@davidmoran: I understand that a fund such as VOOG could outperform, especially in a growth atmosphere as @expatsp pointed out. MOAT is not an index fund. It’s stocks are chosen according to a methodology, which includes the determination of the moat the company enjoys as well as a valuation metric that determines whether a stock is trading above or below its worth. Turnover is north of 50%, so it’s actively managed. With 47 stocks now, MOAT can be considered high-conviction. The Barron’s 400, the GAARP EFT (BFOR) has an identifiable stock-picking system, but it’s performance has been quite disappointing. It debuted at the same time as MOAT making a comparison valid since both funds have operated in the same bull market. I could still see CAPE as a trading holding, but it is tough to get good pricing. MOAT, however, trades in a very orderly fashion, with very small spreads. FWIIW, I don’t own any index funds in my accounts, even though I recognize that over time I probably won’t come out ahead of a passive portfolio.

Schwab sells Victory Class A funds NTF to its retail investors. It doesn't seem likely that it would turn around and charge the load only to its newly acquired USAA clients.
Schwab bought USAA management for its client base, both 1.5 million current and 10 million potential. It wouldn't make any sense for Schwab to dissuade its larger potential audience by taking advantage of the USAA members already signed up.
It's more likely that these clients would be sold the new Institutional class shares. From the new prospectus:

The Institutional Shares are available for investment through a USAA discretionary managed account program and through certain advisory programs sponsored by financial intermediaries, such as brokerage firms, investment advisors, financial planners, third-party administrators, and insurance companies.

From the April 23, 2020 Schwab Managed Account Services™ Disclosure Brochure:

NTF funds used in the UMP [legacy USAA Managed Portfolios] Program include USAA Victory Mutual Funds, managed by Victory Capital, from which Schwab may also receive shareholder servicing fees.

We've seen this sturm und drang before. When PIMCO did away with its D class shares, there was much handwringing about how investors would have to pay loads for PIMCO's A shares.

USAA recently sold its mutual funds to Victory and its management company (including its brokerage and managed accounts) to Schwab.
The current (August 1, 2019) prospectus starts by saying that "The Adviser Shares listed in this prospectus are available for purchase generally through financial intermediaries by investors who seek advice from them." This is the share class that's being changed, not the retail, noload "Fund Shares" class of shares.
The Fund Shares are cheaper because they don't have a 12b-1 fee, unlike the Adviser Shares. They are currently available NTF at Schwab. For example, here's Schwab's page for USTEX.
Best guess is that this change is to better align the USAA funds with Victory's share classes. Victory Class A shares are also available NTF at Schwab, though they carry that 12b-1 fee. Here's Schwab's page for the Victory fund SRVEX.
As near as I can tell, just move along, nothing here to see.
FWIW, here's the new (June 29, 2020[sic]) prospectus. It adds the new class of Institutional Shares.

It's so tempting to buy now IOFIX,VCFAX and especially EIXIX which I think is "safer" but I don't dare. These broken MBS might have a problem
[and later ...]
Corp bonds rated invested grade were down 13% from the top. Black swan is unknown ... Pimco top ones PCI, PDI lost 30-40%.

The funds you look at do seem broken. As corporates and MBSs recovered, these funds continued going down. Which is why, as Baseball_Fan wrote, it's important to know what you own, not just what their "stats" are.
Every once in awhile, a picture really is worth a thousand words.

Here's a graph showing YTD curves for MBB (iShares MBS), PTRIX (Pimco MBS fund), VTC (Vanguard Total Corporate ETF), VCFAX, and SEMRX.
All dipped to varying degrees, but the first three recovered and are positive on the year.
VCFAX flattened and is down 13%; SEMRX continued to plunge and is down 22%.
SEMMX is negative over 1, 3, and 5 years. (It has not been around for a decade yet.) Next to that, DODIX looks pretty good. A problem with putting too much faith in volatility figures over a generally quiescent period is that one is blinded to latent risks.
These "black swan" events come almost like clockwork. 2020, 2009, 2000, 1987, 1974. Pandemic risk is unknown? That sounds like a politician.
"Over the past quarter century, warnings have been clear and consistent from both US government leaders, scientists, and global health officials: A pandemic was coming—and whenever it arrived, it would be catastrophic to the global economy."
https://www.wired.com/story/an-oral-history-of-the-pandemic-warnings-trump-ignored/

politician? not really. As retiree that wants to make more without the volatility the numbers show it. If you don't understand how and what you do like most then just invest like most. Buy and Hold stocks and high rated bonds for ballast.
You can see in 20 years black swan happened every 10 years.
My thread was a proof of what I did, see (this)
You can also see (this) and what I did, using trades.
BTW, Today at 10 AM I sold all my stocks(all in QQQ) that I bought earlier in April and posted at M*. I'm not predicting it's the top, I sold sold because I made money the way I do by trading.
But, you are not the first or last that tried to dismiss it :-) and it looks to me that every post I make you think it's your obligation to criticize.

@Bitzer - there was an earlier discussion re: DSEEX/DSENX you might care to look over. I'm not sure if it addresses your question but maybe.
DSEEX/DSENX

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/908695/000168386320007766/f5097d1.htm
(see link to see table of affected funds)
The Board of Trustees of USAA Mutual Funds Trust has approved redesignating each Fund's current Adviser Shares as "Class A" shares ("Redesignation"). This change is expected to be effective on or about June 29, 2020 ("Redesignation Date").
The total annual operating expense ratio of the Class A shares of each Fund will be no greater than that of the Adviser Shares on a net basis as a result of the same expense limitation agreement currently in place with respect to the Adviser Shares through at least June 30, 2021. Like Adviser Shares, Class A shares will be available for purchase through financial intermediaries and each Fund will pay ongoing distribution and/or service (12b-1) fees at annual rate of up to 0.25% of the average daily net assets of its Class A shares.
However, Class A shares will be offered and sold at their public offering price, which is the net asset value per share plus any applicable initial sales charge, also referred to as a "front-end sales load." For purchases on or after the Redesignation Date, Class A Shares will be offered and sold with the imposition of a maximum initial sales charge of up to (i) 5.75% of the offering price for equity funds and (ii) 2.00% of the offering price for fixed income funds. The sales charge may be waived or reduced under certain circumstances to be described in a revised prospectus to be furnished to shareholders upon the Redesignation. In addition, a contingent deferred sales charge of up to 0.75% may be imposed on redemptions of Class A shares purchased without an initial sales charge if shares are redeemed within 18 months of purchase.
The Redesignation will be made without the imposition of any sales loads, fees, or other charges to Adviser Shares held in shareholder accounts on the Redesignation Date. Any future purchases of Class A shares of the Fund will be subject to a front-end sales load unless such purchase qualifies for a sales charge waiver or reduction to be described in the revised prospectus. The Redesignation will not be considered a taxable event for federal income tax purposes.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE.
Victory Capital means Victory Capital Management Inc., the investment manager of the USAA Mutual Funds. USAA Mutual Funds are distributed by Victory Capital Advisers, Inc., a broker dealer registered with FINRA and an affiliate of Victory Capital. Victory Capital and its affiliates are not affiliated with United Services Automobile Association or its affiliates. USAA and the USAA logos are registered trademarks and the USAA Mutual Funds and USAA Investments logos are trademarks of United Services Automobile Association and are being used by Victory Capital and its affiliates under license.
Here is the link for the new prospectus:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/908695/000168386320007758/f4863d2.htm

Except for the last few days, VOOG has outperformed MOAT, going way back, so why not VOOG instead? (>5x as many holdings, fwiw.) That's what I'm replacing DSEEX with, along w CAPE.

I expect that there will be more dividend payers who will do likewise. First cut in 80 years. "RDS.B Royal Dutch Shell Thursday cut its dividend for the first time since 1945, reducing it by 66% to 16 cents a share after first-quarter profit fell by nearly half. The company warned that the pandemic's impact would be more severe in the second quarter." (Emphasis mine)
Shell slashes dividend as earnings sink

@Mark - I appreciate the clarification.
As you commented, this is an old issue. While these incidents raise questions of competency (compliance) and of ethics, I believe they're generally small and limited to new funds.
The main impact I can see is to investors who were suckered in by inflated performance figures (without disclosure). As I tried to explain above, ISTM that performance could be legit if a fund were able to aggregate odd lot purchases into larger round lots - thus arbitraging two markets. Otherwise, not.
It's an example of why one must be wary of early performance figures of funds. They may be buying a lot of private placements, buying odd lots at discounts, etc. Practices that don't scale.
What I always use as the poster child for bond fund mispricing and genuinely willful defrauding (including insider trading) is Heartland. The actions there were so egregious that I will never invest in that family.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-171.htm

When projects underlying some bonds held by the funds went into default and other projects were failing, Heartland didn’t accurately re-price the funds to reflect the lower valuations, the SEC said. The net asset value of the high-yield [muni] fund plummeted 69.4% in one day, and the short-duration [muni] fund fell 44%.

https://www.investmentnews.com/heartland-fined-3-9m-for-mispricing-funds-13500

@msf. "A problem with putting too much faith in volatility figures over a generally quiescent period is that one is blinded to latent risks." Hear, hear. And yes, DODIX recovered. Think the Fed helped all IG bonds recover pretty quickly. But right before it stepped-in, I think even DODIX was down 10% in March. Yes too ... going back even further ... WWI, 1918 Flu, GD, WWII, Sputnik, Korea, Cold War (Duck & Cover), Missile Crisis, Vietnam, Watergate, gas crisis, Iran, Berlin Wall, AIDS, LTCM, tech bubble, 9/11, Iraq, housing bubble ... CV-19. You'd think with all that we would never forget that sometimes it really does feel like the world is ending. That certainly is how it felt in March. And when that happens and everybody really is running for the door, all investments look scary. I think at some level, however slight, when you are investing there is a real possibility that all could be lost. I estimate rock steady DODIX had $3B in redemptions in March, or about 5%. But if the Fed had not stepped in, how many folks would have continued to redeem? It holds about 8% junk and 25% in BBB. SEMPX's redemptions were much higher at 25%. Behemoth PIMIX lost $13B or about 10% of its AUM. Yes indeed, the 11 year bull made a lot of folks complacent, me included. Especially with its unprecedented stretches of NO volatility. Anyway, I'm rambling now. Time for another cup of coffee. Thanks again.

For those that have been following my post about CTFAX. It trimmed it's equity allocation again yesterday and it's allocation is now 65% bonds and 35% stocks. Since, the stock market swoon it did reach a 30% bond and 70% stock allocation before it began to trim stocks and load bonds. It adjust it's stock allocation based upon the movement of the S&P 500 Index. When stocks are cheap it buys more of them and when stocks become expensive it hold less of them. I'm still with my plan to buy more of this fund after it makes it's June distribution payment to shareholders. Indeed, it is an interesting fund.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5828898/stocks-recovering-economy-collapses-makes-sense/?amp=true
Stocks Are Recovering While the Economy Collapses. That Makes More Sense Than You'd Think
" On March 23, U.S. stock markets closed the day after a multi-week plunge of nearly 30%. This drop coincided with a wave of lockdowns across the country, as well as similar moves throughout Europe, Latin America and South Asia. Since then, the U.S. economy has been in free-fall, with more than 26 million people filing for unemployment, waves of retail stores on the edge of bankruptcy, energy and oil companies teetering on the brink, travel grounded, and the GDP was down 4.8% in the first quarter and this quarter is likely to be much worse. The stock market? Overall, stocks are up across all indices more than 30% from that low point in late March."
Anyone have little concerns about massive money pumped into market by our feds/and other countries' central banks. Everything is hyperinflated/paper money. We have similar thoughts after 2009 crash but market kept going up and folks keep buying, central govt keep pouring the coolaids to allow parties to continue. Who knows, if 2nd wave indeed hit late summer/ fall, the parties may abruptly end.

SEC alleges willful violation and other funds were cited as well (Pimco etc.)

Outside of PIMCO, do you know of other bond funds inflating their early performance this way?
https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-252.html
The "willful" part wasn't exactly necessary. As the SEC pointed out, negligence would have been sufficient. It even referenced Steadman in this regard. There, the SEC said that "if we were to conclude that the [defendants] meant to defraud investors, we would have to believe that they did it for the sheer joy of it rather than for profit."
There were multiple problems with what both PIMCO and Semper did. Notably that they inflated performance figures and that they did not disclose this.
Lots of funds seem to do unusually well right out of the gate due to small size. If they can purchase small (odd) lots at a discount and actually resell them at full value, they can boost returns. PIMCO might have been able to do this for a short time, buying up small lots until it had enough to sell round lots. That would have made its performance figures legitimate but still misleading. That's why the lack of disclosure mattered.

It's so tempting to buy now IOFIX,VCFAX and especially EIXIX which I think is "safer" but I don't dare. These broken MBS might have a problem
[and later ...]
Corp bonds rated invested grade were down 13% from the top. Black swan is unknown ... Pimco top ones PCI, PDI lost 30-40%.

The funds you look at do seem broken. As corporates and MBSs recovered, these funds continued going down. Which is why, as Baseball_Fan wrote, it's important to know what you own, not just what their "stats" are.
Every once in awhile, a picture really is worth a thousand words. Here's a graph showing YTD curves for MBB (iShares MBS), PTRIX (Pimco MBS fund), VTC (Vanguard Total Corporate ETF), VCFAX, and SEMRX.
All dipped to varying degrees, but the first three recovered and are positive on the year.
VCFAX flattened and is down 13%; SEMRX continued to plunge and is down 22%.
SEMMX is negative over 1, 3, and 5 years. (It has not been around for a decade yet.) Next to that, DODIX looks pretty good. A problem with putting too much faith in volatility figures over a generally quiescent period is that one is blinded to latent risks.
These "black swan" events come almost like clockwork. 2020, 2009, 2000, 1987, 1974. Pandemic risk is unknown? That sounds like a politician.
"Over the past quarter century, warnings have been clear and consistent from both US government leaders, scientists, and global health officials: A pandemic was coming—and whenever it arrived, it would be catastrophic to the global economy."
https://www.wired.com/story/an-oral-history-of-the-pandemic-warnings-trump-ignored/

Majority may probably get better. Family was/[? from me? ]is heavily exposed (even w ppe and proper precautions working in medicine floor and sub acute setting]. She had stay home feel very bad few days....did not get tested because was long waiting at testing centers. Supervisor was understaffed and told us -we have come back work 3 days later instead of 14.
Even the infection disease physicians at facility changed the guidelines folks whom are well can return 3-7days instead of 14. We were hesitant/concerned but did confirmed reaffirmation with CDC guidelines and came back to work. We are doing extremely well now..We did discussed with the infection disease team, they state 70-98.5% gets it may have no issues [depending on different studies]
Unfortunately one 57 yo lady with many health issues passed away at facility. We do keep her in our prayers

Here is a little more info:

In the vast majority of younger adults, covid-19 appears to result in mild illness with the risk of more severe consequences rising with every decade of age. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, 0.8 percent of U.S. deaths as of Apr. 18 were in people ages 25 to 34; 2 percent among those 35 to 44; and 5.4 percent among those 45 to 54.

From: https://washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-coronavirus-young-patients/
Also, there seems to be a fairly strong link between having a severe case of Covid-19 and being obese among young people:

Young adults with obesity are more likely to be hospitalized, even if they have no other health problems, studies show.

https://nytimes.com/2020/04/16/health/coronavirus-obesity-higher-risk.html

First of all, since when is below the age of 60 considered "young?" People in the their 40s and 50s are not "young." This is a nice way to skew the numbers. I live in Massachusetts and know all about the numbers in the state. Bottom line: It's a scandal for nursing homes and long term care facilities, where 50-60% of all deaths in the state are occurring. Average age of death from the Chinese Flu is 82 years old in Mass. Most people that die are in their 70s and older. Look at the Mass. DPH numbers and get back to me. If you are really "young," you have virtually nothing to worry about, other than getting a cold or flu-like symptoms.

SEC remedy:
https://www.sec.gov/enforce/ia-5489-s

@Charles - no doubt small comfort but IOFIX is up 10% over the last month.
With respect to the SEC filing against Semper this is an old issue about pricing of odd-lot MBS securities in 2013-2014.
The SEC states that 126 odd lots were priced according to round lot prices, leading to an overstatement of approx 3.5% of their value, and thus an elevated NAV during that period.
SEC alleges willful violation and other funds were cited as well (Pimco etc.)
It is not related to the most recent fund collapse.

I believe this is the SEC order:
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2020/ia-5489.pdf