(MONEY Magazine) – Q. In late 1992, we paid $1,200 to establish a revocable living trust after going to a seminar on probate. To fund the trust, we had to transfer ownership of our assets from us to it. That's when our troubles began. Our attorney provided us with forms to send to mutual funds and companies in which we owned stocks. Fidelity, Twentieth Century, Exxon and others complied. The rest sent us forms to fill out with signature guarantees and then still didn't make the transfer after we complied. A few wanted to see the trust agreement, which we considered an invasion of our privacy. Some firms changed ownership of shares but not on the dividend-reinvestment account. Was it worthwhile? George and Catherine Weir Amboy, Ill. A. Welcome to the ugly underbelly of revocable living trusts. Sure, at the seminar you learned how to ease for your heirs the hassle and expense of probate by putting your estate in a trust. What you never heard about was the hassle and expense to you of managing the thing. In my opinion, the current rage for living trusts is misguided. The main reasons: 1) The trust gives you no, repeat, no tax savings. 2) The trust may save your heirs lawyer's fees (about $100 an hour in Illinois), but if you have a good relationship with your kids, you can add their names to your accounts now and the assets would then pass directly to them upon your tragic demise -- all without the need for a trust. 3) While the trust can save time -- probate could take as long as a year -- what's the rush? Your heirs will get the proceeds of your annuities, Individual Retirement Accounts and life insurance pretty quickly because they need not pass through probate. Finally, you have to put up with the irrevocable living hell of paperwork, which doesn't end once the trust is established. If a certificate of deposit in the trust matures, for example, you have to put it in a bank account that is owned by the trust before you can collect it. What a pain in the patootie! By the way, we talked to some of the recalcitrant companies. In some cases, the transfers have finally been made. Those with dividend-reinvestment programs sometimes require you to take two steps: First you change share ownership through the transfer agent, then you change dividend registration directly with the company. Only the Edison Credit Union wants to see your trust agreement, and it will settle for the first page, the page with the name of the successor, and the signature page.

Q. I currently invest about $200 a month in two no-load funds, Janus 20 and Berger 100. Berger has a hefty expense ratio of 1.64%; Janus 20 has an expense ratio of 1.11%. I have figured that if I stayed in both funds for 10 years, these expenses would equal a 7.5% load -- about three percentage points higher than the average maximum sales charge on a load fund. If that's so, why bother with no-load funds? Jeffery Bolden Madison, Ala. A. You're right in suspecting that a lot of no-load funds have been slipping sneaky loads past investors. You could even say that the difference between load and no-load funds has been smudged, if not snuffed. That's why you should always check on expenses, listed for one-, three- and five-year intervals in the front of every mutual fund prospectus. But you shouldn't stop there, because you might wind up nickel-and-diming a fund that turns in a boffo performance year after year. Your Janus 20 is a true-blue no-load. Its total expense ratio of 1.11% is below the growth fund average of 1.3%. But even more to the point, in the past five years it gained 25.08% annually -- about 10 percentage points more than the average growth fund. Who could complain about that? So your Berger 100's expense ratio is 26% higher than average. So what? It returned 28.11% last year, about 13 points more than the average growth fund. You can afford the freight.

Q. Recently I applied for a Visa card with a $10,000 credit-line limit from Citibank. Even though I am a corporate attorney earning a six-figure income and always pay my bills on time, the bank granted only a $5,000 limit -- and then after a long delay. I was told by Citibank representatives (who were uniformly rude and patronizing) that I could apply for an increase later. Meanwhile, my husband, whose income is about $40,000, applied for a Citibank Visa and immediately received a card with a $10,000 limit. I called Citibank to complain and cancel my card, and the representative said: This happens all the time to women. The credit committee assumes women don't know how to handle credit cards so it rarely issues them high credit lines. I have since learned that TRW and Equifax had given the bank some erroneous information about me that I have since corrected. Has Citibank treated other women this way? And what can I do about it? Marie J. Lucca Stamford, Conn. A. Maria Rullo, the Citibank spokesman, after two weeks and a number of nagging phone calls from us, finally said that the bank had rejected your higher credit line because of derogatory credit information. I don't know if this is the same bad info that you recently corrected, but, of course, Citibank is happy to reconsider your application to go deeper in debt (at 19.8% a year). You will need to submit valid proof of income like a W-2 or pay stub. This is more than applicants are usually asked for, and Ms. Rullo won't say why it's required in your case, but she emphatically denies that Citibank practices sexual discrimination. If you have any complaints about crummy service, she adds, you should address them to Ronald Williamson, president of Citibank S.D., 701 E. 60th St., Box 6000, Sioux Falls, S.D. 57117 -- though I suspect that Ronald will be reading about you here first. As for your suspicions, I don't know what percentage of men and women who apply receive Citibank credit cards with $10,000 limits. Citibank, alas, wouldn't tell me. But here are two outfits that do have the power to investigate, and you should register complaints with both: Consumer Credit Division, Connecticut Department of Banking, 44 Capitol Ave., Hartford, Conn. 06106, and Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. You can file a complaint with the Bridgeport office by calling 203-579-6246.

Q. Our family has investments in two mutual funds run by multibillion-dollar fund groups that limit participation to Lutherans: the Lutheran Brotherhood Securities Corp. in Minneapolis and the AAL (Aid Association for Lutherans) Capital Management Corp. in Appleton, Wis. What do you think of these funds? How can investors get information and ratings on them? Thomas Stratton Albany, Ore. A. There are dozens of such special-interest funds, and most are pretty liberal in allowing outsiders to join. In the case of the two Lutheran groups, you can invest if you are a Lutheran or related to a Lutheran; Lutheran Brotherhood also allows you to open a joint account with a Lutheran or have a Lutheran sponsor your membership. Did I leave anybody out? You can get information on special-interest funds where you get it on ordinary ones -- from the fund company itself or a big daily newspaper. (MONEY does not list these funds because they are neither open to the general public nor available in all states.) We asked Lipper Analytical Services to give the 12 Lutheran funds a look-see and, frankly, most aren't anything to get excited about -- not that Lutherans ever get very excited, I've noticed. The possible exception: the Lutheran Brotherhood High Yield Fund, which respectably outpaced funds in its category with a total return of 19.24% (vs. 16.7%) for the year that ended July 31.

Q. A recent news broadcast reported that a business card with John F. Kennedy's signature was worth $100,000. I have a thank-you note to my dad (for a gift of kosher hot dogs) signed by Mrs. John F. Kennedy in 1960. (Dad was co-owner of a hot dog factory.) Please tell me how to determine the value of this note and where it could be sold. Robert E. Runstein Framingham, Mass. A. Alas, a case of kosher hot dogs has more value than this thank-you note. Charles Hamilton, a New York City autograph dealer, handwriting expert and author of Collecting Autographs and Manuscripts (Modoc Press, $40 plus $2 shipping and handling; available by calling 310-395-3013), examined a copy of your letter and declared that it had not been written or signed by Jackie herself. At the time, she received thousands of letters each week; her secretaries sent back form letters that they signed on her behalf. The handwriting bears no similarity to hers at all, says Hamilton. So your letter has value only as a memento of Dad's generosity. Even if the First Lady had signed it herself, the letter wouldn't have been the find of the century. Hamilton says he would have paid around $140 for it and resold it for about $225.