A true growth investor goes heavily into diversified stocks or stock mutual funds, adds to them faithfully and holds them for years. Quite likely, Hillary’s profit sharing is managed that way. Yet no such approach shows up in the money the Clintons run themselves.

Instead, they invest disjointedly. For “safety,” they overload on bank accounts and bonds, without realizing how risky it is to invest for no growth. Then they plunge into lotteries: limited partnerships, a major stake in a single stock (Wal-Mart), a small and private investment fund that’s managed aggressively for growth. They’re either idling in neutral or shoving the gas pedal to the floor. It’s beside the point that some of these gambles have paid off, says financial planner Harold Evensky of Evensky & Brown in Coral Gables, Fla. They might just as easily have failed-as in fact one land deal did.

The portfolio shown here, compiled from public sources by Little Rock, Ark., financial planner Larry Root of IDS Financial Servies, is only a best guess as to what the First . Couple currently owns. It’ s consistent with previous disclosures, which also show conservative holdings laced with lightning leaps of faith.

The division of assets between Bill and Hillary reflects their basic Team Clinton approach. He tends to U.S. government bond funds-maybe to avoid conflicts of interest, maybe to accede to his fair share of the income tax, maybe because money just doesn’t interest him very much. She’s the family wealth builder-choosing stocks, tax-exempt municipals and private deals often brought to her by pals. She reportedly made a killing in a partnership that bid on a cellular-phone contract, running a $2,000 investment up to $48,000. On the other hand, the couple apparently lost most of the $68,000 they jointly sank into an Ozark land-development deal. Hillary’s commitment to Wal-Mart (where she once sat on the board of directors) also creates some extra risk. A great stock doesn’t always stay that way, and lately Wal-Mart has been stumbling. “You can get blindsided when you’ve concentrated on a single position,” Evensky says.

Most of the planners who studied the portfolio find it too conservative for a couple so young. They recommend anywhere from 55 to 85 percent in diversified stockowning mutual funds. Among those mentioned: Neuberger & Berman Guardian, Pennsylvania Mutual, T. Rowe Price Equity Income, Vanguard Windsor II, Vanguard Index Trust 500 Portfolio and Financial Industrial Income.

Columbus, Ohio, planner John Sestina thinks that the Clintons aren’t even betting on their own economic plan. If income taxes rise, their taxable bond funds will yield less. If growth accelerates, so will stocks-of which they don’t own nearly enough. They also need to think more globally. The $4,000 or so in their G.T. Pacific Growth Fund is too little to matter and too concentrated in one part of the world. New York planner Lewis Altfest suggests something with a wider reach, like Scudder International Fund.

Chelsea’s money needs even more attention than her parents’. Her assets add up to some $45,000, received under the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act. But most of it snoozes in a money-market fund at around 2.5 percent, at a time when college costs are rising by upwards of 7 percent. Evensky agrees that Chelsea shouldn’t be taking much risk; she wants to be sure that that money is there when she enters college five years from now. Still, he’d put a third of her money into stock funds and diversify most of the other two thirds into funds that buy short- or intermediate-term bonds. When she was younger, Sestina says, she should have been fully invested for growth.

Luckily, these mistakes hardly matter, because the Clintons are secure. Bill’s presidential pension equals a cabinet officer’s pay (now $148,400), with substantial extra payments for staff (Ronald Reagan’s budget will be $768,000 this year). He has access to good permanent health and life-insurance plans. On leaving office, both Clintons can expect a life sprinkled with book contracts, speaking fees, teaching offers, corner offices in prestigious law firms and service on ritzy corporate boards.

Right now, they’re considering a blind trust. That would put a pro in charge of their money during the presidential years-perhaps to hatch a much more focused investment plan. Long run, they should try a different approach to asset allocation: 80 percent low-risk-invested by pros for steady growth; 20 percent hign-risk-both his no-growth bonds and her high-wire flutters that they take comfort in themselves.

The Clintons’ 1992 portfolio: “Safe” cash and bonds, with a dash of high risk.

Fixed income $197,000

Taxable U.S. bond funds from the Fidelity group, plus individual tax-free municipals.

Cash $142,000

Bank deposits for the grown-ups; moneymarket mutual funds for Chelsea.

Stocks $197,000

A few stocks (Wal-Mart), an aggressively run partnership, a bit of G.T. Pacific Fund.

Real estate $90,000

A half interest in Hillary’s mom’s condominium (with a $50,000 mortgage debt).

Unspecified investments $150,000

Includes some plungers, like Hillary’s investment in a movie limited partnership.

Pension plans $155,000

An IRA and state deferred compensation for him, law-firm profit sharing for her.