As with Vanguard, the question may be moot. AFAIK, one can't open a fund position directly in either family.
Sample prospectus boilerplate:

If you do not currently have a Fidelity ® brokerage account or a Fidelity ® mutual fund account and would like to invest in a fund, you may need to complete an application. For more information about a Fidelity ® brokerage account or a Fidelity ® mutual fund account, please visit Fidelity's web site at www.fidelity.com, call 1-800-FIDELITY, or visit a Fidelity Investor Center (call 1-800-544-9797 for the center nearest you).

But all one finds on Fidelity.com is this list of "accounts for investing":
Brokerage Accounts, Cash Management Accounts, HSA Accounts, and 529 College Savings Plans.
No mutual fund accounts.
https://www.fidelity.com/customer-service/investing
Under Forms, if one checks "open an account" one sees a plethora of account forms, but the only two forms presented to open a vanilla, individual taxable account are a CMA (brokerage) application and a "Non-Retirement Brokerage Account for Individuals, Joint" application.
https://www.fidelity.com/customer-service/forms-applications/all-forms
Decades ago, Fidelity nudged all investors off of their mutual fund platform onto their brokerage platform. (Who remembers T-account numbers?) Vanguard is in the middle of that process now.

FWIW - I have been with Fidelity for over 50 years with hardly a hiccup. Any problems (all minor) were handled promptly with less than a 10 min phone call. No hassles working through their phone menu to obtain an actual human on the other end.
What they don't have is possibly every last mutual fund you'd like to own with or without purchase fees but they have a large selection as you've already documented. A nice recent option was the incorporation of many TRP funds in their stables. Great research options across the board. I've been quite happy.

Along those lines, another thing to keep in mind is that some brokers offer a higher level of service based on the total assets you have with them. Fido’s Premium Service kicks in when your household has over $250K in its accounts. Schwab used to, but no longer, has formal service tiers based on your assets.

PSHZF is a closed end fund. There may not be a difference in how brokerages handle ETFs and CEFs, but they are different from an investment perspective. Vanguard's VERX is an example of an ETF on the London Exchange.
https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/investments/vanguard-ftse-developed-europe-ex-uk-ucits-etf-eur-distributing
Fidelity provides three different ways to trade international securities: directly on a foreign exchange with foreign currency, on a foreign exchange with trades denominated in dollars, and domestically if the foreign stock is traded OTC. See pp. 3-4 of the brokerage commission and fee schedule.
https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/Brokerage_Commissions_Fee_Schedule.pdf
One could purchase Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd in pounds sterling directly on the London Exchange via the ticker PSH:GB. When traded this way, there's no $50 added fee, but Fidelity does charge a £9 commission as well as a currency exchange fee.
You seem to be writing about the third method (OTC). Even there, a $50 fee is not always added. It depends on whether the DTC can process the transaction. For example, one can trade another UK CEF, Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust PLC under the ticker STMZF without incurring a $50 fee.
Here's a list of the 30 largest UK CEFs (Pershing is #6):
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/discover/news-and-insights/discover-london-listed-investment-funds-market

Fidelity will let you purchase this security, but they charge a $50 "foreign settlement fee" for each Buy.

cool!
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/18/opinion/archegos-bill-hwang-gary-gensler.html
chump banks and loopholes, man

related
bitcoin to 250k in 12 months???
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bitcoin-at-250-000-in-a-year-this-rocket-fuel-will-help-it-get-there-says-former-goldman-sachs-alum-11621336229
to the moon we go??
or to the grave we go??
we will wait and see

If you’re happy with your TRP funds but not happy with their service, are you planning on transferring your TRP funds in-kind to a new house? Both Schwab and Fido offer most TRP funds NTF (Based on my limited data, Schwab seems to have the edge in number of NTF TRP funds.)
Trading stocks and NTF funds is free at both. No IRA maintenance fees depending the size of your account. Both offer a wide variety of load-waived funds. In general, buying TF funds costs $75 to buy at Schwab and $50 to buy at Fidelity, selling is free.
When needed I’ve had good service from both and have been able to handle most transactions (including asset and wire transfers) electronically without the need to contact a rep.

Here’s a list of the 50 largest houses. Some are load-based. Any stand out as worthy of consideration? The number on the right references total number of distinct fund offerings.
SOURCE
Retail Net Assets # of distinct funds
1 Fidelity Investments $984,173,589,258 315
2 Vanguard Group $962,331,327,507 148
3 American Funds $956,584,547,987 42
4 Franklin Templeton Investments $377,385,331,414 122
5 T. Rowe Price & Co. $345,725,591,811 110
6 Columbia Management $167,493,529,444 140
7 Dodge & Cox $126,826,526,974 5
8 OppenheimerFunds $125,473,946,434 72
9 John Hancock Funds $119,789,419,458 225
10 Pacific Investment Management Co. $118,411,876,036 73
11 Invesco Ltd. $95,323,126,745 92
12 BlackRock Inc. $90,785,119,662 116
13 Janus Capital Group $84,717,855,431 48
14 American Century Investments $71,948,919,961 86
15 MFS Investment Management $71,059,542,832 74
16 Lord Abbett & Co. $66,647,971,069 42
17 ING Retirement $58,294,891,374 150
18 Wells Fargo Advantage Funds $48,938,991,118 101
19 Putnam Investments $48,697,487,901 79
20 AllianceBernstein Inc. $48,012,344,847 74
21 Eaton Vance Corp. $45,749,419,375 91
22 DWS Investments $43,664,723,778 67
23 JPMorgan Funds $43,495,216,232 108
24 USAA $41,901,152,367 41
25 Legg Mason Inc. $40,997,886,898 87
26 Hartford Mutual Funds $39,801,202,624 81
27 Dreyfus Funds $35,223,057,365 105
28 Ivy Funds $34,953,774,009 30
29 First Eagle Funds $34,849,628,600 5
30 Northern Funds $34,626,707,067 51
31 Schwab Funds $34,218,636,841 47
32 Principal Funds $33,220,356,251 63
33 Prudential Investments $32,560,310,174 44
34 Thornburg Investment Management $30,706,861,162 16
35 Royce Funds $30,583,106,754 30
36 Russell Investments $29,943,773,637 39
37 Artisan Funds $28,990,199,955 12
38 Federated Investors $27,512,268,214 66
39 Goldman Sachs Asset Management $26,350,742,126 72
40 Pioneer Investments $24,616,061,833 37
41 Davis Funds $24,203,544,825 8
42 Natixis Funds $22,552,861,400 28
43 Oakmark Funds $22,312,816,162 7
44 Waddell & Reed Inc. $21,894,219,733 22
45 VALIC $20,406,552,997 45
46 TIAA-CREF $20,067,405,527 50
47 Nuveen Investments $19,271,984,888 106
48 Delaware Investments $18,747,941,089 64
49 Vantagepoint Funds $18,216,359,065 29
50 MainStay Funds $18,123,576,513 43
Source: Morningstar

How can this BE?
CBC news article.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/td-bank-accused-of-losing-customers-rsps-again-1.6029875

Myth #5 "This borrowing fuels the notion that the government is raiding or even stealing from Social Security and leaving it with nothing but IOUs. But the government has always made full repayment, and the interest increases Social Security's assets, to the tune of more than $80 billion in 2019 alone.
Interest payment of$80 BILLION in 2019 alone !! How much are they borrowing ???
Derf

Planning to move some $$ from TRP after dealing with poor service the past 4-6 months. My thinking is to start small - probably at Fido. Get a mm fund with check writing up and running. If happy with their service, website, etc. expand that out to some IRA transfers in. I’d like to think TRP will get their front office back in order soon. But it’s been a most frustrating 4-5 months dating back to January - if not earlier.
Some explanation.
In January I put through a change of address. Got confirmation promptly online. Double-checked with a phone call same day. Yet 3 weeks later they sent a fresh pack of blank checks to the old address. After that, out of security concerns, I switched to all-electronic delivery of statements. Worked fine for 3 months (at least I assume) until last week when a complete monthly account statement displaying Roth, Traditional and TOD account info arrived U.S. mail. Called TRP again. Was told having the existing check writing feature active on the TOD money fund would require being sent monthly paper statements on all accounts from now on. Geez - I didn’t even know they had monthly statements. So, during that call I axed the check writing feature.
Now, a few days later, another paper statement shows up in the mail - this one’s confirming a small exchange I made a week ago. Called again. Inquired as to the date the mailing of paper statements had resumed so I’d know they were all correctly delivered. They say they cannot look back in time as to whether a statement was delivered by mail or electronically. Asked to speak to tech support and was denied. And I haven’t even mentioned the lengthy phone delays often encountered.
What’s Important to me
- Decent number and variety of managed funds: Growth, value, income, allocation funds, sector funds
- Ability to move funds from old custodian to new one electronically.
- Ability to move money between funds fairly regularly without trading fees. 30 day “blocks” are OK.
- Load free with reasonable ERs
- Option to defer taxes when taking IRA distributions (probably pretty common)
- e delivery of documents
- free checkwriting
- $2500 or lower initial fund purchase

Thanks for your figures. Now I can be more specific to your particular "what if". Since I'm still making estimates, feel free to adjust the calculations as needed.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that your SS benefits are 50% taxable. (It could be as high as 85%.) Let's also assume that you're working part time until age 70 so that we don't have too many different intervals to compute.
Finally, let's assume a fed marginal tax rate of 22% and a state marginal rate of 6% for a combined 28% rate. We have to pick some figure to work with to make this concrete.
I gather from your followup that you need an extra $20K/year (after tax) over and above your part time income for your expenses until you fully retire (assumed age 70). The fact that you'd be drawing from your IRA for this money suggests no money in taxable accounts - since that's what conventional wisdom says to deplete first.
So if you defer benefits, you'll need to draw $27,778/year from the IRA. (72% of this gives $20K post tax).
OTOH, if you take benefits at age 67, you'll get to "bank" $14,028/year, assuming you bank it in that same deductible T-IRA:
$35K pre-tax SS benefits = $20K for expenses + $14,028 to IRA + $972 taxes
[ net taxes = tax on SS benefits - tax savings on deductible IRA contribution
$972 = (28% x 1/2 x $35K) - (28% x $14,028) = $4,900 - $3,928]
So from age 67 to age 70, you're either reducing your IRA by $27,778/year or growing it by $14,028. That's a difference of $41,806/year for three years. In pretax dollars. In post-tax dollars (72%), that's $30.1K.
I already explained how to account for the growth of this amount in an earlier post in this thread. So I'll just give the results here:
Expected value of $30.1K (post-tax) difference/year over three years: $104K (portfolio visualizer), $93K in real (inflation adjusted) dollars.
After age 70, if you've deferred SS, you'll be receiving 132%/108% x $35K, roughly $42.8K/year.
Compared with the $35K you'd get by starting at age 67, that's a $7.8K/year difference pre-tax, real dollars. Post tax, the difference is $7.8K - (28% x $7.8K x 1/2) = $6.7K/year.
The extra savings and growth ($93K real dollars to age 70) that you get by taking SS at age 67 can on average be expected to cover this $6.7K shortfall through age 87 (portfolio visualizer).
That's a tad under what the new RMD table1 (single life) gives as the expected lifetime (88.2) for someone now age 67.
The comment "by the way your dead at the end anyway" suggests that you're not giving much weight to the risk of loss once you're dead, since, well, you're dead anyway. OTOH, the risk of having less money while you're alive is going to matter. A risk averse person who values these two risks (dying before "breaking even", and living "too long") differently will tend to make the choice that reduces the more important risk.
In addition, the estimate that by deferring benefits one will begin pulling ahead around age 87 is a result subject to wide variations. Maybe the market will not produce 7%/year (the figure I used as input), maybe it will swoon early in your drawdown period. Maybe you'll do much better, maybe you'll do much worse.
In contrast, SS is a steady (inflation adjusted) income stream. All else being equal, the risk averse person will take the sure thing.
A final note on the numbers. The calculations above incorporate the effect of taxes and account for investment growth. Your potential shortfall by taking benefits at age 67 and living to 100 still comes out to nearly triple magnitude you hypothesized: ""$10k, 20k, 30k maybe?" Or maybe $87K (13 x $6.7K, post tax, in real dollars).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/05/17/michael-burry-of-the-big-short-reveals-a-530-million-bet-against-tesla.html
Michael Burry of ‘The Big Short’ reveals a $530 million bet against Tesla
KEY POINTS
Michael Burry is long puts against 800,100 shares of Tesla or $534 million by the end of the first quarter, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Burry was one of the first investors to call and profit from the subprime mortgage crisis.
Burry previously mentioned in a tweet, that Tesla's reliance on regulatory credits to generate profits is also an impediment to the company's long-term prospects****
No pain _no play no gain
You may need to go * all in * sometimes to win it big

+1 et91 I always try to find ntf substitutes for tf funds. Dodge & Cox has been my exception, but I'm hoping to buy DODIX ntf at Chase You Invest;unfortunately the minimum investment is $2500, but if the minimum changed to $1000, I would buy the fund today !

From an email I just received from GP:
May 17, 2021
Dear Fellow Shareholders,
With the continued strength of global markets and the performance of the Grandeur Peak Funds, we find it necessary to announce the following fund closures effective as of market close on Friday, May 28, 2021.
Moving to Hard Closure[1]:
*Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund (GPEOX/GPEIX)
Moving to Soft Closure[2]:
*Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund (GPROX/GPRIX)
As you know, we carefully review capacity at both the strategy and firm level. We are committed to keeping our investment strategies nimble to fully pursue their investment objectives without being encumbered by their individual asset base or the firm’s collective assets. Achieving performance for our clients remains our paramount objective as always.
As of June 1st, the Grandeur Peak Funds that remain open to all investors include:
*Grandeur Peak Global Stalwarts Fund (GGSOX/GGSYX)
*Grandeur Peak Global Contrarian Fund (GPGCX)
*Grandeur Peak US Stalwarts Fund (GUSYX)
To check the current open/closed status of all Grandeur Peak Funds at any time, please visit our website.
Thank you for your continued trust. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out to me or a member of our Client Relations Team.
Best Regards,
Eric
[1]"Hard Closure": means that these Funds will no longer accept purchases, from new or existing investors, through financial intermediaries unless the purchase is part of: (1) a retirement plan which held the Fund prior to this closure, (2) an automatic reinvestment of a distribution made by the Fund, or (3) a de minimis annual rebalancing approved by a member of the Grandeur Peak client team. The Funds will remain open to purchases from existing investors, and to new investors who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds. The Funds retain the right to make exceptions to any Fund closure or limitation on purchases.
[2] "Soft Closure" means that the Fund will close to new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund through third-party intermediaries subject to certain exceptions for financial advisors with an established position in the Fund and participants in certain qualified retirement plans with an existing position in the Fund. The Fund will remain open to purchases from existing investors, and to new investors who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds. The Funds retain the right to make exceptions to any Fund closure or limitation on purchases.
PDF from GP:
https://www.grandeurpeakglobal.com/documents/grandeurpeakglobal-pr-20210517.pdf

David Trainer looks at Coinbase and other similar investments the way this skeptic still does......

Coinbase (COIN), the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the U.S., could see profits come under pressure as more companies embrace blockchain and competition in the exchange space increases, according to at least one strategist.
"This business will be commoditized," David Trainer, CEO of the research firm New Constructs, told Yahoo Finance on Friday.
"You don't make a lot of money trading things," Trainer said.
..."firms like Coinbase are kind of tricking you into thinking, oh, because we're blockchain, we're going to be real profitable," he said. "Well, the real truth about blockchain is that companies are going to be less profitable."

Coinbase

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834421010939/fp0065552_497.htm
497 1 fp0065552_497.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST: GRANDEUR PEAK FUNDS
GRANDEUR PEAK EMERGING MARKETS OPPORTUNITIES FUND
GRANDEUR PEAK GLOBAL REACH FUND
(Each, a “Fund,” and together, the “Funds”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 17, 2021 TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND
PROSPECTUS OF THE FUNDS DATED AUGUST 31, 2020,
AS SUPPLEMENTED FROM TIME TO TIME
Effective as of the close of business on May 28, 2021, the Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund will no longer accept purchases, from new or existing investors, through financial intermediaries unless the purchase is part of:
● a retirement plan which held the Fund prior to this closure,
● an automatic reinvestment of a distribution made by the Fund, or
● a de minimis annual rebalancing approved by a member of the Grandeur Peak client team.
Also, effective as of the close of business on May 28, 2021, the Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund will close to new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund through third party intermediaries subject to certain exceptions for financial advisors with an established position in the Fund and participants in certain qualified retirement plans with an existing position in the Fund.
The Funds remain open to purchases directly from Grandeur Peak Funds by existing investors and by new investors.
The Funds retain the right to make exceptions to any Fund closure or limitation on purchases.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

lost extra income over 30 years minus gained extra income over first three years =
30 years x 12mo/year x ($2112 - $1728) - $62,208 = $138,240 - $62,208 = $76,032.

@msf, This synopsis is a pretty straight forward, narrow view. But for everyone there are the "what ifs".
What if during the years I wait from 67 to 70, I had to withdraw $20k a year
from an IRA to make up the income deficit for cutting back or eliminating work income? $20k x 3 years is $60k potential growth loss. So, that kind of makes your extra $76,032 gain IF I live until 97 more of a pittance in the scheme of things in my opinion. There is a much greater chance of not living until 97 than doing so statistics say. Factor in that $20k from an IRA is fully taxed. SS is partially taxed. And lets factor in the excess SS I will receive at 67 that I don't need to make up my reduced work income. Still using the $20k needed to fill my income deficit, I now have $15k to bank for 3 years = $45k (I should receive ~$35k/year SS now, (35ss - 20 needed income = 15 excess to save).
Bottom line in my mind, that straight forward formula you gave can easily be affected by real life factors everyone has. With all those factors and probably more factors we may not be aware of heading down the road, using your wait until 70 formula has huge variability for being accurate. I think some of the articles posted in this string are saying a similar view.

The Changing Characteristics of Labor:

...by all accounts robots and other forms of automation are set to explode in usage. What this means is that trillions more “hands” will enter the labor force. Better yet, these “hands” will work 24-hours a day, 365 days a year. They’ll never call in sick, or quit either. Their immense productivity will enable human specialization that will render the present rather primitive by comparison. We’re amazed in modern times that there are professional video game players, and video game coaches, but in future decades the previously-mentioned professions will be ho hum compared to what people will eventually be paid to do.

Forbe's Article:
ignore-the-pessimists-the-baby-bust-is-a-bullish-market-signal