The fund status is closed to all investors (see prospectus). Only div reinvestments are permitted.
This fund was formerly a State Street Research fund (not to be confused with SSgA). FWIW, there is a sibling fund, formerly SRLAX, now MDFGX. It was created and managed in the late 90s by STSEX's manager at the time, Pete Woodworth.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/big-cap-stocks-state-street-manager-looks-for-return-on-capital-1-25-99
The two funds appear to have continued using the same managers, as M* reports nearly identical teams (including changes) over the past decade. Until 2017 MDFGX's performance was virtually identical to STSEX's. Since then, STSEX has gone on wild rides (both up and down) but otherwise followed a similar trajectory. I'd guess that its huge (excessive?) bets on single stocks accounts for that.
Both funds are extremely concentrated. However, while 1/3 of STSEX is invested in Microsoft, "only" 10.37% of MDFGX is. The latter fund is not quite as concentrated, and actually turns over stocks once in awhile (21% turnover ratio).
If what you're looking for is a large cap 0% turnover fund, there's LEXCX. It's even more concentrated than STSEX, and like that fund, has BRK.B as its second largest holding (15.68%).

@catch22, thank you for the readable charts. VTV is still running ahead of VUG as of the last data drop at MFO premium to the end of June.
You ask "is this investment area really a solid 'trend' and/or rotation?" And I am reminded of a recent comment by Howard Marks highlighted in this thread (dinky linky.) "Investors should understand that the investment environment and the starting point for investments have a huge impact on their success."
People putting their money down at the end of 2021/beginning of 2022 might have different opinions about value versus growth than those of us playing around with various start times. The person that bought dumpy old FGRIX is probably tickled about his 12.5 return versus the 8.8 return of SPY, or the 7.5 return of VUG, his smarter friends bought. And there is no reason to assume that his smarter friends will ever catch up, though they will pound the table.
Of course FGRIX is only 35% value per M* although Lipper labels it LCV. There are plenty of other funds on the list that might better fit someone's definition of value. That old passive curiosity LEXCX returned 10.5.

The Fund is currently invested in a total of 22 leading U.S. corporations. The Fund is a passively managed grantor trust registered with the SEC as a unit investment trust.
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/lexcx
a third of of the links in the popup are dead :(
but this of course is the most informative, also pretty funny
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/index.php?p=/search&Search=LEXCX

I saw that article. Worth noting is that the method of reinvesting divs was different from what funds do. He reinvesting divs into the stocks generating those divs (computing total returns for each holding), while a fund or index (I presume) reinvests divs regardless of their source by prorating across all holdings.
For buy and hold (and for beating the S&P 500 over the past three decades), see LEXCX.

CIted WSJ column: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mutual-funds-professor-is-blunt-with-the-criticism-1415048456
Indexing as in index funds or as in constructing a market (or segment) index?
Total market index funds typically sample and I suspect make corrective/tracking portfolio changes daily, beyond managing cash flows. If making non-periodic changes is a disqualifying attribute, then ISTM that index funds that sample are likely disqualified as passive funds. And that doesn't seem right.
I prefer to consider index funds those funds that purport to track a third party benchmark. (In this I am somewhat echoing the SEC's description.) This begs the question: is that benchmark a "true" index?
I agree with Prof. Snowball that the S&P "indexes" are not indexes, because they do not follow a formula; securities can be removed somewhat arbitrarily (see below) so long as a human committee perceives that the securities are no longer "representative".
A related reason why I don't consider the S&P "indexes" to be indexes follows from the SEC's description of an index as something that "measures the performance of a 'basket' of securities (like stocks or bonds), which is meant to represent a sector of a stock market, or of an economy." A key attribute is that the measurement is path-independent. That is, it doesn't matter how we got to this point, a market's performance is well defined.
In contrast, the S&P committee says that it will not necessarily remove a security from an index even if it would not have included it were it to construct the index from scratch. That's path-dependence. It matters how we got here. The index doesn't necessarily provide an accurate measurement of its market.

it is important to reiterate that just because a given stock might not represent its Index well does not mean that it will definitely be removed from that Index, just that the potential exists. We go back to the definition above and ask ourselves, “If we were starting this Index afresh today, would this company be a member?” If the answer is no, the stock would seriously be considered as a removal candidate.

https://www.evidenceinvestor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/General-Criteria-for-SP-U.S.-Index-Membership-Roger-Bos-Michele-Ruotolo-September-2000.pdf
About the time S&P wrote that paper, it was busy removing several old economy stocks from the S&P 500 for "lack of representation" and replacing them with new economy stocks. The resulting underperformance was overwhelming.
https://www.hussmanfunds.com/rsi/misfitstocks.htm
With respect to LEXCX - passive, yes; index, no (what is it benchmarking aside from itself?). Somewhat similar to HOLDRs - gone, unlamented, in 2011.

LEXCX is a bad example/ideal. It charges 0.51% (about $4 million/yr) to do absolutely nothing for an almost forever-static portfolio of 19 holdings. It's unbelievable that this has been going on since 1935 and the fund still has AUM of $794.2 million.
Indexing, as it has come to be known today, means a portfolio that is based on some prescription or formula and that portfolio is rebalanced/adjusted periodically (monthly, quarterly, semiannually or annually). Rebalancing itself can be all at once (e.g Russell indexes) or gradually, over time (e.g CRSP indexes). Adjustments to take care of daily inflows/outflows don't count. Passive is just a descriptor and probably not a good one.
Active on the other hand is something that makes frequent portfolio changes, even daily.
Factor-based (non-market-cap) funds use some customized indexes and some call them semi-passive or semi-active. That also leads to endless arguments between the likes of Vanguard vs WisdomTree and Research Affiliates (RAFI indexes). As we know, Vanguard finally jumped late into factor-investing after hiring some people from RA.
Costs are another matter. We have low and high cost active funds AND passive funds. iShares has both high AND low cost index ETFs and has justified them on their different liquidity characteristics. For marketing/PR, iShares called the latter newer ETFs core/retail versions but some of those are now larger than the older expensive and supposedly institutional ones (after a while, the institutions saw the light).
A modern debate is whether the recent hot trend of direct-indexing should be called indexing at all. After all, it allows user tinkering, tax-loss harvesting (TLH), etc, in addition to periodic rebalancing.

I just stumbled across the following article from 2014 which cited Professor Snowball.
Link
WSJ: Active or passive? Do today’s fund managers face an insurmountable challenge in beating quantitative systems?
MR. SNOWBALL: “Passive” doesn’t exist. The closest we come to it is Voya Corporate Leaders Trust (LEXCX). Otherwise, it’s a fantasy woven by marketers and advisers. Index funds represent portfolios of stocks selected by flawed, conflicted and occasionally dunderheaded human beings. The Dow and S&P 500 are both good examples of portfolio by committee.
I suspect a better dichotomy is this: disciplined, cost-effective portfolios versus undisciplined, cost-maximizing ones. Many but not all passive products fall in the former. Many but not all active products fall in the latter. Those observations underlie our conclusion that 80% of all funds, active and passive, could vanish without any loss to anyone other than their sponsors.
I agree with the Professor's conclusion that 80% of all funds could disappear
without any loss to investors but think the actual percentage may be even higher.

LEXCX would be good if it had a lower ER. Sorry, for an essentially unmanaged fund, the ER should be like .15 or less.

Here is a performance chart comparison (see link below) of FDYZX which include other funds that were around in 1968...such as LEXCX, VWINX, VWELX.
LEXCX would have been a better all stock fund choice. I find that a mutual fund needs a consistent higher upside capture (I'll call this alpha) in order to overcome its periodic downside. LEXCX achieved this "two steps forward...one step back" over the long term much more so that FDYZX has.
VWINX and VWELX even achieve a better performance ride most of time and with a lot less volatility compared to FDYZX.
Chart Comparison

The Bottom Line pieces are distinctly collaborative efforts. Mark Gill says they've been thinking about storyline "X" and asks if I could suggest, say, 10 funds that fit their parameters. Usually the parameters are perfectly sensible, so usually I suggest 10-20 funds - with snippets of commentary - that might be credible. Mark then works with their editors and reader panels to draft a story that meets their incredibly restrictive style guide. I get the draft from his editor with a "let us know if this works for you." I tweak, sometimes suggest caveats, but mostly respect their judgments because mostly they're respected mine.
That sometimes translates to a situation where the top five funds in my mind aren't the five best suited to the needs of their readers, though three of them might be and the other two were in the discussion.
On Homestead, I do like organizations (RE in this case) with a mission. There was a generational change in leadership six years ago with Prabha Carpenter's arrival. Two of the three long-tenured managers - in Mr. Morris's case, he'd been managing for RE since the mid 1970s - departed after a short transition, then the last of them - Mark Ashton - retired in 2018. So, not quite a coup so much as a pretty orderly, low-key generational transition. She's been solid at Value. Small Company, not so much but I haven't had occasion to figure out why.
On LEXCX, it is a very much old-economy fund. That means it's not a green fund. The point that I usually make about it centers on the notion that you're often better off doing nothing than doing something. The Corporate 100, with a 23% turnover and sort of twitchy rules about auto-selling, is a quasi-index which hasn't quite sparkled.
For what that's worth,
David

Although I have never owned LEXCX I have owned, in the past, a fund which is the modern day version of LEXCX. It is IACLX (Corporate Leaders 100). It holds and equally weights the top S&P 100 companies and has a value approach as it rebalances quarterly. And, over the past five years IACLX has out performed LEXCX.
In reducing the number of funds that I owned, several years back, I discarded IACLX. However, I did keep it in my son's (age 33) Roth account which I have oversight over. Although it has not been one of his top producers it is one of his steady Eddie equity funds and carries three stars from M*. It's ten year average total return is better than ten percent which, in gereral and on average, are what stocks are suppose to do.

It's an excellent article, but I could never bring myself to invest a single penny in LEXCX. It has one of the worst ESG ratings I have yet to see. It should be renamed Voya Corporate Polluters. A true dinosaur of a fund whose relevance in the modern world has become extinct.
Why invest in a fund which is killing us and causing the catastrophic loss of pristine environments and their habitats? We simply cannot continue destroying the Earth in pursuit of financial gain.
On a brighter note I really appreciated Dr. Snowball's inclusion in this month's newsletter of a website new to me called asyousow.org. I encourage everyone who cares to see how the environment and wider society are affected by the underlying companies in their mutual funds. Nice one, Dr. S.
https://www.asyousow.org/invest-your-values

Oh, LEXCX.
Never trades, no deviation from mandate, very long time horizon. From Voya's page:

• Created in 1935 with an equal number of common stock shares of leading U.S. companies at the time; currently invested in a total of 22 leading U.S. corporations
• New stocks can’t be purchased, so holdings have changed only due to spin-offs or mergers since Fund inception

Is the manager alive? Don't know, can't tell :-) But someone is still getting 0.59%/year.
The Fidelity study cited by Money Lion looked at "retirement savings accounts", where women were "more likely to more likely to have their savings allocated in a more age-based allocation of investments than their male counterparts." Not in equities as MJG wrote, but in funds comprised of bonds and cash as well as of stocks.
Of course they were more likely to be invested in a single target date fund. That's the current default for a "retirement savings account". If one pays no attention to "investing" as women are more wont to do, (see above), that's what one gets. This isn't investing prowess. It's another factor that Money Lion didn't control for.
From a TIAA study "based on a 2012 cross section of more than 600,000 TIAA participants": Participants "who had joined plans with target date defaults held a median of one fund, generally the default option." It seems that the majority of "retirement savings account" participants don't "elect to invest in equities", their employers do.

@MFO Members: And don't forget Voya, Lexingtion, Corporate Fund LEXCX
with an equal number of common stock shares of leading U.S. companies at the time; currently invested in a total of 22 leading U.S. corporations.
New stocks can’t be purchased, so holdings have changed only due to spin-offs or mergers since fund inception 11/18/35, and is ranked #11 in the LCV category by U.S. News & World Report.
Also, contrary to popular belief, the first index fund was not created by John Bogle. The Qualidex Fund was lanuched in 1972. It was based on the DJIA, and in 1979 was acquired by John Galbraith and renamed the American Industry Shares. In 1984 it became part of Templeton Funds, but because of John Templeton's aversion to the index concept the fund was liquidated. Bogle started his Vanguard Fund based on the S&P 500 Index on 8/31/76 !
Regards,
Ted

The LEXCX ER is lower than many LCV funds I believe ... but still, I think it should be lower given how it is structured. I am not looking to buy it, I'm just opining about it b/c it's a somewhat unique fund.

@rforno
Voya/ING perhaps being oriented or having a basis leaning towards a full retail priced "insurance company" mindset; causes me to place the company among others as; Ameriprise, Nationwide, etc. Our house does not have or need direct access to such companies for investments; as we're long time customers of Fidelity and the many offerings there.
The "e.r" for LEXCX is probably in line with other LCV funds and so, the company can get away with the e.r. charge. NOTE: I have not looked at e.r. for a similar category index fund or etf that is passive managed.
Voya

@rforno
Voya/ING perhaps being oriented or having a basis leaning towards a full retail priced "insurance company" mindset; causes me to place the company among others as; Ameriprise, Nationwide, etc. Our house does not have or need direct access to such companies for investments; as we're long time customers of Fidelity and the many offerings there.
The "e.r" for LEXCX is probably in line with other LCV funds and so, the company can get away with the e.r. charge. NOTE: I have not looked at e.r. for a similar category index fund or etf that is passive managed.
Voya

Not a bad list - I own PRBLX as the core in my Roth IRA and NSEIX has been a watchlist fave for a while, too.
For a trust that is essentially unmanaged, there is no reason why LEXCX should have such a high ER.

@David_Snowball, thanks for amusing me.
I believe you have described (complimented the fund) on one of its principal attributes (successful dullness)...quite a compliment.
One of LEXCX largest holdings is the "successfully dull" Berkshire Hathaway Inc B. Maybe a bit less dull with its large position in Wells Fargo.
I"ll share a recent comment that the great Charles Munger quipped about his investing success.
He stated,
"I was hoping for a little independence and just overshot."
Thanks for helping many of us here at MFO achieve a little independence.

Our latest profile of LEXCX is from 2012. The point that I've made before is that it's the coolest fund to write about once, the dullest to try to write about twice.
David

Interesting article on a fund that is rarely mentioned on the MFO Discussion board, but has been around since 1935, LEXCX:
dividendgrowthinvestor.com/2015/11/time-in-market-is-your-greatest-ally-in.html