Conference nyoss1::market_investing

	...and you'll find a table listing the funds expenses.
Typically these are collectively called the "Expense Ratio".
This is the portion of the funds net assets which are withdrawn 
by the fund manager over the course of the year to pay for
brokers fees, advertising and salaries.  The prospectus
goes into much more detail regarding how much goes to each
of these areas.
	Depending on the fund, expense ratios run from about
.10% (extremely low) to over 2.5% (extremely high).  Normally, 
the higher the portfolio turnover (aggressive funds) the higher 
the expense ratio.

Tom

    A no-load does not imply no-expense.
    
    Check the table on Page 2 of most prospectus and you'll find a row
    titled 'Expenses'.
    
    For example, 20th Century is a no-load; but it charges Expense of 1%
    per annum.
    
    And then you can have a 12b-1 charge too. So read the prospectus rather
    carefully; sometimes the fund manager will be absorbing some charges
    and you might be nastily surprised to find that the absorbtion expires
    in x months!
    
    regards
    -parthi

    2 more questions:
    
    - If a load fund has a higher yield than a no-load fund, doesn't it all
    come out in the wash?
    
    - Fidelity told me that I pay once the load and than I can move the
    money around among other load funds without paying again. If I invest
    for long term isn't the one time load insignificant?
    

RE:.3

The answer to the first question is yes if it were true BUT.  It is
a big but because there has never been any real evidence that this
statement is true.  If you look at perforance tables, you will see
a mixture of load and no-loads at the top, middle, and bottom of
the charts.  The real answer is to match YOUR objectives to the
funds objectives.  In the short run, the no-load will beat the load
because there is more of your money working.  In the long run, ???

As to your second question, if you plan on staying with Fidelity,
then the statement is true.  If you plan on moving the money out
to another fund family, the statement is false.  Why would you move?
Because something changes.  A lot of people moved their money out of
Magellon when Peter Lynch left.  What would you do if they said that
they were going to impose 12-b fees to all of their funds??

FWIW,
Lee G.

A good thing to look into for funds [long-term] is diminishing back-load
funds.  They tend to fall to 0% load around 5 years...

	Rikki

    
>>    - Fidelity told me that I pay once the load and than I can move the
>>    money around among other load funds without paying again. 
    
    But if you move your money into a no-load fund you lose your load
    money, they will not refund you.    Also, if you move your money from 
    a 2% load fund to 3% load fund, you have to makeup the additional 1% load.
    
>>    If I invest
>>    for long term isn't the one time load insignificant?
  
    This is true if you don't put in new money.  Everytime you put in
    new money you have to pay the load.
    
    This is why unless a load fund has a much higher yield (I think
    at least 1%) than a no-load fund, you are better off with a 
    no-load fund.  

>>>    - Fidelity told me that I pay once the load and than I can move the
>>>    money around among other load funds without paying again. 

>>    But if you move your money into a no-load fund you lose your load
>>    money, they will not refund you. 

This is not true if you move the money to another Fido fund. Fido tracks your
money by load buckets. Lets say you invest 10K in Fido Blue Chip and pay 3% load
and 1K in a no-load money markert fund and after a period of time the blue chip 
fund grows to 12K and the money market grows to 1.1K. That 12K is considered to be 
in the 3% load bucket and the 1.1K in the 0% load bucket. 

You then transfer all 12K to the Fido no-load money market account that already 
had 1.1K in it bringing the total in the money market to 13.1K. Fido will track 
12K of the money market as 3% money and the rest + future interest/div earned 
as 0% money. 

Now at some point in the future you decide to transfer the 12K in the 3% money 
bucket back into a 3% load fund - you do not pay any load. However if you decide 
to transfer the entire amount in no-load money market fund to a 3% loaded fund 
the first 12K will transfer without a load and the rest will be charged a 
3% load because the rest is allocated to the 0% load bucket.

re: 171.7 

>Fido tracks your money by load buckets.

To be more precise, Fido tracks it by the number of shares, not the dollar 
amount. So if the value of the shares grows, you are covered, but if  the value 
falls then you are not covered for the initial principal amount.

This can matter as follows:

Day 1 buy $10000 worth of shores >>> 100 shares

Then you receive dividends that you reinvest and end up with say 150 shares.


Day n, say that he 150 shares were worth only $10000, for whatever reason, then 
if you transferred all of the money to another load fund, you'd only be covered 
on 2/3rds of the shares.

    re: .-2 and .-1
    
    If you invest 8K in a 3% load fund at FIDO and it grows to 12k value,
    and you move it to another fund, it sounds to me like they only
    consider the original invested amount to be "3%" covered for
    reinvestment at no load (up to 3%); that is $8K. The next 4k never had
    a "load" charged to it. This sounds like an equivalent way to explain
    what .-1  described. Do you agree ? Did FIDO explain the rule mentioned
    in .-1 or is that your interpretation of a possible rule which matches
    the reality ?
    
    Another independent observation about FIDO funds. They do have some
    "older" funds which have been NO_LOAD probably forever, and may remain
    that way. But I notice that for their newer funds (<5 yrs old) they
    tend to start out with NO LOAD. THen they announce that 6 months or a
    year out they are going to impose their 2 or 3% low load for new money.
    
    This means that if you think you can continue to invest via averaging,
    at no-load, you may be in for a surprise. It may be that the funds
    I'm thinking of always had a load, but the load was being waved to
    encourage growth of asset base of the fund 
     (usually waved for "new" IRA money).
    They had been waving the fee for Stock Selector Fund (through
    12/31/91), and are currently doing that for Emerging Growth (through
    6/30/92). [Please check with them as I may have interchanged the cutoff 
    dates on those two funds.]
    

re: 171.9
    
>    Another independent observation about FIDO funds. They do have some
>    "older" funds which have been NO_LOAD probably forever, and may remain
>    that way. But I notice that for their newer funds (<5 yrs old) they
>    tend to start out with NO LOAD. THen they announce that 6 months or a
>    year out they are going to impose their 2 or 3% low load for new money.

For all the newer funds that I have seen from Fido the last few years, the 
intent to charge a fee has always been indicated in the prospectus. Most of the 
time I have noticed that the free ride is extended for a longer period.

However, just because a fund's prospectus states that it is no load today does 
not mean that iy cannot change. Fido did this with Contrafund, then dropped the 
load for a awhile, now it's back. I was lucky enough to get in during the no 
load window.

I have yet to see a prospectus that requires shareholder approval for changes in
loads or 12b-1 fees or ...