is a moderately small sized fund for Fidelity ($1.2B), very diversified (as one would hope for a small cap fund with over $1B AUM), low turnover, reasonable cost.
These are just funds that interest me because they're well diversified (including EM, which was the subject of the thread), reasonably well performing, low turnover, and low to moderate cost. With the exception of PRIDX, one can open a position in any of them with a low minimum (though one may have to work at it).

@JoeD, Yep - I also once owned it. Interesting to track just to see how a real bear fund performs on any given day. Provides a nice contrast to many other funds. Everyone seems to agree he’s very smart. I hope for the sake of his investors this one finally works for them.
FWIW - Here’s the funds I track regularily (none of which I currently own). Provides a nice cross section of how different types of funds performed on any given day.
VFINX. -.39%
TRBCX -.71%
DSENX -.14%
HSGFX -.77%
KCMTX -.44%
OAKBX -.44%
PRAFX +.09%
TRRIX -.07%
From the above list, HSGFX performed worst today. The closest to it was Price’s Blue Chip fund TRBCX which fell .71%. Commodity heavy PRAFX actually bucked the trend and gained slightly. In addition, of the dozen that I own (not shown) only one performed worse than HSGFX - that being a gold fund.

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/

@JoeD, Thanks. He may hold those stocks in long positions. I don’t know. But Hussman generally shorts the market overall. So having some long positions that did poorly shouldn’t ding his return that much.
Hussman protests if others suggest he’s shorting the markets. Says he doesn’t sell stocks short. Yet, somehow, through his use of put / call options, he typically positions HSGFX to be short the major averages (rise when the market falls and fall when it rises). That short-like positioning is what allowed the fund to do well in 2018 while the overall market tanked. It’s also the reason the fund has lagged badly over the past decade.

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

Just a fund I track for reference. But I thought Hussman had the fund positioned to move opposite stocks. Surely he wouldn’t be long equities in this “overbought” market? So HSGFX should have risen today. Best guess would be he’s got some gold or miners in there. The metal had a rough day.
FYI: The fund celebrated its first positive year in about a decade in 2018. This year it was down 4% prior to today.
I don’t hate the fund. I just think it’s an interesting specimen to study - hopefully makes us all better investors.

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 (> 153; 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

This is the articles proposal. But, it's an increased tax on the wealthier amongst us (earning >$400,000/year), so what chance does that have? But, sounds good to me. Not sure how else you sustain the program.

The act does this without cutting benefits. In fact, it increases them: An across-the-board benefit increase of about 2%, a better cost-of-living adjustment, and an increase in the minimum benefit. To pay for those increased benefits and to address the actuarial deficit, the act would increase the Social Security payroll tax from its current 6.2% to 7.4% in increments over the next 24 years, for both employee and employer, and begin levying the Social Security payroll tax on earnings above $400,000. (Currently that tax isn’t levied on income above $132,900, which means that, if this act became law, income between $132,900 and $400,000 would be untaxed.)

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%

Hi @MikeM2: My two emerging market funds are both by American Funds. They are NEWFX which is held in the growth area of my portfolio and DWGAX which is held in the growth & income area. Combined, my emerging market exposure according to a recent Xray analysis amounts to a little better than five percent of my equity allocation. Being retired I'm not aggressively invested as my target asset allocation is 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity. However, I might buy a little more DWGAX as it pays a quarterly dividend since my current investment focus is to invest in income generating securities. Currently, I'm a little overweight equities due to thier strong run over the past couple of months. In addition, I looking to add a sliver of micro caps to my equity allocation.
I'll be rebalancing my portfolio towards the last part of March or first part of April. In this process I've been thinking of moving my commodity strategy fund PCLAX to my hybrid income sleeve since it pays a strong quarterly dividend (TTM 16%). This should provide an open to buy in the growth area where I can add a micro cap fund. I've been looking at WMMAX. Hopefully, within my growth and income area with quarterly dividends being paid this month will also provide some open to buy room to add to my DWGAX position which I'll fund from portfolio dividend income.
I'm not of the camp to make emerging markets my sole foreign exposure.

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