Thanks @Ted,
Compliment me if I'm right, but wouldn't LEXCX be a concentrated (21 holdings, ER = .52) way of investing in a well managed fund that holds a pretty good slug of the Dow?
LEXCX has been around for 76 years and here is it's chart (@rono would like):

@Mark: FYI: LEXCX has had an annual return of 10.59% since inception, 11/18/35.
Regards,
Ted
http://money.cnn.com/quote/mutualfund/mutualfund.html?symb=LEXCX

I like the idea of LEXCX (and owned it at one time) but a M*-reported 0.53 ER for an unmanaged fund is outrageous.

I'm likely the only one who cares about this, but LEXCX is not a mutual fund. It is a unit investment trust (albeit organized under the 1940 Investment Company Act, like mutual funds). IMHO it is much closer to a HOLDR than to a mutual fund (in the sense of portfolio construction, not legal structure).
Here's a column discussing the different structures of investments (in the context of ETFs):
https://www.merrilledge.com/article/is-etf-really-a-fund-maybe-not
LEXCX is unmanaged. That is an attribute of a UIT, in contrast to a mutual fund (even an index fund). The Sponsor (currently Voya Investments) has the responsibility of complying with the rules of the trust (e.g. dealing with mergers and spinoffs). The Trust is set to terminate on Nov. 30, 2100, or when its last portfolio security goes poof!
There is no table of expenses, no SAI. (The trust agreement provides that the sponsor be paid 0.40% of AUM for doing no management, just caretaking. Not even holding the securities - a separate Trustee gets a separate fee for that.)
I'm not saying this vehicle hasn't done well. Just that it isn't a mutual fund, and like HOLDRs will gradually become more and more concentrated. (It started with 30 companies, and is down to 22).

While LEXCX is a very good fund, and it shows that excellent investing can be done with low expenses and very low turnover with plenty of patience, I think the picture is not quite as rosy as the blurb above hints at. While it has beaten its benchmark (which is more than most active fund managers can say) over the last 15 years, it has not done it every year. It slightly underperformed in 2012, 2013, 2014, and significantly underperformed in 2009 and 2015. The period can be summarized as "mostly outperform". But the 12 years prior (as far back as my data goes) is a "mostly underperform" period. LEXCX is better than most funds I track.

FYI: If you want to convince your clients that doing nothing is sometimes the best thing to do, point them to Voya Corporate Leaders Trust (LEXCX).
Now in its 81st year, the fund has beaten the Standard and Poor's 500 stock index the past 15 years, according to Morningstar, the Chicago investment analyst. Voya Corporate Leaders is up an average 7.75% a year, vs. 5.58% for the S&P 500 index. Voya proudly proclaims on its website that the fund has beaten the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average "for over 40 years."
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160610/FREE/160619995?template=printart
M* Snapshot LEXCX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/LEXCX/quote.html
Lippper Snapshot LEXCX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/LEXCX
LEXCX Is Ranked #60 In The (LCV) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-value/voya-corporate-leaders-trust-fund/lexcx
Oldest Mutual Funds:
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/oldestmutualfunds.asp
A Brief History Of The Mutual Fund:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mutualfund/05/mfhistory.asp

Chip posted our updated ratings on the Search Tools pages last night, thank you.
Quick look shows ...
All three CGM funds are on the Three Alarm list. As are both Fairholme's equity funds (FAIRX and FAAFX). Sequoia (SEQUX) is not yet ... it has two alarm bells.
bee's fav Bruce (BRUFX) is on the Honor Roll. As is Matthews Asia Dividend Inv (MAPIX), T Rowe Price's Capital Appreciation (PRWCX), and Vanguard's Balanced Index Inv (VBINX), Value Index Inv (VIVAX), Wellesley Income Inv (VWINX), and Vanguard/Wellington I (VWELX).
Remind me again why we should not just invest in VBINX and forget about it?
A little more here ... ignoring survivorship bias, there are 4,856 US funds and ETFs that have been around since the start of current full market cycle in November 2007. Across these 8 plus years, the absolute worst performer is iPath Exchange Traded Notes Bloomberg Natural Gas Subindex Total Return ETN Series A (GAZ) at -47.6% return annually ... down 99% or so from peak. Wretched! The best is Biotechnology UltraSector ProFund Inv (BIPIX) at +18.1% annually.
VBINX is at +5.6% annually, which is better than 80% of all other choices. Hmmm ... I'll offer shipwreckedandalone's post VBINX.
FWIW, Vanguard 500 Index Inv VFINX also returned +5.6% over this period. As has PIMCO Total Return III Inst (PTSAX), Voya Corporate Leaders Trust (LEXCX), and James Balanced: Golden Rainbow Retail (GLRBX).
The just over four year old Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income Inst (SIGIX) remains a Great Owl fund, besting its peers by 8.2% since inception. Also on the GO list are Gavekal KL Allocation Inst (GAVIX), Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Inst (GPGIX), RiverPark Short Term High Yield Inst (RPHIX), FMI International (FMIJX), Pear Tree Polaris Foreign Value Small Cap Inst (QUSIX), Oberweis International Opportunities (OBIOX), Lifestyle Conservative Inst (TCSIX), TrimTabs Float Shrink ETF (TTFS), Akre Focus Inst (AKRIX), Zeo Strategic Income I (ZEOIX), Scout Low Duration Bond (SCLDX), Queens Road Small Cap Value (QRSVX), PIMCO Short Asset Investment Inst (PAIDX). All these funds have been profiled by David and can be found on the MFO Dashboard.

Just wondering why anyone would buy LEXCX. With only 21 positions that never change it seems like you could create this fund on your own without incurring the expense ratio and you have more control over any tax consequences of redemptions. I guess if they buy and sell an equal number of shares rather than an equal percentage of each position you might find it more costly to maintain the allocations but because it's a passive portfolio you could also simply assume there are no inflows or outflows and you'd probably end up close.

I've often thought this would be a good way to start as well as end a stock portfolio.
As one ages and distributes their IRAs there is greater likelihood of having a taxable investment account. Owning stock in a taxable account has many advantages over mutual funds. Harvesting tax losses, as you mentioned, is one. Another has to do with estate planning. Passing stocks on to beneficiaries provides the recipient with an additional tax savings. A stock's cost basis resets for the beneficiary at the date of death. Inheriting those same stocks by holding them in LEXCX (or any other fund for that matter) would incur capital appreciation costs (taxes) to your beneficiary. Strange, but true.

Just wondering why anyone would buy LEXCX. With only 21 positions that never change it seems like you could create this fund on your own without incurring the expense ratio and you have more control over any tax consequences of redemptions. I guess if they buy and sell an equal number of shares rather than an equal percentage of each position you might find it more costly to maintain the allocations but because it's a passive portfolio you could also simply assume there are no inflows or outflows and you'd probably end up close.

I charted an investment in FCNTX on the day Will Danoff became the funds manager (09/17/1990) vs. LEXCX.

I wanted to indulged your chart a bit further. 1990 was about the time when I first invested in Vanguard Healthcare, VGHCX. Here are LEXCX, FCNTX, and VGHCX over the last 25 years:. All three seem to have great market cycle performance (30ish years).

So now I'm wondering if any of the board's participants, or their parents, own LEXCX.
Edited to add: Just for giggles I charted an investment in FCNTX on the day Will Danoff became the funds manager (09/17/1990) vs. LEXCX. They are different funds but just indulge me here. One of my first IRA investments was in the Contrafund on, or around the time Mr. Danoff took control. I knew precious little about investing or mutual funds other than the diversity aspect. I was intrigued by the 'contra' part and figured what the hell. If only I could have funded is with $10K as M* charts depict other than whatever piddling minimum amount I began with at that time.

On LEXCX: expenses are about 0.51%. Turnover is 0%. The portfolio was set in 1935 and hasn't changed since then except to account for corporate events such as mergers, acquisitions and spin-offs. When there are inflows, the fund (it doesn't even have a manager) buys an equal number of shares of every holding; when there are outflows, it sells an equal number of each.
If my folks had been able to chuck $100 at the fund on the day I was born, it would be worth $34,000 today. An investment in the average LCV fund would have grown to $25,000.
David

Let's create a slightly longer list:
This one has been around the block:
LEXCX - 21 holdings and (edit: 0% turnover...thank you DS)

This is fairly new:
JOHIX - 31 holdings and 60% turnover

Additional Article on the topic:
the-risks-and-rewards-of-concentrated-funds

" In 1945, the largest 25 mutual funds in the United States cost an average of 0.76 percent per year. ... The biggest active funds in 2004 cost 1.56 percent."
I don't know about 2004, but in 2015, the average ER of the 25 largest active funds (using the share class that M* picks with "distinct portfolio") is 0.66%, about 13% lower than it was in 1945.
"No active fund is as cheap as it appears [because of trading costs]." Misleading in a couple of ways, the main one being that index funds also have trading costs (for the most part, it's turnover, not index vs. active, that matters). The minor issue is that there is a fund that never changes its portfolio, and it's not an index fund. Most of the people here don't need to be reminded of it - LEXCX.
If one talks about bond funds, even index funds, they're going to have a lot of trades, because they're constantly replacing bonds that mature (or come too close to maturity to keep in the portfolio). Looking at the pure equity funds in the largest 25 active, one sees turnover ratios ranging from 11-12% (D&C Int'l DODFX and Harbor Int'l HAINX) all the way up to 45% (Fidelity Contra FCNTX); no other fund is above 0.39%. These are all way below the "average" fund's 72% turnover.
Then there is a trading cost particular to index funds - front running (related to reconstitution). No mention of it in this article. And what about index funds that are not market (or at least free float) weighted? They have higher turnover by design. See, e.g.
http://www.investingdaily.com/11263/equal-weighted-index-etfs-pros-and-cons/
None of this is to suggest that index fund "hidden" costs are higher than active fund costs. Just that it would be nice to read articles that didn't start from a conclusion and apply data selectively to reach that conclusion.
For completeness, the bond/hybrid funds in the largest 25 funds are:
ABALX, CAIBX, AMECX, MBLOX, SGENX, FKINX, MWTRX, PTTRX, TPINX, VFSTX, VWELX
The equity funds in the largest 25 funds are:
AMCPX, CWGIX, AEPGX, ANCFX, AGTHX, AIVSX, ANWPX, AWSHX (all American Funds!), and DODFX, DODGX, FCNTX, HAINX, VGHCX, VWNFX

I love these "X fund(s) to hold forever" scenarios. LOL
Looking backwards, I'd throw in LEXCX (passive, 0% turnover) or one of the classes of AF WaMu Investors (active, low turnover).
Looking ahead, I'd include those plus MAPOX and potentially some others.
(I own all 3 listed, either in taxable or 403b accounts)

@davidrmoran.
If you are lucky enough to own SEQUX, congrats.
That one is a lifer, regardless of its shorter term score in any backward looking rating system.
I think the Ulcer Index is reflecting current volatility in markets, bonds as well as equities.
But it's not all bad. Some long-term stalwarts seem to be able to handle the current environment quite well.
Here's list for conservative-moderate investors:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/fund-ratings/?symbol=FASIX+VWINX+GABCX+MERFX+GLRBX+JABLX+VWELX+VBINX+TGLMX+JAFLX+DODIX&submit=Submit
Here's list for moderate-aggressive investors:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/fund-ratings/?symbol=FPACX+VGSTX+MBAIX+PRWCX+FPURX+AADBX+FBALX+NOIEX+TRSGX+MDISX+VGHCX+TWEIX&submit=Submit
Finally, for aggressive investors:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/fund-ratings/?symbol=FEAFX+TWEBX+LEXCX+ELFNX+SMGIX+TBGVX+VPMCX+DPDEX+OAKMX&submit=Submit
c

LEXCX has had to endure a number of adoptions/step parents/foster homes, but its a survivor since 1935

David:
Thanks for comment and suggestions.
Portfolio Visualizer ("PV"): http://tinyurl.com/dg-vd-sp-wm-lex
I would not have thought of either MOAT or LEXCX in this context.
In the "don't try this at home" department, putting on my "factor investor" beanie...
Looking (FWIW) at the funds mentioned, plus what I had thought was my "go to" option for quality (VDIGX), and running them through the Portfolio Visualizer factor-analysis tool since SPHQ converted to current index (and using the WMW ETN in lieu of the MOAT ETF, since the ETN has longer history than ETF)....
After expanding PV link above to see the stats re: significance....
DGAGX has negative significant size load, along 3rd highest high quality factor.
VDIGX appears to be the strongest quality 'play'.
SPHQ closely follows VDIGX in its quality load.
MOAT (nee WMW) appears to be 'only' market play, with a pretty poor fitting regression and lots of alpha - must be a slug of 'moatness'.
LEXCX is 'mainly' a market & value play (as opposed to quality, FWIW), having beaten pants off of the others except WMW recently, with high alpha.
Now craning my neck to look (again) out back, I see:
SYMBOL.....DGAGX......VDIGX.......SPHQ.......WMW.......LEXCX
3Y TR *......14.51%......18.31%......19.73%....23.18%....20.49%
RANK.........5.................4................3..............1..............2
* Annualized, Source FT.com
Note: FT Fund comparison: http://funds.ft.com/us/Fund-Comparison
Full disclosure, I have dogs in this hunt, having bought some SPHQ earlier this year, liking the ETF efficiency, expense, diversity and 'story' of SPHQ, versus relatively concentrated WMW or other choices - but have owned VDIGX since forever.
PS: Falling for the fracking fairy tale, also figure that the high industrial weight of SPHQ should do just fine, as our energy gulping economy learns to sneer "Saudi Aray-be who"?
Finally, I wonder if turnover, when fishing in the large cap space, is somewhat over-rated as an attribute. Think (really guessing) that the ETF tax efficiency outweighs the market impact penalty, when comparing a fund to an ETF.

Hey, big guy.
I don't profess to any particular insight on SPHQ nor any great passion for SRFMX. My argument for SRFMX comes down to this: "many folks found DGAGX's ultra-low turnover approach to ultra-large cap stocks attractive. It does, over time, work and SRFMX is a cheaper way to play."
In general, turnover is the enemy of a large cap portfolio. One of my favorite funds remains the Corporate Leaders Trust (LEXCX) with an annual turnover of zero. Also a decennial turnover of zero and coming up on a centennial turnover of zero.
As I overlap the charts for the three funds, LEXCX has been skipping right along. DGAGX and SPHQ end up in the same place, roughly, but SPHQ bounces a bit more. While it has a shorter lifespan, if I were an ETF investor I might look at the Morningstar Market Vectors Wide Moat ETF (MOAT). 1% turnover, modestly better returns than SPHQ though about 20 bps more expensive.
For what that's worth,
David

If LEXCX is available tax deferred, buy it without thinking twice. Especially if she's getting the 9% match.