Conference nyoss1::market_investing

    
    My impression will be like this:
    
    For growth fund, it's look up the company growth potential and earning
    growth which will also raise up the share price. Therefore, net worth
    increase faster.
    
    For income fund, it's mainly blue chip company paying dividend and bond
    portfolio paying interest, it's steady income especially for those
    retiree who depend on fixed monthly inflow payment.
    
    Therefore, for long term IRA, I would vote for growth fund. However,
    diversification AND proper % portfolio of your investment is still
    key in your financial planningfor your retirement.
    
    Michael..
    
    

    Thanks Michael.  Yes - I only meant "size of fund" after some period of
    time. I understand the basic differences - risk, etc. And yes, I agree
    wholeheartedly that diversification and segmentation of the entire
    portfolio is essential.  Which reminds me - after seeing about a dozen
    or so different sources, I am amazed at how similar the portfolio
    percentages are between advisors. It might be the most agreement they
    ever have with each other 8')
    
    Cheers...Gary

    "Growth" funds will tend to vary more in value than "growth and
    income" funds--they are more risky.  Historically they have a
    slightly higher return in compensation _over_long_periods_.
    
    If your money is in tax-advantaged environment (such as an IRA),
    and you do re-investement of the dividends,  it's actually quite 
    possible that the "growth and income" funds would give a higher
    return due to the tax advantage (i.e. you are in a slightly 
    different environment than the market in general and so there's
    an opportunity to be a quasi-arbitrageur).
    
    "Increase one's total worth" is perhaps the wrong question.  You
    are more likely interested in increasing the lowest probable total
    worth, even if this requires decreasing the highest probable total
    worth: the growth and income funds tend to be lower risk and lower
    return,  so they raise the lowest possible return at the cost of
    dropping the the high end and the most likely return:
    
    (a graph would be nice here)
    
    Take $1 now, and put it away in a growth fund for 20 years: you
    you can expect to wind up with somewhere between $0 and $1,000,000.
    You think you will quite likely wind up with between $2.50 and $40.
    
    Take $1 now, and put it away in a growth and income fund for the
    same time: you expect to wind up with somewhere between $0.50
    and $1,000.  You think you will quite likely wind up with between
    $1.50 and $10.
    
    Note:
    
    o	There's a lot of overlap;
    
    o	The growth fund has the largest range;
    
    o	The G&I fund has the highest "low" value;
    	
    o	The growth fund has the highest "high" value.
    
    The above is my understanding of the common wisdom, and not a
    prediction of future returns, etc.
    
    		-John Bishop

A growth and income fund oftens pays dividends more times per year than a growth
fund which usually pays no more than 1 or 2 times per year. Assuming you 
reinvest your dividends, be it in a tax advantaged account or not, you may
"capture" more shares with a G&I fund as follows.

1 Jan NAV  for both funds is 10
NAV 1 year later is the same, say, 15 for both funds.

Depending upon the dividend patterns and NAV fluctuations within the year, you 
could very well end up with more in the G&I as the result of "capturing" 
more shares from dividends during the year, tus the G&I would be worth more at 
year's end.

    All of this has been helpful.  Does anyone have a suggestion for a book
    that deals with this, and other, MF issues (in particular)?
    
    Thanks...Gary

Another way to look at it is the following.  Your IRA is part of your overall 
portfolio.  If some portion of your portfolio is in growth mutual funds and 
another portion is in growth and income funds, you might be better off using the
the G&I fund in your IRA.  It won't matter if the growth and income from this
fund are dividends, realized cap gains, unrealized cap gains, interest...  All 
of it is sheltered from taxes under the IRA.  If a G&I fund is not in an IRA, 
you will pay taxes each year on the 1099 returns.

A growth fund on the other hand, may achieve its growth from an increase in 
share price and unrealized cap gains, and throw off little or no interest, 
divs, or realized cap gains.  Your 1099 could be relatively low, even if the
fund grew substantially.  You will pay taxes on anything reported on a 1099 if
the fund is outside an IRA.

So if a G&I and G fund show identical returns over a long period, you will
do better with the G&I in your IRA and the G in the taxable portion of your
portfolio.

- Chris

    Re .5
    Get a hold of the Mornigstar Reports ( try the library ). It has
    excellent coverage on the majority of funds.

re: 167.5


Sometime in te last year or two, Fidelity's publishing division put out a book 
by an independent author (I forget who). I glanced at it and it looked like it 
covered most issues and was not simply a Fidelity marketing tool.

I believe the title was something like Fidelity's Guide to Mutual Funds.

I sugggest that you check your local book store (or Books in Print) or call 
Fideelity and ask for the separate phone number for their publishing company.
By now it might even be available in paperback.

    The Fidelity Guide to Mutual Funds
    A Complete Guide to Investing in Mutual Funds
    
    Mary Rowland
    
    Fidelity Publishing/Fireside
    Simon & Schuster
    
    New York, ...
    
    1990 (first Fireside edition 1991)
    
    $14.95
    
    ISBN 0-671-66104-3
    ISBN 0-671-73331-1 (pbk)