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

FYI: Do you ever get excited by policy proposals to address the Social Security funding shortfall?
You might think that anyone who does needs to get a life. In fact, however, many retirees and soon-to-retirees snap to attention when legislation is introduced to address the Social Security system’s actuarial deficit. The system is currently slated to run out of money in 2034.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-social-security-proposal-thats-worth-getting-excited-about-51551614400?mod=djem_b_Weekly barrons_daily_newsletter

Ahhh, mid 40's. I was there once.

...when I hit retirement I still expect to still be practically all-in on equities as I am now in my mid-40s. While I won't be 'diversified' across so-called "asset classes" I will be 'diversified' by my own comfort levels,

@rforno , I wouldn't recommend that in retirement without a cash bucket (another asset class), unless you don't need to withdraw from your savings. Withdrawing from a full-in equity portfolio during a bear market could be detrimental to your savings, especially if that bear market is at the start of retirement. So if you had that cash bucket, 1, 3, 5 years, whatever your comfort level is, I think 100% equity for the remaining portfolio is perfectly fine for a risk taker like yourself. Probably do better than most.

And no, I don't care about LC/MC/SC G/B/V designations

I don't disagree with you on this at all, but you know these are not asset classes.

I too have made sizable changes in recent years. More than half are broad based Index funds and ETFs while the rest are actively managed funds and individual stocks. These days there are much other things to do with kids in college and gardening. My kid's 529 plans are still on target date funds and they work out great today.

I used to think that Target Date funds were not pretty good investments. But they have improved and costs have come down significantly. I think most investors will do just fine with a low cost target date fund. People have better things to do with their lives than watch their investments. We do it because it is our hobby in a way.
When I changed jobs (while being away from MFO), I have selected Target Date fund for my 401k investments at the new company. Initially I was thinking well I have no monies in the new account, when it grows up sufficiently I will do allocation myself, besides I am too busy with new job and a few other personal things in my life. I think it is a decent investment for most people and I would even claim that "most people" probably includes many of us here.
Do you want a bit more diversification than target date funds add a bit more small cap 5% and small cap international 5% (or 10% global small cap). Step up the target date fund to next higher bond allocation to sooth the extra volatility due to small cap and you are pretty good to go.

The fact that money flowing out of FLPSX makes the fund more manageable. I actually welcome it.
While the fund initially looked at companies whose share price was less than $5, over time they redefined it to $35. I think the real deal was small value premium that is now well known.
Over time excessive fund assets forced this fund to move up to mid size companies and portions of the portfolio is now managed by others. I still have a nice amount of money in this fund despite the strategy change.

Well, maybe it is one of those cosmic coincidences, but Western Asset (a Legg Mason subsidiary) recently introduced a very similarly named ETF, Western Asset Short Duration Income ETF.
With an inception date of 02-07-2019 and a 29 bp ER:

https://www.etf.com/WINC
https://www.leggmason.com/en-us/products/exchange-traded-funds/western-asset-short-duration-income-etf.html
https://www.leggmason.com/en-us/products/mutual-funds/western-asset-short-term-yield-fund.html
[Sponsored Article] https://www.etf.com/sections/etf-industry-perspective/legg-mason-case-active-short-duration-income

Was the closing fund [LGSYX, et al.] a placeholder for the ETF? Or simply a 'hedge', in case the rollout for the ETF was delayed? Hmmm....
FUND (56 bp ER)
Seeks to generate current income and a low sensitivity to interest rate volatility via an actively managed fixed income strategy focused on U.S. dollar-denominated investment grade securities...
Total portfolio effective duration is expected to be one year or less while average effective maturity is expected to be 18 months or less. In any event, average effective maturity will be three years or less.
ETF (29 bp ER)
The Western Asset Short Duration Income ETF is an actively managed, low duration (0-3 years) fixed income strategy that seeks current income via a diversified portfolio with an emphasis on lower interest rate sensitivity, higher credit quality and active credit selection.
Low Duration. An effective average duration target of 3 years or less.

SAI: "As of October 31, 2018, Legg Mason, Inc., 100 International Drive, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, owned of record 25% or more of Short Term Yield Fund’s outstanding shares."
Whitehurst is just the contact (c/o) name given for Legg Mason here.
That, plus the fact that Western Assets is a Legg Mason line of funds, suggest that Legg Mason has been using this fund internally simply as a place to hold cash (or to invest easily in ultra-short bonds, take your pick).
There are lots of fund families that do things like that, though I'm not going to go looking for them and checking on how they list their principal owners.

@msf great response.... I do invest in many muni bonds mostly universities airport sprt complexes hospitals cities infrastructure etc.. I also buy good grade securities big companies like t-mobile Seagate att boa Merrill Lynch hcahealthcare macys Ford gm united airlines chevron Corp bonds... Due diligence reasearch and ready to sell at any given moments if you smell any blood in water... Very lucky for me no defaults for me over the past 8 9 yrs but you will never know...although many bonds called and you get a lesser rewards if they are called... Make suryou read tones stuff articles research about bonds before buying before buying these bonds... Like mf investments spread them out and don't put all your eggs in one basket.. Put in many baskets and buy multiple in different vehicles differently structures as and investment vehicles and utilities...
Lucky for me fid not pull trigger for Pg&e or peutoruco after the storms hurricane otherwise may face another bankruptcy loss capital incomes (ytm was 12-15% too high) ... If the yieare too high and looks too good bonds may not be to good and I tried stay away