@Bobpa
They're all HERE beginning in 2003 (except CBUZX, which couldn't be identified to chart). They're not twins/same style, some have loads, unless you have a way around that (i.e., your brokerage). There has likely been management changes over the years and as usual, some investments are more in the right place at the right time........so, they won't align in returns every year.
What are you attempting to do???

"I can just buy Fidelity® Select Technology Portfolio (FSPTX) with ER=0.72%. And I don't need to wait 3 years to get ER=50%"
That's true. WIth FSPTX you'll need to wait forever to get an ER of 0.50%.
"Can you find another big discount broker that has one million dollar min to buy Pimco Instit shares(example PIMIX)?"
Yes.
Can you find a big discount broker that has a $25K min (or less) to buy Pimco Instit shares (example PIMIX)?
Since you mentioned FSPTX, can you find a big discount brokerage aside from Schwab that has a $2500 min to buy the fund in a taxable account? Can you suggest brokerages where one can buy this fund without a fee?
Schwab apparently meets your needs. I'm happy for you, really. It's a great brokerage. But your needs are not the same as those of others.
You wrote that you "never tell [others] to use [your] style, never, [you] helped them using their style." That makes the blanket marginalization of Fidelity ("lost its way") tantamount to saying that independent of an investor's style, Fidelity is a poor choice.
When Schwab makes additional purchases of share classes like PIMIX available for less than $10/purchase, I'll consider it. When Schwab starts letting me pay bills out of a cash account with a decent yield (not just 0.05%), I'll consider it. Until then, it doesn't meet my needs.

Inflation? My starting point, from decent definition: Inflation is a measure of the rate of rising prices of goods and services in an economy. Inflation can occur when prices rise due to increases in production costs, such as raw materials and wages. A surge in demand for products and services can cause inflation as consumers are willing to pay more for the product.
Obviously, there are several common areas that may cause broad inflation. Broad inflation, however; may be impacted more from some select sectors and how these sectors affect an individual household, IMHO. Example: While both personal healthcare needs (insurance, meds, etc.) and technology (computers, smart phones) are of great benefit for a household; their inflation paths likely have a bigger bang for the buck, over time. We have supplemental health insurance through United Health....it's expensive, well; until you need it. So, the offset, to pay for the insurance could be to buy United stock or a healthcare fund that has United stock as part of the portfolio. We may think the insurance cost is way out of line, but if this is the case; then holding the stock/fund should be of benefit and effectively the profit will pay for the premiums over time. As for technology and the consumer side, is that one has been able to upgrade, if desired; the ability of the product.......computers, smart phones, flat screen televisions, etc. If one has been investing in technology over the years, the likely profits have more than paid for the tech. upgrades one desires.
Investing in growth should provide, over time; enough to overcome broad inflation. Though a S&P 500 investment product should provide for growth too, as a reflection of the economy; for us, there remain sectors in the S&P 500 which we do not choose to invest, although this investment offers diversification. There are numerous quality growth funds, etf's or sectors within the growth area, to choose. Healthcare and tech. are ,of course; subject to their own problems with performance over time periods.......as in legislation that may affect profits, etc.; or too expensive and the big money takes profits and runs to another sector. Such, is the nature of all investing, eh?
OPPS, ADD: CPI (gov't. only data) 1971- April 10, 2020 = 537.3% AND Jan., 1999 - April 10, 2020 = 54.5%
NOTE: Our investment portfolio is fully tax deferred (IRA's), so we do not have to be concerned with buys/sells or capital gains when moving our investments. Taxable accounts will have other considerations; although long term investing in growth should not be set aside for this reason, IMHO.
My 2 cents worth.
The below chart is a line graph, for an easier view of returns; click the lime green/red icon at the bottom left of the chart screen for a bar graph. You may return to the line graph when clicking the icon adjacent.
This CHART starts at Jan. 4, 1999 comparing FSPHX, FSPTX and the S&P500.
Take care of you and yours,
Catch

So, instead of buying Fidelity Disruptive Technology Fund (FTEKX) with ER=1% I can just buy Fidelity® Select Technology Portfolio (FSPTX) with ER=0.72%
And I don't need to wait 3 years to get ER=50%.
Fidelity lost its way for several years now. Please give me other family funds for lower min and more Inst fund with no fees and please let me sell a fund and buy another online on the same day without calling a rep...or...buy a stock and then sell a mutual fund to cover it when I don't have any cash(doable at Schwab). Can you find another big discount broker that has one million dollar min to buy Pimco Instit shares(example PIMIX)?

I'm a fan of sector funds, in small pieces. They can become big pieces in the right environment.
A few years ago, I had put some money in the Fidelity Biotech fund FBIOX. It hit a favorable spell and grew quickly. I decided the pace was unsustainable and took most of my money off the table (this is in my IRA). It dropped a lot soon thereafter -- lucky me.
(BTW, it's doing well again, because of the hope for a Covid-19 vaccine I think.)
I wish I had bailed out of FSELX (Select Semiconductors) in mid-February. The last year was boom times for it and I knew that our holdings had become too large a share of our portfolio, but resisted selling. "You gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em".
At the other end of the spectrum, I don't expect AKRIX to be so volatile.
I'll probably open starter positions in the new Tech and Medicine Fidelity funds.
David

If this appeals at all, consider making a minimum investment and waiting three years. Then all investments will receive the lowest share class ER.
This differs slightly from the way class B shares were handled by load funds. Traditionally any new B share you bought would have its own clock. After a certain number of years (typically 5-10) the share would automatically convert to the cheaper A class share.
Which makes me surprised that Barron's considers "time based pricing" something new for the industry. Fidelity is simply converting shares from the initial share class to Loyalty Class 1 shares, and later to Loyalty Class 2 shares. Same idea as converting B shares to A shares based on time.

YOU have 60 days to return it from date of distribution, I believe I read. Although that may be from CARES implementation.
(Already taken out your 2020 RMD but wish you hadn’t? You might be able to roll over distributions you’ve already taken for 2020, says Slott. If you've already received a distribution from your own IRA or one inherited from a spouse for 2020, you can roll it back into your IRA within 60 days of receipt. ]

A couple of tweaks.
The "classic" 60 day rule is that the clock starts from the date you receive the distribution, not from the date the distribution is made. It can take a few days to receive the check in the mail.
https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/6-facts-every-ira-owner-should-know-about-60-day-rollover-rule
CARES extended the time from 60 days to three years, and allowed the money to be deposited back into an IRA in pieces. But these modifications apply only to the first $100K withdrawn, and then only if it was withdrawn because of a COVID-19 created need.
The inherited IRA rule is not that you are rolling it back into the inherited IRA. It must be rolled over into an IRA owned by the beneficiary (spouse). As Kitces writes:

(Nerd Note: The lone exception for beneficiaries would be for a spouse who chose to remain a beneficiary of the deceased spouse’s retirement account. In such an instance, they may be eligible to put the RMD back into their own retirement account, as a spousal rollover, using one of the methods described above.)

Inflation... Hmmm... the dollar is ALWAYS smaller, where I live. Things are much more expensive, ALWAYS. People are getting "weeks to the gallon" through this crisis, and they're happy about it, both here and on the Mainland. Gas is down to just above $3 here. I just called the Canadian Pharmacy. Wanna talk about "inflation?" If I ordered my prescription at the local drugstore, my co-pay would be $132. Via the Canadian outfit? (Pay by credit card, of course) it's $26. Is that "inflation" or EXTORTION?
Several incomes in our household, so prices never really cause pain. Where to invest? I'm thinking TECH. All the things the younger generation is already "into," but guys like me always shun. Dunno about single stocks. I leave it to the fund managers. Remote conferencing, the "cloud," every new gadget has a consumer-base ready and willing and anxious to buy it. I don't have to look any farther than my own kitchen table. And the little shaver? Already SO addicted to "getting lost in that hopeless little screen." (Leonard Cohen.) He's all of 3 years old. Around the table, each person who might happen to be there is on their own little hand-held device. Sometimes 4 of them. Conversation? Connection?
The lesson here? The manufactured preoccupation with what that little screen is showing you is more important than the PEOPLE around you.
"As a marginalized member of a spectator democracy, you choose your own dependencies.... Don't think of it as manufactured consent. Think of it as the Candy Everybody Wants."

...but doesn't he have a real nice boat somewhere?
Would have been better off laddering CDs and investing in 90 day Tbills over the past 5 years...and you wouldn't have had to pay state taxes on the Tbills, nor his management fees.
...maybe he's going to return the management fee monies like Harvard U?

By March of 2009, Miller's flagship had drawn down about 80 percent. He only drew down half that 11 years later. How does he get the new capital to take advantage?
Oh, but this, gotta love: He cited economist John Maynard Keynes who once said it was “the duty of every serious investor to suffer grievous losses with great equanimity.”

Howdy,
I won't talk about the metals as you've covered it. One of the oldest and most important (to me) quotes I've ever read was from the Elder Baron Rothschild. He said to guard against economic downturns, one should have 1/3 of their wealth in securities, 1/3 in real estate and 1/3 in rare art. Note that he's talking Wealth, not your asset allocation for your 401K. Also, you can substitute many things for Rare Art but in ain't Beanie Babies.
Take a few minutes and run your own numbers. Now wipe off your computer screen. Most people will be something like 80/15/5 . . . or worse.
I've been working at it for years now and still have never gotten to 33/33/33. That said, I'm better today than when I first looked at it.
I know it doesn't answer your question but it may serve as some strategic guidance.
Good luck,
rono

Question for the board...where would you invest in an inflationary environment?
I'm of a certain age where I remember investing my earnings from pumping gas and changing oil at the local Texaco in CDs that were paying over 12% in the early 80s...very tough environment, lot of inflation, high unemployment, attorney's driving taxi cabs...no job was beneath anyone...
fast forward to about 10 years ago when still attending a corporate torture chamber on a daily basis when during a water cooler stop I asked one of the gray beards what was it really like during the late 70's early 80's with the high inflation, I was to young to really understand it...he told me that "there was absolutely no where to hide pertaining to your investments"...you got chewed up no matter what you did
What is the thinking now? You could argue that there will be reduced demand for goods and labor so how can we have inflation but with all the money being put into the system by the gov't, I anticipate we will have a situation where we switch between severe deflation and severe inflation...where would you invest?
I wouldn't touch any Gold ETF...I can see that going poof as what do you really own there..can't get bullion at a decent price without large mark up...real estate...too many folks unable to pay rent....
Ideas/thoughts?
Everyone stay healthy!
Baseball Fan

I gotta tell you, for the cheapest go-to, "shareholder first" fund company out there, Vanguard is sure the most bureaucratic fund company out there. Trying to do a simple XFER by mail is a complete nightmare.
And...speaking of transfer nightmares, Dodge & Cox has a pretty miserable record here as well. Yet again, my wife tried to move money into D&C from another fund family and...wait for it...D&C got the transaction all spun around and mixed up. You think that for money coming in, they'd be all over themselves trying to get it right the first time. This is about the third time in the past year or two that they've messed something up.
Please, Vanguard, D&C, Royce, others -- get this right.

Not a rant when it's correct.
I had a long discussion about D&C a few weeks ago, investors can't distinguish between D&C as a great company to lagging performance with higher volatility.
I had an account at Vanguard in the 90". One day I placed an order to buy their index fund at 9 AM. At 10 AM I decided to cancel it but I couldn't, so I called a VG rep and he said that you can't cancel it by design. In 2 days I liquidated my account and transferred it to Fidelity. Several years ago I transferred most of it to Schwab because they are better. VG lower expenses are meaningless or don't exist compared to Schwab and if companies realized that Schwab Target funds at ER=0.08% are cheaper than VG at 0.09 maybe they will start switching their 401K to Schwab.
VG is a dinosaur.

Curious why you think Schwab is better than Fidelity?

I gotta tell you, for the cheapest go-to, "shareholder first" fund company out there, Vanguard is sure the most bureaucratic fund company out there. Trying to do a simple XFER by mail is a complete nightmare.
And...speaking of transfer nightmares, Dodge & Cox has a pretty miserable record here as well. Yet again, my wife tried to move money into D&C from another fund family and...wait for it...D&C got the transaction all spun around and mixed up. You think that for money coming in, they'd be all over themselves trying to get it right the first time. This is about the third time in the past year or two that they've messed something up.
Please, Vanguard, D&C, Royce, others -- get this right.

Not a rant when it's correct.
I had a long discussion about D&C a few weeks ago, investors can't distinguish between D&C as a great company to lagging performance with higher volatility.
I had an account at Vanguard in the 90". One day I placed an order to buy their index fund at 9 AM. At 10 AM I decided to cancel it but I couldn't, so I called a VG rep and he said that you can't cancel it by design. In 2 days I liquidated my account and transferred it to Fidelity. Several years ago I transferred most of it to Schwab because they are better. VG lower expenses are meaningless or don't exist compared to Schwab and if companies realized that Schwab Target funds at ER=0.08% are cheaper than VG at 0.09 maybe they will start switching their 401K to Schwab.
VG is a dinosaur.

It's an interesting idea, but I have my doubts about whether it would work. In order to make a QCD, the money goes directly from the IRA to the charity. It's something like a direct rollover where the IRA sends you a check, but one made payable to the new IRA.
Since you never have possession of the money (either with a QCD or a direct rollover), ISTM there's nothing for you to put back into an IRA. I've not researched this, so this is purely speculation. If you find out anything more encouraging, please let us know.
FWIW, the CARES act allows one to take up to three years to do a "60 day rollover", if the cash was withdrawn because of a COVID-19-created need. This is "limited" to $100K.

"...I can say that if you are not a buy and hold forever (Bogle style) then you are not an investor...."
I come here to learn. Reading many of the interchanges between others here and FD1000, it's clear that he/she has an unreasonable need to win all the time. Reminds me of conversations with my nephew. Reminds me of the Orange Abortion in the White House.
....... When I was a younger man and doing comunity organizing, our leader reminded us very early about a Cardinal Rule: if you control the terminology and definitions and can get the ones on the other side of the issue to start believing and using your definitions and terminology, then you've all but WON the issue.
********************************************
I'm not interested in embroidery nor competition in here. You've got info worth sharing? Share it, by all means.

My main point is that you can't make your assumption on others. If an investor meets their goals then it's that simple. I know a guy that sold his company for millions of dollars years ago and wants low volatility and invested over 90% in Munis and it worked great for him over 20 years. Another one retired with a pension + his SS covers his expenses and all his money is in stocks. Another guy uses only CEFs and trade them with good results. They all met their needs, there is no right or wrong answer, the problem is trying to put someone in a box that you don't like.
Over the years I shared my thoughts and actually helped hundreds who contacted me privately. I never tell them to use my style, never, I helped them using their style. This is what many can't grasp.
Example: An older relative retired around 2001-2 and told me he saw several financial advisors and thinks that 1% is too high and he really doesn't trust them while markets got volatile and he wants a stable LT simple portfolio and all his money is at Vanguard. Based on his portfolio, he needed about 3-3.5% yearly withdrawal. I told him he can be in just 35-40% stocks and the rest bonds and to invest in just 2 funds VWIAX+VSCGX. Every 2-3 years this guy calls me and thank me how I saved him so much money and how it works.
I knew VWIAX would be better but I wanted to diversify a bit more. Below are the results(link)

I employ the ones that give me the best work for the money. If they don't perform, I just switch the

@FD1000, then you are not an investor, you're a trader of the hottest fund of the month club. Most here are investors. So, speaking for myself as an investor, I would not take your short term rear view mirror advice on this one.

You should never take advice from anybody but do your own due diligence. That's what I do.
But, I have held funds for months up to several years. As I said, I look for best risk/reward funds first then select the best one. I have held PIMIX(Multi) and PHMIX for years. It's not just the best performer.
There are all kind of investors, I don't put anybody in a box. I can say that if you are not a buy and hold forever (Bogle style) then you are not an investor. The key is to find what works best for you to meet your goals.
How many investors do you know who sold over 99% before the crash this year?
I can tell you from experience that a good fund can do well in the next 1-2 years.

@LewisBraham
What you said is mostly correct BUT index works best for US LC. I have done very nicely by having a list of great risk/reward funds and selecting the one with the best momentum. Basically, I call them my NBA team. I want my team to go to the playoff every year. Even a superstar (like PIMIX) will be out if I can find a better performer (in my case IOFIX). This guarantees my funds to be a top performer. I also care a lot about volatility.
In 2000-2009 I mostly held 3 funds SGENX,FAIRX,OAKBX. After 2010 and preparing for retirement I held PRWCX and PIMIX and then IOFIX.
===============
@MikeM
long term FMIJX looks better but I only care what happened in the last 1-3 years. See my answer above.
I also look at my fund managers as my contractors, I employ the ones that give me the best work for the money. If they don't perform, I just switch them.

Let's look at a story of 2 International funds. If we look at total return, the growth of $10,000 invested on 1/1/2011, we have these results:
Both funds A and B start with a $10,000 investment on 1/1/2011.
on 12/31/2011, fund A had $8609 / fund B had $9823
on 12/31/2012, fund A had $10124 / fund B had $11608
on 12/31/2013, fund A had $12391 / fund B had $14969
on 12/31/2014, fund A had $11489 / fund B had $15138
on 12/31/2015, fund A had $11459 / fund B had $15625
on 12/31/2016, fund A had $11018 / fund B had $17188
on 12/31/2017, fund A had $13360 / fund B had $19843
on 12/31/2018, fund A had $11876 / fund B had $17966
on 12/31/2019, fund A had $15456 / fund B had $21034
At the end of 9 years of return history, fund B has returned 36% more than fund A.
on 4/1/2020, fund A had $12663 / fund B had $15693
Even after a misstep in the 1st qtr of 2020 (which every manager goes though) Fund B has still returned ~20% more than fund A for long term investors.
Also:
Fund A's managers have been on board for 3 years, fund B management since inception. Fund A's volatility as measured by STD is 13.5, fund A has been less volatile at 11.3.
Fund A has an expense ration of 1.15%, you'll pay less for fund B, 0.9%.
If you are a long term investor, which fund would you have been happier investing if on 1/1/2011? If you are a long term investor, why would you throw out fund B and replace it with find A? Is there a crystal ball that tells you fund A is immune to manager missteps?
of course:
Fund A = CWVGX
Fund B = FMIJX

@FD1000 The problem with this sort of comparison is the past is gone, and there is little evidence for long-term performance persistence of top performing funds in the future: https://advisorperspectives.com/articles/2020/01/23/december-2019-spiva-persistence-scorecard There is evidence for short-term performance persistence, however. The fund that is hot this year may well be hot the next, but the fund that is hot over the past five years most likely won't be over the next five. That's why other criteria besides peformance should also be used, fees being one, valuation of the portfolio, style consistency, manager tenure and risk control. By the time three or five-years of outperformance have occurred the investments the manager made that have proven successful may be tapped out and he/she is due for some underperformance. The question is then is the manager someone investors can tolerate sitting through the underperformance periods after the strong ones. Evidently for some MFO-ers, this is not the case with FMIJX, despite the explanation management provided for the underperformance. This is a fundamental problem with active management. Even if the strategy makes sense and the management knows how to execute it many investors buy and sell at the wrong times, leading to a poor overall investor experience. There are a number of MFO-ers I think therefore who would be better off indexing as they can't take these bouts of underperformance. This is not meant to be a criticism. It is a reality of investing.
Then again, FMIJX marketed itself as a defensive fund that is good at losing less during downturns. In this regard, it has failed at a fundamental objective during this period, although it hasn't in past ones. Therefore, a review is in order and a consideration of management's explanation of the suprising downside in this case. The question becomes, do investors believe management's rationale or not?