Conference nyoss1::market_investing

    It's because of their investment style. All of their funds 
    are quite aggressive - they buy stocks with "earnings momentum", 
    they never sell unless the earnings growth slackens. They
    don't take their profits and run. Their smaller funds have
    a large number of small company stocks which don't usually
    pay dividends, so these funds have little or no dividend 
    to distribute.  
    
    When the market tanks, their funds usually sink like rocks
    as they are practically always 100% invested. Fear in the
    market may lead to massive redemptions by some of the
    share-holders, and result in forced liquidation of some 
    of the funds' stock holdings to meet redemptions. As 1991
    was an exceptional year for growth stocks, this was not
    a problem - more money walked in than left. I would imagine 
    they'd be more likely to have capital gain distributions 
    in a bad year. 
    
    I'm not sure what the deal is with Select. Perhaps Select
    buys mostly the larger dividend-paying stocks among 
    those with momentum, which I would imagine represented 
    a steadily shrinking universe in 1991 - so they had to sell. 
    
    - Ganesh. 
    
    P.S. The "person" you spoke to sounds wrong. If a fund sells
    any of its holdings, it doesn't matter if the proceeds are
    reinvested or held as cash - they'd have to compute and 
    distribute the gains to the shareholders.

    To answer the last question in the base note, yes, it is like an IRA
    without the restrictions -- all the gains accumulate without annual
    slices by the tax man.
    
    On the other hand, as .1 points out, 20th Century has a policy of being
    in the market 100% of the time.  Let me tell you, when the market tanks, 
    hold on to your seatbelt -- it's damn scary.
    
    Another fund with great five-year performance numbers but
    heart-stopping intermediate stumbles is Kauffman Fund. 

   The funds have slightly different investment objectives. The Select fund is
limited to investing in stocks that pay dividends (they don't have to pay much).
The other funds don't have that limitation, they can invest in any stock and
typically pick growth stocks that tend to not pay dividends.  I would expect
the Select fund to have a much higher dividend distribution than the other
funds.  Capital gains distribution is based on the profit made from sale of 
stocks.  If the Select fund had a higher percentage of gains than the other
funds I would expect this distribution to be a larger percentage than the other
funds.  The gains distribution may be larger for other funds next year (depends
on what stocks they sell).


Brian

Rep .2

     >Another fund with great five-year performance numbers but
     >heart-stopping intermediate stumbles is Kauffman Fund.
 
     The Kauffman Fund has got some mombo jumbo about being call down
     by the SEC. in connection with other brokerage firms dealing
     in the OTC exchange. (see prospectus)	Does anyone know
     what this about???  Their prospectus points the finger at other
     brokerage firms. If so why is in the Kauffman Fund prospectus???

    Quick question on 20th Century Gowth Fund:
    
       What menthod does 20th Century use to make there paycheck. I know
       that it is a no load. Do they use a 12(b)-1  a  maintenance fee or
       both?
    
       Do they have a minimum buy in?
    
    Thanks
    
    Stevef
    

	Re. .5

	Note that these answers apply to all 20th Century funds, not just 
	Growth.

	> What menthod does 20th Century use to make there paycheck

	I don't understand this question. Could you elaborate?

	> Do they use a 12(b)-1  a  maintenance fee or both?

	I don't think they have any 12(b)-1 fees. They don't have any direct
	maintenance fee (except for IRAs), but do see below. They do have 
	an administrative cost that is directly applied to the earnings of
	the fund. This cost has generally been in the <= 1% range. 

	> Do they have a minimum buy in?

	It may be $50 or $100, but they do charge a maintenance fee of $10 per
	fund, if the balance in that fund on 31st December is less than $1000. 

    
	>> What menthod does 20th Century use to make there paycheck

	>I don't understand this question. Could you elaborate?
    
	You answered the question.  What I was saying above was:
    
    	What method(s) does 20th Century use to extract there fee for
    	manageing the Funds.
    
    	You replied a 1% take on the earnings.  
    
    	I understand that correctly this means that if the fund isn
        returning 15 % then I will  see 14.99% of this or will it be 14%
    
    	Steve 

    re: .7
    
    15% - 1% = 14%

	Re: .7 

	>     	I understand that correctly this means that if the fund isn
        > returning 15 % then I will  see 14.99% of this or will it be 14%

	Neither, see below.
    
	and .8

	>    15% - 1% = 14%

	No, .8 is incorrect. The 1% charge is against the earnings not the
	assets, i.e., if the fund earned 15 million dollars on assets of 100
	million, the expense would be 0.15 million  and not 1.5 million. 
	Thus, 14.85% is the correct answer. 

    re .9  Thanks.
    
    Now for another question:
    
    I received my prospectus from 20th Century and I like what they have to
    offer.  
    
    I have also had a hard sell by Priamerican for the Common Sense Fund
    which has a 8.5% Load (very high)
    
    What is the formula for calculating what you will have say after 20
    years assuming a 15% growth per year and adding $200 per month to the 
    fund.  I would like to determine the difference between giving up 8.5%
    up front for Common Sense and  paying 1% on the earning (20th Century)
    but still earning on  100% of the money payed into the fund each month.
    
    I do believe I will be buying into the 20th Century Vista fund though.
    
    Thanks                                                                
    
    Steve

    re: .9
    
    Are you SURE??? 
    
    I have always understood that the % management fee is charged against
    your TOTAL ASSET VALUE, NOT the gains. Just to make sure I was think
    straight, I called 20th Century. The rep. I spoke to have confirmed my
    original understanding - it IS 1% of your TOTAL account ASSET value.
    
    Imagine, if the 1% is only on "gains" and the fund does not make any 
    gains in a year (such as this year). How is the fund going to pay for
    its expenses and how the fund managers get paid?
    
    Mike
                                               

Yes, my understanding is that the management fees of 1% is off the total
assets in the fund; will check tomight though.

I'd be surprised and mighty pleased if the company tied their fees to their
performance. But then, I'd be mighty suspect of the sanity of any company
that tied its fees to the gains, particularly for such highly volatile funds
as 20th Ultra & Giftrust!

-parthi

    I noticed last night in my 20th Century semi-annual report, with
    ballot, that Growth has purchased DEC stock under its computer group.
    Growth is also doing very poorly....
    
    As for the ballot, I disapproved the desire to change voting from 
    share based to dollar based voting. It won't count for much, but it'll
    count less if the voting right is changed.
    
    And since I was in a rebellious mood, I also withheld nomination for 
    James Stowers III, 34 yro son and now President of the Investment firm
    as announced by Dad in the ballot info. Dad is off fishing I suppose.
    
    Bob

    
    Is anyone else out there still hanging in with 20th Century's 
    GROWTH fund? It's been a dog (DEC stock may be part of that).
    
    ULTRA has done well but I'm not sure about keeping GROWTH much longer.
    
    Anyone have an advice one way or the other?
    
    Bob

    In addition to ULTRA, their International Equity fund has been doing 
    fairly well, too.
    
    fyi,
    
    /jimm

    
    I moved from Vista to Ultra a couple of weeks ago, since Vista was also
    underperforming.  I immediately saw Ultra take a bit of a nosedive, but
    it's on its way back up now.
    
    I figure that the fund is just accustomed to some rather wild swings.
    
    Bob
    

20th Century Vista and Ultra are both fairly volatile funds. Vista has been hampered
in the last year because they invest substantially in health care. That should settle
down once people get comfortable with the idea of change in health care management.
Regardless, 20th Century funds generally have enjoyed a reputation for being well-managed
and affordable to small investors and that's really what you're betting on.