Q. I recently left my job of 16 years to become a full-time mom. I take with me a profit-sharing account of $92,370 and a 401(k) with $23,741. I'm 39 and would like to know if converting all of this to a Roth IRA at this time would result in a larger retirement fund at age 60 than a traditional IRA, assuming an 8 percent return. Also, what amount for such accounts can I use for a first-time home purchase without penalty?

N.G., San Diego

A. You are allowed to withdraw without penalty up to $10,000 from either a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA for a first-time home purchase. You would, however, be liable for the tax on the withdrawal. Whether you would be better off moving to a Roth IRA begs a lot of other questions.

First, to make that move you would have to pay taxes on the money that's going into the Roth at your current rates, which may be fairly low since you won't be working, but which also might not be low if you have a spouse with whom you file jointly.

During 1998, people converting traditional IRS to Roth IRAs can spread the tax liability over four years, but even that would add a little more than $29,000 to your income for each of those four years.

Moreover, if you withdraw money from the IRAs to pay the taxes on the transfer to a Roth, that is considered a premature withdrawal, and is accordingly subject to a 10 percent tax penalty. If you are in the 28 percent tax bracket, a transfer would mean an increase in your tax bill of $8,127 a year for each of the next four years.

Second, consider the basic rule of thumb for transfers to Roth IRAs: They are advantageous only if you expect to be in a higher tax bracket when the funds are to be withdrawn than when the contributions are made.

It boils down to this: If you will have enough cash on hand over the next four years to pay the taxes generated by a transfer, and if you anticipate you will be in a higher tax bracket in retirement, it would probably be a good idea.

It also would be a good idea if you are in an extremely low tax bracket, or in a no-tax bracket, to transfer as much every year as you can afford to do. (In a perfect example, if you have no income at all, you could transfer an amount equal to the value of your exemptions and deductions and owe no tax at all.)

If you were to put $116,111 in a traditional IRA now and make no further contributions, average annual returns of 8 percent would take the account to $584,483 in 21 years.

If you were to transfer all the funds to a Roth, withdrawing $9,000 for each of the next four years to meet the tax bill, plus the 10 percent penalty, the account would grow to only $412,381 over the same period -- but it would all be tax-free money, and you would not face the mandatory withdrawal schedule that goes with traditional IRAs.

Q. Over the past two years I have cashed in Series EE savings bonds that were given to my children, now 7 and 4, and opened UGMA accounts for them invested in Vanguard Index 500 fund. Each account has about $6,000, and we have been adding birthday and Christmas gifts from their grandparents and others to it every year. I have been reading that any money in the children's names will be counted against them when they apply for financial aid to meet college expenses. I have wondered about continuing to add to these accounts, putting the money instead in my husband's or my name, or opening educational IRAs for them. What is your suggestion?

R.V., Coronado, Calif.

A. You are right that the current financial aid rules would put a student in a better position if the savings for their education is held in the names of parents, grandparents, or anybody but the student.

But there is also a fine legal point here -- probably more likely to be a moral point than a legal one. Suppose one of your children's grandparents sends a birthday check of $100, made out to you but intended for the child. Unless you have an understanding to the contrary with the donor, I'd say this money belongs to the child, and therefore should be in either an educational IRA or in an UGMA account, either one in his or her name.

Only if the grandparent agreed that it was a gift to you on the occasion of your child's birthday, and that you would agree to hold it in a segregated account for the child's education, would that path be proper. Of course, there is nothing either legal or moral barring you from contributing to an account earmarked for a child's education but in your own name.

One thing to consider. While it's true that once you put money into a UGMA account you cannot transfer it into one in your own name, there is a way around this rule.

UGMA accounts can be used for pre-college educational costs, health care, and so forth. If one of these applies, there is nothing to stop you from using the UGMA funds to defer such expenses, and then to independently set up an identical account in your own name that is earmarked for the child's higher education.

One fat orthodontist's bill, for example, might be a good method of legally transferring a lot of UGMA money into an account in your name.

Q. My father is a 79-year-old widower and I am assisting him with his affairs. He would like to invest his money to provide for the remainder of his life and to augment his Social Security check of $400 a month. His current expenses are $1,300 a month. He has a $40,000 CD, a $20,000 life insurance policy that is convertible into an annuity of $379 a month with five-year certainty, and $30,000 is anticipated from a home that is being sold. What do you suggest?

J.T., Temecula, Calif.

A. First, I would annuitize the insurance policy. That would give him a $779 monthly income stream, leaving but $512 a month to be taken from his additional assets.

The next move depends on his appetite for risk. If he went with a good GNMA fund, where he could expect a fairly consistent yield of 6.5 percent (but also occasionally sharp changes in principal value) the $70,000 would last about 19 1/2 years, based upon $521 monthly withdrawals. Strong entrants in this category are Fidelity Spartan GNMA and Vanguard GNMA.

If the risk element upsets him, you would probably be able to find a one-year CD paying 6 percent, and such a rate would be enough to make the pool last a little more than 18 years. Many older people are willing to swap the 1/2 percentage point advantage of the GNMA for the FDIC insurance of the CD, and if this is how your father feels, I wouldn't argue the point.

The bug in all of this is those ``current expenses.'' Especially for elderly people, expenses never seem to go down. I make the following suggestion only if you can afford it:

Whether you decide on the CD or a GNMA, take no withdrawals in excess of the actual yield, leaving him with a shortfall of $142 a month. You could then make up the difference, with the understanding that you would have a claim against his estate equaling the amount you have contributed. You could even set an interest rate on your `loans.'

This would give your father a sense of some financial security, in that that his assets wouldn't be withering away. If his expenses don't rise dramatically, you have an excellent chance of recovering your money. If not, well, you would have been a very good daughter.