I have no problem with strong opinions. In fact, CW may well deserve them in time. What bothers me the most for now (as Cramer pointed out) was her utter lack of humility. She will either turn out right ala her Tesla call (she says this is currently the greatest misallocation of capital in history) or she will be more like the PBHG special fund (remember that one fellow old-timers?). "Special" alright. I'm putting my "gambling" money on CW given her still-relevant outperformance, but no more than that.

USAA basically got out of the investment business to focus on insurance and personal finance services to military families.
USAA sold its brokerage business to Schwab and its mutual fund business to Victory Capital. It got caught in the transition period in the Barron's review this time.

14th in the ranking? USAA? Really?
USAA out sources...

Victory Capital supports USAA members with USAA Mutual Funds

https://investor.vcm.com/member
USAA sells out...
Also, USAA brokerage accounts were sold to Schwab for a handsome profit.
($1.8 Billion)
charles-schwab-to-buy-usaa-assets-in-1point8-billion-deal
So, my feeling... they should be much lower in the ranking.

You can also use M*'s new "Interactive Charts". You'll find them on the home (quote) page for each fund. You need to click on the "Show Interactive Chart" button at the upper left of the graph shown.
While I prefer M*'s legacy pages for most purposes, the interactive charts have the advantage of showing you the cumulative gain in percentage between the dates you specify. So if you give dates of 12/31/97 and 12/31/98, it will tell you the annual gain for 1998 without your needing to do the long division.
Yahoo's finance pages also provide figures that one can use to deduce annual returns. Select the historical range of data to cover the years of interest. Then look at the adjusted price on Dec 31 of successive years and divide to get the growth for the selected year. Adjusted prices incorporate the effect of dividends, splits, etc., so it represents total return. You can download the data and let Excel do the division for you.
https://finance.yahoo.com/
There are minor differences. For DODGX, the M* interactive chart reports a gain from the end of 2020 (12/31/2020) to the end of 2021 (12/31/2021) of 31.73%. This is also what M* reports in digital form on the fund's performance page, confirming that these are the right endpoints to use.
M*'s performance page for DODGX
Yahoo Finance reports adjusted closing prices of 186.20 and 245.26 at the end of 2020 and 2021 respectively, for a gain of 31.72%. Going to the horse's mouth, D&C reports a 2021 return of 31.68%.
Yahoo Finance, DODGX data
D&C performance page
This illustrates why I try to go as far upstream as possible to the data source if accuracy is important. One can find 10 years of performance data in a fund's prospectus, so by looking at a prospectus that's 15 years old one can get the annual returns for years 1997-2006, and by looking at a prospectus that's 5 years old one can get the annual returns for years 2007-2016.
SEC fund filing search page: https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/mutualsearch.html
For example, for DODGX, here are the bar charts for those 20 years and the prospectuses they come from:

Dodge and Cox Prospectus, May 1, 2007        Dodge and Cox Prospectus, May 1, 2017

Actually, Morningstar categorizes GQG as Large Growth. Your large red arrow should be pointing at the "Category" menu to the left. The "Investment Style" box is usually considered a temporary phenomenon, albeit it is possible if the style stays that way for a while Morningstar will re-classify it as Large Blend. But if you look at the historical style box classification for the fund, it was in Large Growth for 2018, 2019 and 2020, and only more recently shifted to Blend, so Morningstar has maintained its Large Growth categorization.
PRBLX has better returns than GQEPX, but not better risk ratings--drawdown maximum three-month returns in 2020, beta, standard deviation or Sharpe ratios:
https://morningstar.com/funds/xnas/gqepx/risk
https://morningstar.com/funds/xnas/prblx/risk
Here's another one--AKREX.

Fed's primary business is T-Bills, T-Notes, T-Bonds, TIPS, so that restriction makes sense. One can potentially execute yield-curve positioning plays with Treasury-only funds.
In 2020, only IL tapped Fed's muni liquidity facility, but other states could (problem was that the Fed set muni rates too high). The Fed never dealt with munis before, and Powell and others held munis. Anyway, state muni restrictions also make sense just in case the muni liquidity facility is activated.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/810893/000119312522046660/d115005d497.htm
497 1 d115005d497.htm 497
PIMCO Funds
Supplement dated February 18, 2022 to the
International Bond Funds Prospectus dated July 30, 2021,
as supplemented from time to time (the “Prospectus”);
and to the Statement of Additional Information dated July 30, 2021,
as supplemented from time to time (the “SAI”)
Disclosure Related to the PIMCO Global Bond Opportunities Fund (Unhedged) (the “Fund”)
The Board of Trustees of PIMCO Funds (the “Trust”) has approved a Plan of Liquidation for the Fund pursuant to which the Fund will be liquidated (the “Liquidation”) on or about June 17, 2022 (“Liquidation Date”). This date may be changed without notice at the discretion of the Trust’s officers.
Suspension of Sales. Effective May 20, 2022, the Fund will no longer sell shares to new investors or existing shareholders (except through reinvested dividends), including through exchanges into the Fund from other funds of the Trust or funds of PIMCO Equity Series. The Fund may deviate from its investment objective at any time prior to the Liquidation Date.
Mechanics. In connection with the Liquidation, any shares of the Fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will be automatically redeemed as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date. The proceeds of any such redemption will be equal to the net asset value of such shares after the Fund has paid or provided for all of its charges, taxes, expenses and liabilities, including certain operational costs of liquidating the Fund. The distribution to shareholders of these Liquidation proceeds will occur as soon as practicable, and will be made to all shareholders of record of the Fund at the time of the Liquidation. Additionally, the Fund must declare and distribute to shareholders any realized capital gains and all net investment income no later than the final Liquidation distribution. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC (“PIMCO”), investment adviser to the Fund, intends to distribute substantially all of the Fund’s net investment income prior to the Liquidation. PIMCO will bear all operational expenses associated with the Liquidation pursuant to the Second Amended and Restated Supervision and Administration Agreement between the Trust and PIMCO.
Other Alternatives. At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders of the Fund may redeem their shares of the Fund and receive the net asset value thereof, pursuant to the procedures set forth under “Purchases, Redemptions and Exchanges – Redeeming Shares” in the Prospectus. Shareholders may also exchange their shares of the Fund for shares of the same class of any other fund of the Trust or any fund of PIMCO Equity Series that offers that class, as described in and subject to any restrictions set forth under “Purchases, Redemptions and Exchanges – Exchanging Shares” in the Prospectus.
U.S. Federal Income Tax Matters. Although the Liquidation is not expected to be a taxable event for the Fund, for taxable shareholders, the automatic redemption of shares of the Fund on the Liquidation Date will generally be treated as any other redemption of shares, i.e., as a sale that may result in a gain or loss for federal income tax purposes. Instead of waiting until the Liquidation Date, a shareholder may voluntarily redeem his or her shares prior to the Liquidation Date to the extent that the shareholder wishes to realize any such gains or losses prior thereto. See “Tax Consequences” in the Prospectus. Shareholders should consult their tax advisers regarding the tax treatment of the Liquidation.
If you have any questions regarding the Liquidation, please contact the Trust at 1-888-877-4626.
Investors Should Retain This Supplement For Future Reference
PIMCO_SUPP1_021822

In the current market environment, preserving capital is more important than seeking return on capital.
Fred

While I agree that the scenario is unlikely, it's still a valid hypothetical question and I don't know the rule that handles this.
That said, I really like the idea of redemption in kind. Normally that's a pain for the retail investor, but here, where there's a single stock (or two) distributed, it's a very good thought. Even better (for the investors) because redemptions in kind make cap gains go poof. That's the loophole that ETFs use, and it's a generic loophole for all types of funds.
26 U.S. Code § 852(b)(6):

Section 311(b) [saying that funds recognize gains when they sell holdings] shall not apply to any distribution by a regulated investment company to which this part applies, if such distribution is in redemption of its stock [fund shares] upon the demand of the shareholder.

I would suspect in such a circumstance the fund wouldn't wait until December to make a distribution, but to pay special distributions earlier, closer to the time of the redemptions. It is also possible for a fund to pay in-kind redemptions in securities within the portfolio. That would be one way I imagine to get the gains out of the portfolio, just give redeeming shareholders shares of Tesla, and they would have to liquidate it and pay the gains on it themselves if they chose. The other reason this scenario is so unlikely is that shareholders don't make those kinds of redemptions unless the fund is doing poorly. A more probable scenario is the fund goes down say 20% first and shareholders sell a lot but there are still significant gains embedded in the portfolio the fund must distribute. So shareholders who stick around have a loss for the year in the fund plus a hefty gain distributed to them to pay taxes on.

It's hard to think of this as a mutual fund when 50% is in one stock. The other issue I could image is the potential tax liability if the fund starts experiencing redemptions and the manager has to sell appreciated stock. Given that, if one is a Tesla fan, why not just buy Tesla directly? According to the fund's June 30, 2021 semiannual report--https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1217673/000119312521257076/d171358dncsrs.htm#cov171358_33--the fund had $5.6 billion of unrealized capital gains in its $6.9 billion portfolio. One could easily imagine the fund distributing some hefty taxable distributions if some of those unrealized gains have to be realized because of shareholders selling the fund.

This situation suggests an interesting problem which I've never researched. What happens if the realized gains in a fund exceed the assets in the fund?
To see how this could happen, suppose the fund bought TSLA at $0 (or for a penny if it makes people more comfortable). Assume that the fund's holding in the company is now worth $5.6B; the other $1.3B are in assets that have not appreciated.
Fund shareholders redeem $5.6B worth of shares. The fund, perhaps foolishly, decides to satisfy the redemptions by selling all its TSLA stock. The fund is left with $1.3B in assets and a gain of $5.6B. When December rolls around, what does the fund distribute in the way of cap gains dividends?
One possibility is for the fund to distribute $1.3B in divs, and carry forward the remaining gains. The pragmatic problem with that solution is that no one would buy shares of a fund that would immediately distribute 100% of the investment back as a cap gain. Talk about buying a dividend! I don't know the real answer to what the rule is.

yeah
the OP quoted from Barron's
Most of its recent gains came from just one stock, Tesla (TSLA), which accounts for 50% of its portfolio.

so I was not seeing the problem, not seeing any problem. Then you posted
It's hard to think of this as a mutual fund when 50% is in one stock.

(and the answer to your question 'Why not just buy that stock?' is that you still want active management, presumably.)
A colleague who writes European prospectuses ventured:
... if an investment policy violation occurs (over a maximum, under a minimum, bond downrated to below credit threshold, etc.), the manager must make it a priority to resolve the problem as soon as possible within the normal course of business. So you don't have to suddenly dump so many now-junk bonds on the market that you push down the price you get for them, because that is not in the shareholders' best interest --- which is the paramount test for anything a fund does or doesn't do, though somehow they've managed ways to persuade regulators that giant fees are in the shareholders' best interest.
But yes, you gotta ditch the stuff or, as likely, offset some of the exposure through short sales or derivatives or whatever. This is an actual reg, not just a policy, and is about diversification and smoothing out volatility, and it is so heart-and-soul a mutual fund feature that you gotta follow it, eventually.

It's hard to think of this as a mutual fund when 50% is in one stock. The other issue I could image is the potential tax liability if the fund starts experiencing redemptions and the manager has to sell appreciated stock. Given that, if one is a Tesla fan, why not just buy Tesla directly? According to the fund's June 30, 2021 semiannual report--https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1217673/000119312521257076/d171358dncsrs.htm#cov171358_33--the fund had $5.6 billion of unrealized capital gains in its $6.9 billion portfolio. One could easily imagine the fund distributing some hefty taxable distributions if some of those unrealized gains have to be realized because of shareholders selling the fund.

Something that pops out when one looks at these funds is that they all had management overhauls within the past couple of years. M* lists each fund's average manager tenure as just one year. The former managers of these three funds, Christopher Vincent and Paul Sularz (all but BIFIX) appear to have retired in 2020 and 2021 respectively.
William Blair rebooted its fixed income program. It hired Ruta Ziverte in 2019 to "develop[] and execute[] [its] fixed-income growth strategy (in conjunction with other members of the team), team leadership, and select portfolio management." (From M*). One might surmise that the company wasn't thrilled with the short term progress and decided to pull the plug on this relatively small corner of the company (no fund with over $300M AUM).
Until it was shut down in Nov. 2015 the company did have a MMF - Ready Reserves Fund (RRFXX / WBRXX). Kathleen M. Lynch, the new lead manager of WBLIX co-managed Ready Reserves from 2010 until its demise in 2015; the aforementioned Vincent was the lead manager since 2003. The fund's inception was June 22, 1988.
The Macro Allocation Fund (WMCIX / WMCNX) has been co-managed by the same two people, Singer and Clarke, since its inception in 2011. The fund does not have a manager dedicated to fixed income. Between 2011 and 2016, Singer and Clarke co-managed PMFIX (as part of a team with more senior managers).

@yogibearbull,
I'm not very familiar with technical analysis.
How reliable of an indicator is the 50-Day / 200-Day SMA death cross?
Do you know if there were death cross patterns for the S&P 500 prior to sell-offs in 2000 - 2002, 2008, 2018 Q4, and 2020 Q1?
Thank you!

@BenWP, short-term nature of futures leads to high realized gains (and distributions) in strong years. There may be some loss-carryovers to offset those. But the ETF structure alone isn't any help in this case.

"Old" Sam Stovall may be in late-60s. He used to be at S&P but then in 2016 S&P spun off its equity research unit to CFRA. His father Robert Stovall, a well-known Wall Street analyst, passed away in 2020.
Son/Sam Stovall https://www.linkedin.com/in/sam-stovall-34153988#:~:text=Sam is the author of,flagship weekly newsletter The Outlook.
Father/Robert Stovall https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/nytimes/name/robert-stovall-obituary?id=12891994

I have no opinion on “transitory” or “non-transitory”. Nor have I any opinion what folks should buy if it turns out to be the former or the latter. But Barron’s this week seems to confirm what I’ve been seeing for about a year when I grocery shop. (I like to eat. I eat very well. But I don’t eat ice cream.)
“The January consumer-price index confirmed what consumers have known for some time. Prices are rising across the economy, and fast, with the overall index up 7.5% from a year ago from a 7% pace in December. The narrative around reopening bottlenecks keeping inflation contained, if persistent, within a tight group of predictable, pandemic-affected areas has been stale for some time; January's report makes it worth shredding. From a year earlier, bread, meat, and eggs rose by double digits, gasoline surged 40%, and even banking services jumped 14%. As Grant Thornton chief economist Diane Swonk put it: ‘The only thing that looks like a good deal is ice cream.’ “
Excerpted from “Forecasts” - by Lisa Beilfuss / Barron’s (print edition) February 14, 2022
Yet another pundit in the same Barron’s issue writes …
“In the inflation forecasting Olympics, Team Transitory missed the first gate, fell on the first jump, slipped at the first corner … We now expect headline CPI to average more than 6% this year before fading to just below 3% in 2023, both a long, long way from the 1.7% average in the decade prior to the pandemic.“ (Credited to BMO Capital Markets)

“The top-performing growth fund since the end of 2019 is $7.6 billion Baron Partners (BPTRX). The fund gained 149% in 2020—just a hair behind ARK Innovation's 157%—and an additional 31% in 2021, while ARK lost 23%. This year, the Baron fund has also held up better than the ARK ETF, as growth stocks have tumbled. Investors should be cautious about the Baron fund, however: Most of its recent gains came from just one stock, Tesla (TSLA), which accounts for 50% of its portfolio. The fund bought Tesla shares between 2014 and 2016, and instead of selling to keep its weighting in check as the stock rose exponentially, the fund let it run.”
(I guess it depends on your definition of “fund”.)
Excerpted from Barron’s (print edition) February 14, 2022

QREARX surprised its skeptics. Its best description is private-equity real estate. Its NAV declined less than 2% in 2020 and then started its strong move up. The feared collapse in top tier real-estate never happened. Some rents/leases were delayed under government mortgage forbearance program but values held. QREARX has a mix including offices (weak), malls (weak), apartments (v strong), industrial properties (strong) and the overall portfolio held well. It also made some minor adjustments in its portfolio. There were many discussions on M* TIAA forum, several posters got out in early'-2020, but then several got back in late-2020. Its annual 2021 10-K is due in 2-3 weeks and, for those interested, I track them at LINK.