AXA Premier VIP Trust

497 1 d497.htm AXA PREMIER VIP TRUST AXA Premier VIP Trust

LOGO

PROSPECTUS MAY 1, 2004

AXA PREMIER VIP TRUST

AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Growth Portfolio

AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Core Equity Portfolio

AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Value Portfolio

AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Value Portfolio

AXA Premier VIP International Equity Portfolio

AXA Premier VIP Technology Portfolio

AXA Premier VIP Health Care Portfolio

AXA Premier VIP Core Bond Portfolio

The Securities and Exchange Commission has not approved any portfolio’s shares or determined whether this Prospectus is accurate or complete. Anyone who tells you otherwise is committing a crime.

INTRODUCTION

AXA Premier VIP Trust (“Trust”) is comprised of sixteen (16) distinct mutual funds, each with its own investment strategy and risk/reward profile. This prospectus describes Class A shares of nine (9) of the Trust’s portfolios. Each portfolio is a diversified portfolio, except AXA Premier VIP Technology Portfolio and AXA Premier VIP Health Care Portfolio, which are non-diversified portfolios sometimes referred to as “sector portfolios.” Information on each portfolio, including investment objectives, investment strategies and investment risks, can be found on the pages following this introduction. The investment objective of a portfolio is not a fundamental policy and may be changed without a shareholder vote. Each portfolio has a policy to invest at least 80% of its net assets (plus borrowings for investment purposes) in the type of investment suggested by its name. These policies may not be changed without providing sixty (60) days’ written notice to shareholders of the relevant portfolio.

The Trust’s shares are currently sold only to insurance company separate accounts in connection with variable life insurance contracts and variable annuity certificates and contracts (“Contracts”) issued or to be issued by The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States* (“Equitable”), other affiliated or unaffiliated insurance companies and to the Investment Plan for Employees, Managers and Agents (“Investment Plan”). Shares also may be sold to tax-qualified retirement plans. The Prospectus is designed to help you make informed decisions about the portfolios that are available to the Investment Plan.

The investment manager to each portfolio is Equitable. The day-to-day management of each portfolio is provided by one or more investment sub-advisers. Information regarding Equitable and the sub-advisers is included under “Management Team” in this prospectus. Equitable may allocate a portfolio’s assets to additional sub-advisers subject to approval of the Trust’s board of trustees. In addition, Equitable may, subject to the approval of the Trust’s board of trustees, appoint, dismiss and replace sub-advisers and amend sub-advisory agreements without obtaining shareholder approval. In such circumstances, shareholders would receive notice of such action. However, Equitable may not enter into a sub-advisory agreement with an “affiliated person” of Equitable (as that term is defined in Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (“1940 Act”)) (“Affiliated Adviser”), such as Alliance Capital Management L.P. and AXA Rosenberg Investment Management LLC, unless the sub-advisory agreement with the Affiliated Adviser, including compensation, is approved by the affected portfolio’s shareholders.

The co-distributors for each portfolio are AXA Advisors, LLC and AXA Distributors, LLC.

An investment in a portfolio is not a deposit of a bank and is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency. Because you could lose money by investing in these portfolios, be sure to read all risk disclosures carefully before investing.

Effective on or about September 7, 2004, subject to regulatory approval, the name “The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States” is anticipated to be changed to “AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.” When the name change becomes effective, all references in any current prospectus or prospectus supplement to “The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States,” “Equitable Life,” or “Equitable” will become references to “AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.”

Table of

CONTENTS


Goals, Strategies & Risks

AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Growth Portfolio		1
AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Core Equity Portfolio		3
AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Value Portfolio		5
AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio		7
AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Value Portfolio		9
AXA Premier VIP International Equity Portfolio		11
AXA Premier VIP Technology Portfolio		13
AXA Premier VIP Health Care Portfolio		15
AXA Premier VIP Core Bond Portfolio		17

Portfolio Fees & Expenses		19

More About Investment Strategies & Risks

More About Investment Strategies & Risks		21

Management Team

The Manager and the Sub-advisers		23

Portfolio Services

Buying and Selling Shares		40
Restrictions on Buying and Selling Shares		40
How Portfolio Shares are Priced		41
Dividends and Other Distributions		42
Tax Consequences		42

Glossary of Terms		43

Description of Benchmarks		44

Financial Highlights		46

AXA PREMIER VIP LARGE CAP GROWTH PORTFOLIO


Manager:		Equitable

Sub-advisers:		Alliance Capital Management L.P. RCM Capital Management LLC TCW Investment Management Company

Key Terms

•	Growth Investing — An investment style that emphasizes companies with strong earnings growth. Growth investing is generally considered more aggressive than “value” investing.

•	Large Cap Companies — Companies with market capitalization in excess of $5 billion.

Investment Goal

Long-term growth of capital.

Principal Investment Strategies

Under normal circumstances, the portfolio intends to invest at least 80% of its net assets, plus borrowings for investment purposes, in equity securities of U.S. large capitalization companies. Large capitalization companies are companies with market capitalization in excess of $5 billion at the time of investment.

The portfolio intends to invest primarily in common stocks, but it may also invest in other securities that the sub-advisers believe provide opportunities for capital growth, such as preferred stocks, warrants and securities convertible into common stock.

Utilizing a due diligence process covering a number of key factors, Equitable selects sub-advisers to manage the portfolio’s assets. It is anticipated that Equitable will allocate the portfolio’s assets to three or more sub-advisers. Equitable monitors the sub-advisers and may dismiss, replace or add sub-advisers subject to the approval of the Trust’s board of trustees.

The sub-advisers focus on identifying companies expected to grow at a faster rate than the U.S. economy. This process involves researching and evaluating individual companies for potential investment. The sub-advisers may sell a security for a variety of reasons, including to seek more attractive growth prospects.

For temporary defensive purposes, the portfolio may invest, without limit, in cash, money market instruments or high quality short-term debt securities, including repurchase agreements. To the extent that the portfolio is invested in these instruments, the portfolio will not be pursuing its investment goal.

Principal Investment Risks

An investment in the portfolio is not guaranteed; you may lose money by investing in the portfolio. When you sell your shares of the portfolio, they could be worth more or less than what you paid for them.

The principal risks presented by the portfolio are:

•	Equity Risk — Stocks and other equity securities generally fluctuate in value more than bonds.

•

Investment Style Risk — The sub-advisers primarily use a particular style or set of styles – in this case “growth” styles – to select investments for the portfolio. Those styles may be out of favor or may not produce the best results over short or longer time periods. They may also increase the volatility of the portfolio’s share price. Growth stocks tend to be more volatile than value stocks, so in a declining market, their prices may decrease more than value stocks in general.

•	Issuer-Specific Risk — The value of an individual security or particular type of security can be more volatile than the market as a whole and can perform differently from the market as a whole. The portfolio could lose all of its investment in a company’s securities.

•	Portfolio Management Risk — The risk that the strategies used by a portfolio’s sub-advisers and their securities selections fail to produce the intended result.

More information about the risks of an investment in the portfolio is provided below in “More About Investment Strategies & Risks.”

PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE

The following information gives some indication of the risks of an investment in the portfolio by showing yearly changes in the portfolio’s performance and by comparing the portfolio’s performance with a broad measure of market performance. Both the bar chart and table below assume reinvestment of dividends and other distributions and include the effect of expense limitations that were in place during the period shown. The performance results presented below do not reflect any insurance and Contract-related fees and expenses, which would reduce the performance results. Since Equitable may add to, dismiss or replace the sub-advisers in a portfolio, the portfolio’s historical performance may cover periods when portions of the portfolio were advised by different sub-advisers. Past performance is not an indication of future performance.

The following bar chart illustrates the annual total returns for the portfolio’s Class A shares for each of the last two calendar years of operations. The inception date for the portfolio is December 31, 2001.

Calendar Year Annual Total Returns

LOGO




Best quarter (% and time period)		Worst quarter (% and time period)

13.51% (2003 2nd Quarter)		–18.96% (2002 2nd Quarter)

The table below shows how the average annual total returns for the portfolio’s Class A shares for the one-year and since-inception periods ended December 31, 2003 compare to those of a broad-based index.



Average Annual Total Returns


	One Year	Since Inception

AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Growth Portfolio	30.87%	–4.97%

Russell 1000 Growth Index*	29.75%	–3.27%

For more information on this index, see the following section “Description of Benchmarks.”

AXA PREMIER VIP LARGE CAP CORE EQUITY PORTFOLIO


Manager:		Equitable

Sub-advisers:		Alliance Capital Management L.P. (Bernstein Unit)
		Janus Capital Management LLC
		Thornburg Investment Management, Inc.

Key Terms

•	Core Investing — An investment style that includes both the strategies used when seeking either growth companies (those with strong earnings growth) or value companies (those that may be temporarily out of favor or have earnings or assets not fully reflected in their stock price).

•	Large Cap Companies — Companies with market capitalization in excess of $5 billion.

Investment Goal

Long-term growth of capital.

Principal Investment Strategies

Each sub-adviser generally chooses investments that include either companies with above average growth prospects, companies selling at reasonable valuations, or both. Among other things, these processes involve researching and evaluating individual companies for potential investment. Each sub-adviser may sell a security for a variety of reasons, such as to invest in a company offering superior investment opportunities.

Principal Investment Risks

The principal risks presented by the portfolio are:

•	Equity Risk — Stocks and other equity securities generally fluctuate in value more than bonds.

•	Issuer-Specific Risk — The value of an individual security or particular type of security can be more volatile than the market as a whole and can perform differently from the market as a whole. The portfolio could lose all of its investment in a company’s securities.

•	Portfolio Management Risk — The risk that the strategies used by a portfolio’s sub-advisers and their securities selections fail to produce the intended result.

More information about the risks of an investment in the portfolio is provided below in “More About Investment Strategies & Risks.”

PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE

Calendar Year Annual Total Returns

LOGO




Best quarter (% and time period)		Worst quarter (% and time period)

16.14% (2003 2nd Quarter)		–15.48% (2002 3rd Quarter)



Average Annual Total Returns


	One Year	Since Inception

AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Core Equity Portfolio	28.41%	–0.14%

Standard & Poor’s 500 Index*	28.68%	0.12%

For more information on this index, see the following section “Description of Benchmarks.”

AXA PREMIER VIP LARGE CAP VALUE PORTFOLIO


Manager:		Equitable

Sub-advisers:		Alliance Capital Management L.P.
		Institutional Capital Corporation
		MFS Investment Management

Key Terms

•	Value Investing — An investment style that focuses on companies that may be temporarily out of favor or have earnings or assets not fully reflected in their stock prices.

•	Large Cap Companies — Companies with market capitalization in excess of $5 billion.

Investment Goal

Long-term growth of capital.

Principal Investment Strategies

The sub-advisers focus primarily on stocks that are currently under-priced using certain financial measurements, including the stock’s price-to-earnings and price-to-book ratios and dividend income potential. This process involves researching and evaluating individual companies for potential investment. This approach often leads the portfolio to focus on “strong companies” in out-of-favor sectors or out-of-favor companies exhibiting a catalyst for change. The sub-advisers may sell a security for a variety of reasons, such as because it becomes overvalued or shows deteriorating fundamentals.

Principal Investment Risks

The principal risks presented by the portfolio are:

•	Equity Risk — Stocks and other equity securities generally fluctuate in value more than bonds.

•

Investment Style Risk — The sub-advisers primarily use a particular style or set of styles – in this case “value” styles – to select investments for the portfolio. Those styles may be out of favor or may not produce the best results over short or longer time periods. They may also increase the volatility of the portfolio’s share price.

•	Issuer-Specific Risk — The value of an individual security or particular type of security can be more volatile than the market as a whole and can perform differently from the market as a whole. The portfolio could lose all of its investment in a company’s securities.

•	Portfolio Management Risk — The risk that the strategies used by a portfolio’s sub-advisers and their securities selections fail to produce the intended result.

More information about the risks of an investment in the portfolio is provided below in “More About Investment Strategies & Risks.”

PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE

Calendar Year Annual Total Returns

LOGO




Best quarter (% and time period)		Worst quarter (% and time period)

15.52% (2003 2nd Quarter)		–17.10% (2002 3rd Quarter)



Average Annual Total Returns


	One Year	Since Inception

AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Value Portfolio	31.44%	2.78%

Russell 1000 Value Index*	30.03%	4.81%

For more information on this index, see the following section “Description of Benchmarks.”

AXA PREMIER VIP SMALL/MID CAP GROWTH PORTFOLIO


Manager:		Equitable

Sub-advisers:		Alliance Capital Management L.P.
		Franklin Advisers, Inc.
		Provident Investment Counsel, Inc.

Key Terms

•	Growth Investing — An investment style that emphasizes companies with strong earnings growth. Growth investing is generally considered more aggressive than “value” investing.

•	Small/Mid Cap Companies — Companies with market capitalization within the range of companies in the Russell 2000 Index and Russell Midcap Index.

Investment Goal

Long-term growth of capital.

Principal Investment Strategies

Under normal circumstances, the portfolio intends to invest at least 80% of its net assets, plus borrowings for investment purposes, in equity securities of U.S. small- and mid-capitalization companies. Small-capitalization companies are companies with market capitalization within the range of companies in the Russell 2000 Index at the time of investment. Mid-capitalization companies are companies with market capitalization within the range of companies in the Russell Midcap Index at the time of investment. The market capitalization of companies included in these indices currently ranges from approximately $22 million to $18.5 billion.

The sub-advisers will utilize an aggressive, growth-oriented investment style that emphasizes companies that are either in or entering into the growth phase of their business cycle. In choosing investments, sub-advisers utilize a process that involves researching and evaluating individual companies for potential investment. The sub-advisers may sell a security for a variety of reasons, such as to invest in a company offering superior investment opportunities.

Principal Investment Risks

The principal risks presented by the portfolio are:

•	Equity Risk — Stocks and other equity securities generally fluctuate in value more than bonds.

•

•	Issuer-Specific Risk — The value of an individual security or particular type of security can be more volatile than the market as a whole and can perform differently from the market as a whole. The portfolio could lose all of its investment in a company’s securities.

•

Small- and Mid-Capitalization Risk — Risk is greater for the common stocks of small- and mid-capitalization companies because they generally are more vulnerable than larger companies to adverse business or economic developments and they may have more limited resources. In general, these risks are greater for small-capitalization companies than for mid-capitalization companies.

•	Portfolio Management Risk — The risk that the strategies used by a portfolio’s sub-advisers and their securities selections fail to produce the intended result.

More information about the risks of an investment in the portfolio is provided below in “More About Investment Strategies & Risks.”

PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE

Calendar Year Annual Total Returns

LOGO




Best quarter (% and time period)		Worst quarter (% and time period)

20.46% (2003 2nd Quarter)		–21.58% (2002 2nd Quarter)



Average Annual Total Returns


	One Year	Since Inception

AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio	40.60%	–5.88%

Russell 2500 Growth Index*	46.31%	1.86%

For more information on this index, see the following section “Description of Benchmarks.”

AXA PREMIER VIP SMALL/MID CAP VALUE PORTFOLIO


Manager:		Equitable

Sub-advisers:		AXA Rosenberg Investment Management LLC
		TCW Investment Management Company
		Wellington Management Company, LLP

Key Terms

•	Value Investing — An investment style that focuses on companies that may be temporarily out of favor or have earnings or assets not fully reflected in their stock prices.

•	Small/Mid Cap Companies — Companies with market capitalization within the range of companies in the Russell 2000 Index and Russell Midcap Index.

Investment Goal

Long-term growth of capital.

Principal Investment Strategies

The sub-advisers will utilize a value-oriented investment style that emphasizes companies deemed to be currently under-priced according to certain financial measurements, which may include price-to-earnings and price-to-book ratios and dividend income potential. This process involves researching and evaluating individual companies for potential investment by the portfolio. This approach will often lead the portfolio to focus on “strong companies” in out-of-favor sectors or out-of-favor companies exhibiting a catalyst for change. The sub-advisers may sell a security for a variety of reasons, such as because it becomes overvalued or shows deteriorating fundamentals.

Principal Investment Risks

The principal risks presented by the portfolio are:

•	Equity Risk — Stocks and other equity securities generally fluctuate in value more than bonds.

•

•	Issuer-Specific Risk — The value of an individual security or particular type of security can be more volatile than the market as a whole and can perform differently from the market as a whole. The portfolio could lose all of its investment in a company’s securities.

•

•	Portfolio Management Risk — The risk that the strategies used by a portfolio’s sub-advisers and their securities selections fail to produce the intended result.

More information about the risks of an investment in the portfolio is provided below in “More About Investment Strategies & Risks.”

PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE

Calendar Year Annual Total Returns

LOGO




Best quarter (% and time period)		Worst quarter (% and time period)

19.75% (2003 2nd Quarter)		–20.11% (2002 3rd Quarter)



Average Annual Total Returns


	One Year	Since Inception

AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Value Portfolio	40.94%	2.74%

Russell 2500 Value Index*	44.93%	14.29%

For more information on this index, see the following section “Description of Benchmarks.”

AXA PREMIER VIP INTERNATIONAL EQUITY PORTFOLIO


Manager:		Equitable

Sub-advisers:		Alliance Capital Management L.P. (Bernstein Unit)
		Bank of Ireland Asset Management (U.S.) Limited
		Marsico Capital Management, LLC

Key Term

•	International Investing — Focuses primarily on companies organized or headquartered outside the U.S.

Investment Goal

Long-term growth of capital.

Principal Investment Strategies

Under normal circumstances, the portfolio intends to invest at least 80% of its net assets, plus borrowings for investment purposes, in equity securities of companies, including at least 65% of its total assets in equity securities of foreign companies (companies organized or headquartered outside of the U.S.). Foreign securities include securities issued by companies in countries with either developed or developing economies. The portfolio does not limit its investment to issuers within a specific market capitalization range.

Each of the sub-advisers utilizes an approach that concentrates its efforts on identifying foreign companies with good prospects for future growth. Other factors, such as country and regional factors, are considered by the sub-advisers. While the sub-advisers believe that the identification, research and selection of individual stocks is of great importance to the portfolio’s success, regional issues or political and economic considerations also play a role in the overall success of the portfolio. The sub-advisers may sell a security for a variety of reasons, such as to invest in a company offering superior investment opportunities.

For temporary defensive purposes, the portfolio may invest, without limit, in U.S. securities, cash, money market instruments or high quality short-term debt securities, including repurchase agreements. To the extent that the portfolio is invested in these cash instruments, the portfolio will not be pursuing its investment goal.

Principal Investment Risks

The principal risks presented by the portfolio are:

•	Currency Risk — The risk that fluctuations in the exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies may negatively affect an investment.

•	Equity Risk — Stocks and other equity securities generally fluctuate in value more than bonds.

•

Foreign Investing and Emerging Markets Risks — The value of the portfolio’s investments in foreign securities may fall due to adverse political, social and economic developments abroad and decreases in foreign currency values relative to the U.S. dollar. These risks are greater generally for investments in emerging market issuers than for issuers in more developed countries.

•	Issuer-Specific Risk — The value of an individual security or particular type of security can be more volatile than the market as a whole and can perform differently from the market as a whole. The portfolio could lose all of its investment in a company’s securities.

•	Portfolio Management Risk — The risk that the strategies used by a portfolio’s sub-advisers and their securities selections fail to produce the intended result.

More information about the risks of an investment in the portfolio is provided below in “More About Investment Strategies & Risks.”

PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE

Calendar Year Annual Total Returns

LOGO




Best quarter (% and time period)		Worst quarter (% and time period)

23.16% (2003 2nd Quarter)		–22.22% (2002 3rd Quarter)



Average Annual Total Returns


	One Year	Since Inception

AXA Premier VIP International Equity Portfolio	34.64%	3.33%

Morgan Stanley Capital International EAFE Index*	38.59%	7.93%

For more information on this index, see the following section “Description of Benchmarks.”

AXA PREMIER VIP TECHNOLOGY PORTFOLIO


Manager:		Equitable

Sub-advisers:		Firsthand Capital Management, Inc.
		RCM Capital Management LLC
		Wellington Management Company, LLP

Key Term

•	Sector Portfolio — A portfolio that invests in only a subset of the overall equity market, in this case the Technology Sector.

Investment Goal

Long-term growth of capital.

Principal Investment Strategies

Under normal circumstances, the portfolio intends to invest at least 80% of its net assets, plus borrowings for investment purposes, in equity securities of companies principally engaged in the technology sector. Such companies include, among others, those in the computer, electronic, hardware and components, communication, software, e-commerce, information service, biotechnology, chemical products and synthetic materials, and defense and aerospace industries. The portfolio does not limit its investment to issuers with a specific market capitalization range. While the portfolio can invest in securities of U.S. and foreign companies, the majority of portfolio assets are expected to be invested in securities of U.S. companies.

The sub-advisers select securities based upon fundamental analysis, such as an analysis of earnings, cash flows, competitive position and management’s abilities. The sub-advisers may sell a security for a variety of reasons, such as to invest in a company with more attractive growth prospects.

Principal Investment Risks

The principal risks presented by the portfolio are:

•	Equity Risk — Stocks and other equity securities generally fluctuate in value more than bonds.

•

Technology Sector Risk — The value of the portfolio’s shares is particularly vulnerable to factors affecting the technology sector, such as dependency on consumer and business acceptance as new technology evolves, large and rapid price movements resulting from competition, rapid obsolescence of products and services and short product cycles. Many technology companies are small and at an earlier stage of development and, therefore, may be subject to risks such as those arising out of limited product lines, markets and financial and managerial resources.

•	Issuer-Specific Risk — The value of an individual security or particular type of security can be more volatile than the market as a whole and can perform differently from the market as a whole. The portfolio could lose all of its investment in a company’s securities.

•

Non-Diversification Risk — As a non-diversified mutual fund, more of the portfolio’s assets may be focused in the common stocks of a small number of issuers, which may make the value of the portfolio’s shares more sensitive to changes in the market value of a single issuer or industry than shares of a diversified mutual fund.

•	Sector Concentration Risk — Since the portfolio invests primarily in a particular sector, it could experience greater volatility than stock funds investing in a broader range of industries.

•

Small- and Mid-Capitalization Risk — Many companies in the technology sector have relatively small market capitalization. Risk is greater for the common stocks of those companies because they generally are more vulnerable than larger companies to adverse business or economic developments and they may have more limited resources.

•	Foreign Investing Risk — The value of the portfolio’s investments in foreign securities may fall due to adverse political, social and economic developments abroad and decreases in foreign currency values relative to the U.S. dollar.

•	Portfolio Management Risk — The risk that the strategies used by a portfolio’s sub-advisers and their securities selections fail to produce the intended result.

More information about the risks of an investment in the portfolio is provided below in “More About Investment Strategies & Risks.”

PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE

Calendar Year Annual Total Returns

LOGO




Best quarter (% and time period)		Worst quarter (% and time period)

26.83% (2003 2nd Quarter)		–26.94% (2002 2nd Quarter)



Average Annual Total Returns


	One Year	Since Inception

AXA Premier VIP Technology Portfolio	58.24%	–4.61%

Russell 1000 Technology Index*^#	48.88%	–4.32%

Russell 1000 Index*	29.89%	0.88%

We believe that this index reflects more closely the market sectors in which the portfolio invests.

For more information on this index, see the following section “Description of Benchmarks.”

AXA PREMIER VIP HEALTH CARE PORTFOLIO


Manager:		Equitable

Sub-advisers:		A I M Capital Management, Inc.
		RCM Capital Management LLC
		Wellington Management Company, LLP

Key Term

•	Sector Portfolio — A portfolio that invests in only a subset of the overall equity market, in this case the Health Care Sector.

Investment Goal

Long-term growth of capital.

Principal Investment Strategies

Under normal circumstances, the portfolio intends to invest at least 80% of its net assets, plus borrowings for investment purposes, in equity securities of companies primarily engaged in the research, development, production or distribution of products or services related to health care, medicine or the life sciences (collectively termed “health sciences”). While the portfolio can invest in securities of U.S. and foreign companies of any size, the majority of portfolio assets are expected to be invested in securities of U.S. companies.

The health sciences sector consists of four main areas:

pharmaceutical, health care services companies, product and device providers and biotechnology firms. The portfolio’s allocation among these four areas will vary depending on the relative potential within each area and the outlook for the overall health sciences sector.

The sub-advisers select securities through fundamental analysis, such as an analysis of earnings, cash flows, competitive position and management’s abilities. The sub-advisers may sell a security for a variety of reasons, such as to invest in a company with more attractive growth prospects.

Principal Investment Risks

The principal risks presented by the portfolio are:

•	Equity Risk — Stocks and other equity securities generally fluctuate in value more than bonds.

•

Health Care Sector Risk — The value of the portfolio’s shares is particularly vulnerable to factors affecting the health care sector, such as substantial government regulation. Also, the products and services offered by health care companies may be subject to rapid obsolescence caused by scientific advances and technological innovations.

•	Issuer-Specific Risk — The value of an individual security or particular type of security can be more volatile than the market as a whole and can perform differently from the market as a whole. The portfolio could lose all of its investment in a company’s securities.

•

•	Sector Concentration Risk — Since the portfolio invests primarily in a particular sector, it could experience greater volatility than stock funds investing in a broader range of industries.

•	Foreign Investing Risk — The value of the portfolio’s investments in foreign securities may fall due to adverse political, social and economic developments abroad and decreases in foreign currency values relative to the U.S. dollar.

•	Portfolio Management Risk — The risk that the strategies used by a portfolio’s sub-advisers and their securities selections fail to produce the intended result.

•

Small- and Mid-Capitalization Risk — Many companies in the health care sector have relatively small market capitalization. Risk is greater for the common stocks of those companies because they generally are more vulnerable than larger companies to adverse business or economic developments and they may have more limited resources.

More information about the risks of an investment in the portfolio is provided below in “More About Investment Strategies & Risks.”

PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE

Calendar Year Annual Total Returns

LOGO




Best quarter (% and time period)		Worst quarter (% and time period)

18.35% (2003 2nd Quarter)		–13.36% (2002 2nd Quarter)



Average Annual Total Returns


	One Year	Since Inception

AXA Premier VIP Health Care Portfolio	28.59%	1.55%

Russell 1000 Healthcare Index*^#	17.68%	–2.91%

Russell 1000 Index*	29.89%	0.88%

We believe that this index reflects more closely the market sectors in which the portfolio invests.

For more information on this index, see the following section “Description of Benchmarks.”

AXA PREMIER VIP CORE BOND PORTFOLIO


Manager:		Equitable

Sub-advisers:		BlackRock Advisors, Inc.
		Pacific Investment Management Company LLC

Key Term

•	Investment Grade Bonds — Bonds rated Baa or higher by Moody’s or BBB or higher by Standard & Poor’s.

Investment Goal

To seek a balance of a high current income and capital appreciation, consistent with a prudent level of risk.

Principal Investment Strategies

Under normal circumstances, the portfolio intends to invest at least 80% of its net assets, plus borrowings for investment purposes, in investment grade bonds. For purposes of this investment policy, a debt security is considered a “bond.” Debt securities represent an issuer’s obligation to repay a loan of money that generally pays interest to the holder. Bonds, notes and debentures are examples of debt securities. The portfolio focuses on U.S. government and corporate debt securities and mortgage- and asset-backed securities.

The portfolio may also invest in securities rated below investment grade (i.e., Ba or lower by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. or BB or lower by Standard & Poor’s Ratings Service) or, if unrated, determined by the sub-adviser to be of comparable quality (“junk bonds”). The portfolio may invest in securities denominated in foreign currencies and U.S. dollar-denominated securities of foreign issuers. The portfolio will normally hedge most of its exposure to foreign currency to reduce the risk of loss due to fluctuations in currency exchange rates.

Utilizing a due diligence process covering a number of key factors, Equitable selects sub-advisers to manage the portfolio’s assets. It is anticipated that Equitable will allocate the portfolio’s assets to two or more sub-advisers. Equitable monitors the sub-advisers and may dismiss, replace or add sub-advisers subject to the approval of the Trust’s board of trustees.

The portfolio’s sub-advisers evaluate several sectors of the bond market and individual securities within these sectors. The sub-advisers select bonds from several sectors including: U.S. Treasuries and agency securities, commercial and residential mortgage-backed securities, asset-backed securities, corporate bonds and bonds of foreign issuers. Securities are purchased for the portfolio when the sub-advisers determine that they have the potential for above-average total return.

The portfolio may purchase bonds of any maturity, but generally the portfolio’s overall effective duration will be of an intermediate-term nature (similar to that of five- to seven-year U.S. Treasury notes) and have a comparable duration to that of the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index. Effective duration is a measure of the expected change in value from changes in interest rates. Typically, a bond with a low (short) duration means that its value is less sensitive to interest rate changes, while bonds with a high (long) duration are more sensitive.

The portfolio’s sub-advisers may, when consistent with the portfolio’s investment objective, use derivative securities. Derivative securities include futures and options contracts, options on futures contracts, foreign currencies, securities and bond indices, structured notes, swaps (including long and short credit default swaps) and indexed securities. The portfolio will typically use derivatives as a substitute for taking a position in the underlying asset and/or in an attempt to reduce risk to the portfolio as a whole (hedge), but they may also be used to maintain liquidity, commit cash pending investment or for speculation to increase returns. The portfolio may also enter into interest rate transactions as a hedging technique. In these transactions, the portfolio exchanges its right to pay or receive interest with another party for their right to pay or receive interest.

Principal Investment Risks

The principal risks presented by the portfolio are:

•

Credit/Default Risk — The risk that the issuer of a security or the counter-party to a contract will default or otherwise become unable to honor a financial obligation. Securities rated below investment grade may involve a substantial risk of default. For more information see “Credit Quality Risk” in “More About Investment Strategies and Risks.”

•	Currency Risk — The risk that fluctuations in the exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies may negatively affect an investment.

•	Interest Rate Risk — The risk of market losses attributable to changes in interest rates. In general, the prices of fixed-income securities rise when interest rates fall, and fall when interest rates rise.

•	Foreign Investing Risk — The value of the portfolio’s investments in foreign securities may fall due to adverse political, social and economic developments abroad and decreases in foreign currency values relative to the U.S. dollar.

•	Issuer-Specific Risk — The value of an individual security or particular type of security can be more volatile than the market as a whole and can perform differently from the market as a whole. The portfolio could lose all of its investment in a company’s securities.

•	Liquidity Risk — The risk that certain securities may be difficult to sell at the time and the price that the seller would like. This may result in a loss or may be costly to a portfolio.

•

Lower-Rated Securities Risk — Bonds rated below investment grade (i.e., BB by S&P or Ba by Moody’s) are speculative in nature, involve greater risk of default by the issuing entity and may be subject to greater market fluctuations than higher rated fixed income securities. For more information, see “Lower-Rated Securities Risk” in “More About Investment Strategies & Risks.”

•

Mortgage-Backed and Asset-Backed Securities Risk — The risk that the principal on mortgage- or asset-backed securities may be prepaid at any time which will reduce the yield and market value. If interest rates fall, the rate of prepayments tends to increase as borrowers are motivated to pay off debt and refinance at new lower rates. Rising interest rates tend to extend the duration of mortgage-related securities, making them more sensitive to changes in interest rates. As a result, in a period of rising interest rates, a portfolio that holds mortgage-related securities may exhibit additional volatility.

•	Derivatives Risk — The portfolio’s investments in derivatives may rise or fall more rapidly than other investments. For more information, see “Derivatives Risk” in “More About Investment Strategies & Risks.”

•	Portfolio Management Risk — The risk that the strategies used by a portfolio’s sub-advisers and their securities selections fail to produce the intended result.

More information about the risks of an investment in the portfolio is provided below in “More About Investment Strategies & Risks.”

PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE

Calendar Year Annual Total Returns

LOGO




Best quarter (% and time period)		Worst quarter (% and time period)

3.42% (2002 3rd Quarter)		–0.15% (2003 3rd Quarter)



Average Annual Total Returns


	One Year	Since Inception

AXA Premier VIP Core Bond Portfolio	4.05%	6.21%

Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index*	4.10%	7.14%

For more information on this index, see the following section “Description of Benchmarks.”

PORTFOLIO FEES & EXPENSES

The following tables describe the fees and expenses that you may pay if you buy and hold Class A shares of the portfolio. The tables below do not reflect any Contract-related fees and expenses, which would increase overall fees and expenses. See the Contract prospectus for a description of those fees and expenses. There are no fees or charges to buy or sell shares of the portfolio, reinvest dividends or exchange into other portfolios.

Annual Portfolio Operating Expenses

(expenses that are deducted from portfolio assets, as a percentage of average daily net assets)


	AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Growth Portfolio	AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Core Equity Portfolio

Management fee	0.90%	0.90%
Distribution and/or service (12b-1) fees	0.00%	0.00%
Other expenses	0.43%	0.52%

Total operating expenses	1.33%	1.42%
(Waiver)/expense reimbursement*	(0.23)%	(0.32)%

Net operating expenses**	1.10%	1.10%

	AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Value Portfolio	AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Management fee	0.90%	1.10%
Distribution and/or service (12b-1) fees	0.00%	0.00%
Other expenses	0.43%	0.35%

Total operating expenses	1.33%	1.45%
(Waiver)/expense reimbursement*	(0.23)%	(0.10)%

Net operating expenses**	1.10%	1.35%

	AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Value Portfolio	AXA Premier VIP International Equity Portfolio

Management fee	1.10%	1.05%
Distribution and/or service (12b-1) fees	0.00%	0.00%
Other expenses	0.31%	0.73%

Total operating expenses	1.41%	1.78%
(Waiver)/expense reimbursement*	(0.06)%	(0.23)%

Net operating expenses**	1.35%	1.55%

	AXA Premier VIP Technology Portfolio	AXA Premier VIP Health Care Portfolio

Management fee	1.20%	1.20%
Distribution and/or service (12b-1) fees	0.00%	0.00%
Other expenses	0.83%	0.48%

Total operating expenses	2.03%	1.68%
(Waiver)/expense reimbursement*	(0.43)%	(0.08)%

Net operating expenses**	1.60%	1.60%

	AXA Premier VIP Core Bond Portfolio

Management fee	0.60%
Distribution and/or service (12b-1) fees	0.00%
Other expenses	0.26%

Total operating expenses	0.86%
(Waiver)/expense reimbursement*	(0.16)%

Net operating expenses**	0.70%

Pursuant to a contract, the Manager has agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses of the portfolio until April 30, 2005 (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) so that the Total Operating Expenses of the portfolio (exclusive of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, Rule 12b-1 fees, capitalized expenses and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed the amount shown above under Net Operating Expenses. The Manager may be reimbursed the amount of any such payments and waivers in the future under certain conditions. The Manager may discontinue these arrangements at any time after April 30, 2005. For more information on the Expense Limitation Agreement, see “Management Team—The Manager and the Sub-advisers—Expense Limitation Agreement”.

A portion of the brokerage commissions that the portfolio pays is used to reduce the portfolio’s expenses. Including this reduction, the Net Operating Expenses for each of the portfolios (other than Core Bond Portfolio) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 was 1.07% for Large Cap Growth Portfolio, 1.07% for Large Cap Core Equity Portfolio, 1.03% for Large Cap Value Portfolio, 1.21% for Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio, 1.27% for Small/Mid Cap Value Portfolio, 1.48% for International Equity Portfolio, 1.45% for Technology Portfolio and 1.59% for Health Care Portfolio.

PORTFOLIO FEES & EXPENSES (cont’d)

Example

This Example is intended to help you compare the direct and indirect cost of investing in each portfolio with the cost of investing in other investment options.

The Example assumes that:

•	You invest $10,000 in the portfolio for the time periods indicated;

•	Your investment has a 5% return each year;

•	The portfolio’s operating expenses remain the same; and

•	The expense limitation currently in place is not renewed.

This Example should not be considered a representation of past or future expenses of the portfolios. Actual expenses may be higher or lower than those shown. The costs in this Example would be the same whether or not you redeemed all of your shares at the end of these periods. This Example does not reflect any Contract-related fees and expenses, which would increase overall fees and expenses. Similarly, the annual rate of return assumed in the Example is not an estimate or guarantee of future investment performance. Based on these assumptions your costs would be:



	AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Growth Portfolio		AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Core Equity Portfolio


1 year	$	112	$	112
3 years	$	398	$	417
5 years	$	705	$	744
10 years	$	1,578	$	1,669




	AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Value Portfolio		AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

1 year	$	112	$	137
3 years	$	398	$	448
5 years	$	705	$	782
10 years	$	1,578	$	1,725




	AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Value Portfolio		AXA Premier VIP International Equity Portfolio

1 year	$	137	$	157
3 years	$	440	$	537
5 years	$	765	$	941
10 years	$	1,685	$	2,071




	AXA Premier VIP Technology Portfolio		AXA Premier VIP Health Care Portfolio

1 year	$	162	$	163
3 years	$	593	$	521
5 years	$	1,049	$	904
10 years	$	2,315	$	1,979




	AXA Premier VIP Core Bond Portfolio

1 year	$	71
3 years	$	258
5 years	$	460
10 years	$	1,044

MORE ABOUT INVESTMENT STRATEGIES & RISKS

Additional Risks

The portfolios have principal investment strategies that come with inherent risks. Each portfolio’s principal risks are described in its principal risks section. The following is a list of additional risks to which each portfolio may be subject by investing in various types of securities or engaging in various practices. Unless otherwise indicated, each risk applies to all the portfolios.

Currency Risk. The risk that fluctuations in the exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies may negatively affect an investment.

Derivatives Risk. A portfolio’s investment in derivatives may rise or fall more rapidly than other investments. These transactions are subject to changes in the underlying security on which such transactions are based. Even a small investment in derivative securities can have a significant impact on a portfolio’s exposure to stock market values, interest rates or currency exchange rates. Derivatives are subject to a number of risks such as liquidity risk, interest rate risk, market risk, credit risk and portfolio management risk. They also involve the risk of mispricing or improper valuation and the risk that changes in the value of a derivative may not correlate well with the underlying asset, rate or index. These types of transactions will be used primarily as a substitute for taking a position in the underlying asset and/or for hedging purposes. When a derivative security (a security whose value is based on another security or index) is used as a hedge against an offsetting position that a portfolio also holds, any loss generated by the derivative security should be substantially offset by gains on the hedged instrument, and vice versa. To the extent that a portfolio uses a derivative security for purposes other than as a hedge, that portfolio is directly exposed to the risks of that derivative security and any loss generated by the derivative security will not be offset by a gain.

Foreign Investing and Emerging Markets Risks. The value of a portfolio’s investments in foreign securities may fall due to adverse political, social and economic developments abroad and due to decreases in foreign currency values relative to the U.S. dollar. These risks are greater generally for investments in emerging market issuers than for issuers in more developed countries.

Information Risk. The risk that key information about a security is inaccurate or unavailable.

Interest Rate Risk. When interest rates decline, the value of a portfolio’s debt securities generally rises. Conversely, when interest rates rise, the value of a portfolio’s debt securities generally declines. The magnitude of the decline will often be greater for longer-term debt securities than shorter-term debt securities.

Leverage Risk. The risk associated with securities or practices (e.g. borrowing) that multiply small price movements into large changes in value.

Liquidity Risk. The risk that certain securities may be difficult or impossible to sell at the time and the price that the seller would like.

This may result in a loss or may be costly to a portfolio.

Credit Quality Risk. It is possible that the issuer of a security will not be able to make interest and principal payments when due. Lower rated bonds involve greater risks of default or downgrade and are more volatile than investment-grade securities. Lower rated bonds involve a greater risk of price declines than investment-grade securities due to actual or perceived changes to an issuer’s creditworthiness. In addition, issuers of lower rated bonds may be more susceptible than other issuers to economic downturns. Lower rated bonds are especially subject to the risk that the issuer may not be able to pay interest and ultimately to repay principal upon maturity. Discontinuation of these payments could adversely affect the price of the bond. Only the Health Care Portfolio, Technology Portfolio and Core Bond Portfolio currently are permitted to invest more than 5% of their assets in lower rated bonds.

Lower-Rated Securities Risk. Bonds rated below investment grade (i.e., BB by S&P or Ba by Moody’s) are speculative in nature, involve greater risk of default by the issuing entity and may be subject to greater market fluctuations than higher rated fixed income securities. They are usually issued by companies without long track records of sales and earnings, or by those companies with questionable credit strength. The retail secondary market for these “junk bonds” may be less liquid than that of higher rated securities and adverse conditions could make it difficult at times to sell certain securities or could result in lower prices than those used in calculating the portfolio’s net asset value. A portfolio investing in “junk bonds” may also be subject to greater credit risk because it may invest in debt securities issued in connection with corporate restructuring by highly leveraged issuers or in debt securities not current in the payment of interest or principal or in default.

Market Risk. The risk that the value of a security may move up and down, sometimes rapidly and unpredictably based upon change in a company’s financial condition as well as overall market and economic conditions.

Multiple Sub-Adviser Risk. Each of the portfolios employs multiple sub-advisers. Each sub-adviser independently chooses and maintains a portfolio of securities for the portfolio and each is responsible for investing a specific allocated portion of the portfolio’s assets. Because each sub-adviser will be managing its allocated portion of the portfolio independently from the other sub-adviser(s), the same security may be held in different portions of a portfolio, or may be acquired for one portion of a portfolio at a time

MORE ABOUT INVESTMENT STRATEGIES & RISKS (cont’d)

when a sub-adviser to another portion deems it appropriate to dispose of the security from that other portion. Similarly, under some market conditions, one sub-adviser may believe that temporary, defensive investments in short-term instruments or cash are appropriate when the other sub-adviser(s) believes continued exposure to the equity or debt markets is appropriate for its allocated portion of the portfolio. Because each sub-adviser directs the trading for its own portion of the portfolio, and does not aggregate its transactions with those of the other sub-advisers, the portfolio may incur higher brokerage costs than would be the case if a single sub-adviser were managing the entire portfolio.

Opportunity Risk. The risk of missing out on an investment opportunity because the assets necessary to take advantage of it are tied up in less profitable investments.

Political Risk. The risk of losses directly attributable to government or political actions.

Portfolio Turnover Risk. High portfolio turnover may result in increased transaction costs to a portfolio, which would reduce investment returns. The Large Cap Value Portfolio, Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio, Technology Portfolio, Health Care Portfolio and Core Bond Portfolio historically have had a high portfolio turnover.

Special Situations Risk. The Large Cap Core Equity Portfolio and International Equity Portfolio may use aggressive investment techniques, including seeking to benefit from “special situations,” such as mergers, reorganizations or other unusual events expected to affect a particular issuer. There is a risk that the “special situation” might not occur, which could have a negative impact on the price of the issuer’s securities and fail to produce the expected gains or produce a loss for the portfolio.

Unseasoned Companies Risk. The Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio, International Equity Portfolio, Technology Portfolio and Health Care Portfolio can invest in small unseasoned companies. These are companies that have been in operation less than three years, including operation of any predecessors. These securities may have limited liquidity and their prices may be very volatile.

Valuation Risk. The risk that a portfolio has valued certain securities at a higher price than it can sell them for.

Securities Lending Risk. For purposes of realizing additional income, each portfolio may lend securities to broker-dealers approved by the Board of Trustees. Generally, any such loan of portfolio securities will be continuously secured by collateral at least equal to the value of the security loaned. Such collateral will be in the form of cash, marketable securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or its agencies, or a standby letter of credit issued by qualified banks. The risks in lending portfolio securities, as with other extensions of secured credit, consist of possible delay in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the securities or possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially. Loans will only be made to firms deemed by the Manager to be of good standing and will not be made unless, in the judgment of the Manager, the consideration to be earned from such loans would justify the risk.

Additional Investment Strategies

The following is a list of additional investment strategies. Unless otherwise indicated, each investment strategy applies to all the portfolios. For further information about investment strategies, see the portfolios’ Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”).

Derivatives. The portfolios can use “derivative” instruments to seek enhanced returns or to try to hedge investment risks, although it is not anticipated that they will do so to a significant degree. In general terms, a derivative instrument is an investment contract whose value depends on (or is derived from) the value of an underlying asset, interest rate or index. Options, futures contracts and forward contracts are examples of “derivatives.”

Foreign Investing. The portfolios may invest in foreign securities, including depositary receipts of foreign based companies, including companies based in developing countries.

Portfolio Turnover. The portfolios do not restrict the frequency of trading. The portfolios may engage in active and frequent trading of portfolio securities to achieve their principal investment strategies. Frequent trading can result in a portfolio turnover in excess of 100% (high portfolio turnover).

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers

The Manager

Equitable, through its AXA Funds Management Group unit, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10104, serves as the manager of each portfolio. Equitable is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, and a wholly owned subsidiary of AXA Financial, Inc., a subsidiary of AXA, a French insurance holding company.

As manager, Equitable has a variety of responsibilities for the general management and administration of the Trust and the portfolios, including the selection of sub-advisers. Equitable plays an active role in monitoring each portfolio and sub-adviser and uses systems to strengthen its evaluation of performance, style, risk levels, diversification and other criteria. Equitable also monitors each sub-adviser’s portfolio management team to ensure that investment activities remain consistent with the portfolios’ investment style and objectives.

Beyond performance analysis, Equitable monitors significant changes that may impact the sub-adviser’s overall business. Equitable monitors continuity in the sub-adviser’s operations and changes in investment personnel and senior management. Equitable also performs annual due diligence reviews with each sub-adviser.

In its capacity as manager, Equitable obtains detailed, comprehensive information concerning portfolio and sub-adviser performance and portfolio operations that is used to supervise and monitor the sub-advisers and the portfolio operations. A team is responsible for conducting ongoing investment reviews with each sub-adviser and for developing the criteria by which portfolio performance is measured.

Equitable selects sub-advisers from a pool of candidates, including its affiliates, to manage the portfolios. Equitable may add to, dismiss or substitute for the sub-advisers responsible for managing a portfolio’s assets subject to the approval of the Trust’s board of trustees. Equitable also has discretion to allocate each portfolio’s assets among the portfolio’s sub-advisers. Equitable recommends sub-advisers for each portfolio to the board of trustees based upon its continuing quantitative and qualitative evaluation of each sub-adviser’s skills in managing assets pursuant to specific investment styles and strategies. Unlike many other mutual funds, the portfolios are not associated with any one portfolio manager, and benefit from specialists selected from the investment management industry. Short-term investment performance, by itself, is not a significant factor in selecting or terminating a sub-adviser, and Equitable does not expect to recommend frequent changes of sub-advisers. Equitable has received an exemptive order from the SEC to permit it and the board of trustees to select and replace a portfolio’s sub-advisers and to amend the sub-advisory agreements between Equitable and the sub-advisers without obtaining shareholder approval. Accordingly, Equitable is able, subject to the approval of the board of trustees, to appoint and replace sub-advisers and to amend sub-advisory agreements without obtaining shareholder approval. When a new sub-adviser is retained for a portfolio, shareholders would receive notice of such action. However, Equitable may not enter into a sub-advisory agreement with an Affiliated Adviser unless the sub-advisory agreement with the Affiliated Adviser, including compensation, is also approved by the affected portfolio’s shareholders. Alliance Capital Management L.P. and AXA Rosenberg Investment Management LLC, two of the current sub-advisers, are affiliates of Equitable.

The Sub-advisers

Each portfolio’s investments are selected by two or more sub-advisers, which act independently of one another. The following describes each portfolio’s sub-advisers, portfolio manager(s) and each portfolio manager’s business experience.

A I M Capital Management, Inc. (“AIM”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP Health Care Portfolio. AIM is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of AIM Management Group Inc. (“AIM Management”). AIM Management is a wholly owned subsidiary of AMVESCAP PLC, one of the world’s largest investment services companies. As of December 31, 2003, AIM Management had approximately $149 billion in assets under management.

Alliance Capital Management L.P. (“Alliance Capital”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Growth Portfolio, AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Value Portfolio and AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio. In addition, Alliance Capital, through its Bernstein Investment Research and Management unit (“Bernstein Unit”), serves as a Sub-Adviser to AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Core Equity Portfolio and AXA Premier VIP International Equity Portfolio. Alliance Capital, a limited partnership, is indirectly majority owned by Equitable. As of December 31, 2003, Alliance Capital had approximately $475 billion in assets under management.

AXA Rosenberg Investment Management LLC (“AXA Rosenberg”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Value Portfolio. AXA Rosenberg is a wholly owned subsidiary of AXA Rosenberg Group LLC (“AXA Rosenberg Group”). AXA Investment Managers S. A., a French société anonyme and investment arm of AXA, a French insurance holding company that includes Equitable among its subsidiaries, holds a majority interest in AXA Rosenberg Group. As of December 31, 2003, AXA Rosenberg Group had approximately $38.8 billion in assets under management.

Bank of Ireland Asset Management (U.S.) Limited (“BIAM (U.S.)”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP International Equity

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)

Portfolio. BIAM (U.S.) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of Ireland Group, a publicly traded financial services provider located in Ireland. As of December 31, 2003, BIAM (U.S.) had approximately $27.7 billion in assets under management.

BlackRock Advisors, Inc. (“BAI”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP Core Bond Portfolio. BAI is a wholly owned subsidiary of BlackRock, Inc. BlackRock, Inc. is a majority owned indirect subsidiary of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., a publicly traded diversified financial services company. As of December 31, 2003, BAI had approximately $309.4 billion in assets under management.

Firsthand Capital Management, Inc. (“Firsthand”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP Technology Portfolio. Kevin M. Landis is the controlling shareholder of Firsthand. As of December 31, 2003, Firsthand had approximately $1.4 billion in assets under management.

Franklin Advisers, Inc. (“Franklin”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio. Franklin is a wholly owned subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc., which is a publicly traded, global investment management organization listed on the New York Stock Exchange. As of December 31, 2003, Franklin, together with its affiliates, had approximately $336.7 billion in assets under management.

Institutional Capital Corporation (“ICAP”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Value Portfolio. ICAP is an employee owned money management firm. Robert H. Lyon is the controlling shareholder of ICAP. As of December 31, 2003, ICAP had approximately $12.4 billion in assets under management.

Janus Capital Management LLC (“Janus”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Core Equity Portfolio. Janus is a direct subsidiary of Janus Capital Group Inc. (“JCG”), a publicly traded company with principal operations in financial asset management businesses. JCG owns approximately 95% of Janus, with the remaining 5% held by Janus Management Holdings Corporation. As of December 31, 2003, Janus had approximately $151.5 billion in assets under management.

Marsico Capital Management, LLC (“Marsico”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP International Equity Portfolio. Marsico is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. As of December 31, 2003, Marsico had approximately $30.2 billion in assets under management.

MFS Investment Management (“MFS”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Value Portfolio. MFS is a subsidiary of Sun Life of Canada (U.S.) Financial Services Holdings, Inc., which in turn is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Sun Life Financial Services of Canada Inc., a diversified financial services organization. As of December 31, 2003, MFS had approximately $140.3 billion in assets under management.

Pacific Investment Management Company LLC (“PIMCO”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP Core Bond Portfolio. PIMCO, a Delaware limited liability company, is a majority owned subsidiary of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management of America L.P., (“ADAM LP”). Allianz AG (“Allianz”) is the indirect majority owner of ADAM LP. Allianz is a European-based, multinational insurance and financial services holding company. Pacific Life Insurance Company holds an indirect minority interest in ADAM LP. As of December 31, 2003, PIMCO had approximately $373.8 billion in assets under management.

Provident Investment Counsel, Inc. (“Provident”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio. Provident is a wholly owned subsidiary of Old Mutual Asset Managers (US) LLC. As of December 31, 2003, Provident had approximately $6.2 billion in assets under management.

RCM Capital Management LLC (“RCM”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Growth Portfolio, AXA Premier VIP Technology Portfolio and AXA Premier VIP Health Care Portfolio. RCM is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Allianz AG, a European-based, multi-national insurance and financial services holding company. As of December 31, 2003, RCM had approximately $33 billion in assets under management.

TCW Investment Management Company (“TCW”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Growth Portfolio and AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Value Portfolio. TCW is a wholly owned subsidiary of The TCW Group, Inc. Société Générale Asset Management, S.A. holds a majority interest in The TCW Group, Inc. Asset Management, S.A. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Société Générale, S.A., a publicly held financial firm headquartered in Paris, France. As of December 31, 2003, TCW had approximately $90 billion in assets under management.

Thornburg Investment Management, Inc. (“Thornburg”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Core Equity Portfolio. Thornburg is an employee owned investment management firm. H. Garrett Thornburg, Jr. is the controlling shareholder of Thornburg. As of December 31, 2003, Thornburg had approximately $8.3 billion in assets under management.

Wellington Management Company, LLP (“Wellington Management”) serves as a Sub-adviser to AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Value Portfolio, AXA Premier VIP Health Care Portfolio and AXA Premier VIP Technology Portfolio. Wellington Management is an employee owned limited liability partnership whose sole business is investment management. Wellington Management is owned by 80 partners, all active employees of the firm; the managing partners of Wellington Management are Duncan M. McFarland, Laurie A. Gabriel and John R. Ryan. As of December 31, 2003, Wellington Management had approximately $394 billion in assets under management.

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)



Portfolio	Sub-Advisers and Portfolio Manager(s)	Business Experience

AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Growth Portfolio	Alliance Capital Management L.P. 1345 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10105 Portfolio Manager William D. Baird	Mr. Baird has been Vice President and a Portfolio Manager of Alliance Capital since 1999. Mr. Baird joined Alliance Capital as an Assistant Vice President in 1994.

	RCM Capital Management LLC Four Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Portfolio Managers Joanne L. Howard Seth A. Reicher	Ms. Howard, a Co-Chief Investment Officer of RCM’s Large Cap Team since January 2003, has been a Managing Director since 1998 and a Principal since 1993. Ms. Howard joined RCM as a Senior Portfolio Manager in 1992. Prior to joining RCM, Ms. Howard spent 17 years at Scudder, Stevens & Clark where she was a Managing Director. Mr. Reicher has been a Managing Director and Co-Chief Investment Officer of RCM since 2000 and has been a Senior Portfolio Manager since 1997. Mr. Reicher joined RCM as an Analyst in 1993. Prior to joining RCM, Mr. Reicher was an Analyst and then Portfolio Manager at Associated Capital and later Capitalcorp Asset Management from 1986 to 1992.

	TCW Investment Management Company 865 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Portfolio Managers Glen E. Bickerstaff Brian M. Beitner	Mr. Bickerstaff has been a Group Managing Director of TCW since 2001. He joined TCW in 1998 as a Managing Director. Prior to joining TCW, he was a Vice President and Senior Portfolio Manager at Transamerica Investment Services from 1987 to 1998. Mr. Beitner has been a Managing Director of TCW since he joined the firm in 1998. Prior to joining TCW, he was a Senior Vice President with Scudder Kemper Investments from 1990 to 1998.

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)



Portfolio	Sub-Advisers and Portfolio Manager(s)	Business Experience

AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Core Equity Portfolio	Alliance Capital Management L.P. (Bernstein Investment Research and Management unit) 1345 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10105 Portfolio Management Team	The Portfolio Management Team consists of a core group of senior investment and research professionals of the Bernstein Unit of Alliance Capital. Marilyn G. Fedak chairs the US Equity Investment Policy Group. Ms. Fedak has been the Chief Investment Officer — U.S. Value Equities and an Executive Vice President at Alliance Capital since 2000. She was Chief Investment Officer and Chairman of the U.S. Equity Investment Policy Group at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., Inc. (“Bernstein”) from 1993 to 2000 when Bernstein became the Bernstein Unit of Alliance Capital.

	Janus Capital Management LLC 100 Fillmore Street Denver, CO 80206 Portfolio Manager E. Marc Pinto	Mr. Pinto has been a Portfolio Manager with Janus or its predecessor since 1994. Prior to joining Janus, Mr. Pinto analyzed telecommunications and financial services companies for a family investment firm.

	Thornburg Investment Management, Inc. 119 East Marcy Street Santa Fe, NM 87501 Portfolio Manager William V. Fries, CFA	Mr. Fries has been a Managing Director and Portfolio Manager of Thornburg since 1995. Prior to joining Thornburg, he was with USAA as a Portfolio Manager and Analyst from 1975 to 1995.

AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Value Portfolio	Alliance Capital Management L.P. 1345 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10105 Portfolio Manager Aryeh Glatter	Mr. Glatter has been a Senior Vice President and Portfolio Manager of Alliance Capital since 1999. Mr. Glatter joined Alliance Capital as an equity analyst and portfolio manager in 1993.

	Institutional Capital Corporation 225 West Wacker Drive Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60606 Portfolio Manager Robert H. Lyon	Mr. Lyon has been President and Chief Investment Officer of ICAP since 1992. He was an Analyst with ICAP from 1976 to 1981 and returned in 1988 as Director of Research before leading a group in buying out the firm’s founder.

	MFS Investment Management 500 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Portfolio Manager Steven R. Gorham	Mr. Gorham is a portfolio manager with MFS and has been employed in the investment management area of MFS since 1992.

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)



Portfolio	Sub-Advisers and Portfolio Manager(s)	Business Experience

AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio	Alliance Capital Management L.P. 1345 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10105 Portfolio Managers Bruce K. Aronow N. Kumar Kirpalani Samantha S. Lau Mark A. Attalienti	Mr. Aronow has been a Senior Vice President of Alliance Capital since 2000. Mr. Aronow joined Alliance Capital as a Vice President and Portfolio Manager in 1999. Prior to joining Alliance Capital, he was responsible for research and portfolio management of the small cap consumer sectors at INVESCO (NY) from 1997 to 1999. Mr. Aronow joined Chancellor Capital Management, predecessor to INVESCO (NY), as a small cap analyst in 1994. Mr. Kirpalani has been a Vice President and Portfolio Manager since he joined Alliance Capital in 1999. Prior to joining Alliance Capital, he was responsible for research and portfolio management of the small cap industrial, financial and energy sectors at INVESCO (NY) from 1997 to 1999. Mr. Kirpalani joined Chancellor Capital Management, predecessor to INVESCO (NY), as a small cap analyst in 1993. Ms. Lau has been a Vice President and Portfolio Manager since she joined Alliance Capital in 1999. Prior to joining Alliance Capital, she was responsible for covering small cap technology companies at INVESCO (NY) from 1997 to 1999. Ms. Lau joined Chancellor Capital Management as a small cap analyst in 1997 before it became INVESCO (NY). Prior to that, she was a healthcare securities analyst with Goldman Sachs from 1994 to 1997. Mr. Attalienti has been a Vice President and Portfolio Manager since he joined Alliance Capital in 1999. Prior to joining Alliance Capital, he was responsible for covering the health care industry at Chase Asset Management from 1994 to 1999.

	Franklin Advisers, Inc. One Franklin Parkway San Mateo, CA 94403 Portfolio Management Team	The portion of assets allocated to Franklin is managed by a team of investment professionals, led by Edward B. Jamieson. Mr. Jamieson is an Executive Vice President and portfolio manager and has been associated with Franklin (and its predecessor, Franklin Templeton Investments) since 1987.

	Provident Investment Counsel, Inc. 300 North Lake Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101 Portfolio Management Team	The portion of assets allocated to Provident is managed by a team of investment professionals, led by Evelyn Lapham and John Yoon. Ms. Lapham and Mr. Yoon are Senior Vice Presidents and portfolio managers with research responsibilities and have been with Provident since December 1997 and July 1995, respectively.

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)



Portfolio	Sub-Advisers and Portfolio Manager(s)	Business Experience

AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Value Portfolio	AXA Rosenberg Investment Management LLC 4 Orinda Way Building E Orinda, CA 94563 Portfolio Engineers P. Douglas Burton Syed A. Zamil	Investment decisions arise from AXA Rosenberg’s automatic expert system processing which combines proprietary software programs and comprehensive databases to replicate the decisions financial experts might make in a perfect world. Therefore, AXA Rosenberg does not have Portfolio Managers as traditionally defined, but rather, the firm has Portfolio Engineers who research and monitor the portfolio’s performance against the relevant benchmark and ensure compliance with the portfolio’s objectives. Mr. Burton has been a Portfolio Engineer of AXA Rosenberg since 1998. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Burton was a Portfolio Manager and an Analyst at Deseret Mutual Benefit Administrators from 1988 to 1998. Mr. Zamil has been a Portfolio Engineer of AXA Rosenberg since 2000. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Zamil was a Managing Director at Capital Management from 1997 to 2000. From 1993 to 1997, Mr. Zamil was a consultant and regional manager at BARRA.

	TCW Investment Management Company 865 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Portfolio Managers Nicholas F. Galluccio Susan I. Schottenfeld	Mr. Galluccio has been a Managing Director of TCW since 1997. He joined TCW in 1982 as an Equity Analyst. Prior to joining TCW, Mr. Galluccio was a Securities Analyst with Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb, Inc. from 1981 to 1982. Ms. Schottenfeld has been a Managing Director of TCW since 1998. She joined TCW in 1985 as a Special Situations Analyst. Prior to joining TCW, Ms. Schottenfeld was a Research Liaison to equity sales with Wertheim Schroder and Co. from 1983 to 1985.

	Wellington Management Company, LLP 75 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Portfolio Management Team	Wellington Management’s management approach to its portion of the portfolio is built on a team concept. The team is headed by James N. Mordy, Senior Vice President. Mr. Mordy joined Wellington Management in 1985 as an investment professional.

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)



Portfolio	Sub-Advisers and Portfolio Manager(s)	Business Experience

AXA Premier VIP International Equity Portfolio	Alliance Capital Management L.P. (Bernstein Investment Research and Management unit) 1345 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10105 Portfolio Management Team	The Portfolio Management Team consists of a core group of senior investment and research professionals of the Bernstein Unit of Alliance Capital. Kevin F. Simms and Henry S. D’Auria are Senior Vice Presidents and Co-Chief Investment Officers of International Value Equities, both having held this position since June 2003. Mr. Simms has been Director of Research for International Value and Global Value Equities since October 2000. Prior thereto, he was Director of Research for Emerging Markets Equities at Sanford C. Bernstein (“Bernstein”). Mr. D’Auria has been Chief Investment Officer of Emerging Markets Value since 2002. Prior thereto, he was Director of Research for Small Cap Value and Emerging Markets Value Equities at Bernstein.

	Bank of Ireland Asset Management (U.S.) Limited 26 Fitzwilliam Place Dublin 2 Ireland Portfolio Management Team	BIAM (U.S.)’s management approach to its portion of the portfolio is built on a team concept. The team of nineteen asset managers is headed by Chris Reilly, Chief Investment Officer. Mr. Reilly joined BIAM (U.S.)’s Asset Management Team in 1980 and has had overall responsibility for asset management since 1985.

	Marsico Capital Management, LLC 1200 17th Street Suite 1300 Denver, CO 80202 Portfolio Manager James G. Gendelman	Mr. Gendelman joined Marsico in 2000. Prior to joining Marsico, he was a Vice President of International Sales for Goldman Sachs & Co. from 1987 to 2000.

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)



Portfolio	Sub-Advisers and Portfolio Manager(s)	Business Experience

AXA Premier VIP Technology Portfolio	Firsthand Capital Management, Inc. 125 South Market Suite 1200 San Jose, CA 95113 Portfolio Manager Kevin M. Landis	Mr. Landis is the Chief Investment Officer of Firsthand. Mr. Landis co-founded the firm in 1993 and has been a Portfolio Manager with Firsthand since 1994.

	RCM Capital Management LLC Four Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Portfolio Managers Huachen Chen Walter C. Price	Mr. Chen is a Managing Director, Senior Analyst and Portfolio Manager, and has been associated with RCM since 1994. He joined RCM in 1984 as a Securities Analyst. Mr. Price has been a Managing Director, Senior Analyst and Portfolio Manager of RCM since 1978. He joined RCM in 1974 as a Senior Securities Analyst.

	Wellington Management Company, LLP 75 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Portfolio Management Team	The portion of the portfolio’s assets managed by Wellington Management is managed by a team of investment professionals.

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)



Portfolio	Sub-Advisers and Portfolio Manager(s)	Business Experience

AXA Premier VIP Health Care Portfolio	A I M Capital Management, Inc. 11 Greenway Plaza Suite 100 Houston, TX 77046 Portfolio Management Team	The portion of assets allocated to AIM is managed by a team of investment professionals led by Michael Yellen. Mr. Yellen joined AIM in 1994 as an investment analyst.

	RCM Capital Management LLC Four Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Portfolio Manager Selena A. Chaisson	Dr. Chaisson re-joined RCM in 2004 as the Sector Leader of the Healthcare team. From 1999 to 2003, she was associated with Tiger Management and Amerindo Investment Advisors and was the founder and principal of Coyote Capital. From 1994 to 1999, Ms. Chaisson worked as a healthcare analyst at RCM and later as a Partner.

	Wellington Management Company, LLP 75 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Portfolio Managers Ann C. Gallo Robert L. Deresiewicz Jean M. Hynes Kirk J. Mayer Joseph H. Schwartz	Ms. Gallo has been a Vice President of Wellington Management since 1998. Ms. Gallo joined Wellington Management as a Global Industry Analyst in 1998. Prior to joining Wellington Management, she was a Health Care Analyst with BT Alex Brown from 1995 to 1998. Dr. Deresiewicz has been a Global Industry Analyst at Wellington Management since 2000. Prior to joining Wellington Management, he was an Assistant Professor of Medicine at the Harvard Medical School and an Associate Physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital from 1987 to 1998. Ms. Hynes has been a Senior Vice President of Wellington Management since 2001. Ms. Hynes joined Wellington Management as a research assistant in 1991. Mr. Mayer has been a Vice President of Wellington Management since 2001. Mr. Mayer joined Wellington Management as a Global Industry Analyst in 1998. Prior to joining Wellington Management, he attended the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Finance where he obtained his MBA from 1996 to 1998, and he was an Operations Manager with Lockheed Martin Corporation from 1994 to 1996. Mr. Schwartz has been a Senior Vice President of Wellington Management since 1995. Mr. Schwartz joined Wellington Management as a Global Industry Analyst in 1983.

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)



Portfolio	Sub-Advisers and Portfolio Manager(s)	Business Experience

AXA Premier VIP Core Bond Portfolio	BlackRock Advisors, Inc. 100 Bellevue Parkway Wilmington, DE 19809 Portfolio Managers Scott M. Amero Keith T. Anderson	Mr. Amero has been a Managing Director and Portfolio Manager of BAI since 1990. Prior to joining BAI, he was a Vice President in Fixed Income Research at The First Boston Corporation from 1985 to 1990. Mr. Anderson has been a Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer, Fixed Income of BAI since founding the firm in 1988. Prior to founding BAI, Mr. Anderson was a Vice President in Fixed Income Research at The First Boston Corporation from 1987 to 1988.

	Pacific Investment Management Company LLC 840 Newport Center Drive Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Portfolio Management Team	The Portfolio Management Team develops and implements investment strategy for the portfolio. William H. Gross heads the Portfolio Management Team. Mr. Gross is a Managing Director and the Chief Investment Officer of PIMCO and has been associated with the firm for over 30 years. Mr. Gross was a founder of PIMCO.

Management Fees

Each portfolio pays a fee to Equitable for management services. The Large Cap Core Equity Portfolio, Large Cap Growth Portfolio and Large Cap Value Portfolio each pay a management fee at an annual rate of 0.90% of the average daily net assets of the portfolio. The Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio and Small/Mid Cap Value Portfolio each pay a management fee at an annual rate of 1.10% of the average daily net assets of the portfolio. The International Equity Portfolio pays a management fee at an annual rate of 1.05% of the average daily net assets of the portfolio. The Technology Portfolio and Health Care Portfolio each pay a management fee at an annual rate of 1.20% of the average daily net assets of the portfolio. The Core Bond Portfolio pays a management fee at an annual rate of 0.60% of the average daily net assets of the portfolio.

The sub-advisers are paid by Equitable. Changes to the sub-advisory fees may be negotiated, which could result in an increase or decrease in the amount of the management fee retained by Equitable, without shareholder approval.

Equitable also currently serves as the Administrator of the Trust. The administrative services provided to the Trust by Equitable include, among others, coordination of the Trust’s audit, financial statements and tax returns; expense management and budgeting; legal administrative services and compliance monitoring; portfolio accounting services, including daily net asset value accounting; operational risk management; and oversight of the Trust’s proxy voting policies and procedures and anti-money laundering program.

For these administrative services, in addition to the management fee, each portfolio pays Equitable a fee at an annual rate of 0.15% of the portfolio’s total average net assets plus $35,000 per portfolio and an additional $35,000 for each portion of the portfolio for which separate administrative services are provided (e.g., portions of a portfolio allocated to separate sub-advisers and/or managed in a discrete style).

Expense Limitation Agreement

In the interest of limiting until April 30, 2005 the expenses of each portfolio, the Manager has entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust with respect to the portfolios (“Expense Limitation Agreement”). Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Manager has agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of each portfolio (other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which are capitalized in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of each portfolio’s business and amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act), are limited to 1.10% for the Large Cap Growth Portfolio, the Large Cap Core Equity Portfolio and the Large Cap Value Portfolio, 1.35% for the Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio and the Small/Mid Cap Value Portfolio, 1.55% for the International Equity Portfolio, 1.60% for the Technology Portfolio and the Health Care Portfolio, and 0.70% for the Core Bond Portfolio.

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)

Equitable may be reimbursed the amount of any such payments in the future provided that the payments are reimbursed within three years of the payment being made and the combination of the portfolio’s expense ratio and such reimbursements do not exceed the portfolio’s expense cap. If the actual expense ratio is less than the expense cap and Equitable has recouped all eligible previous payments made, the portfolio will be charged such lower expenses.

Legal Proceedings

A I M Capital Management, Inc.

AIM is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of AMVESCAP PLC (“AMVESCAP”). Another indirect wholly owned subsidiary of AMVESCAP, INVESCO Funds Group, Inc. (“INVESCO”), was, until recently, the investment advisor to the INVESCO Funds.

On December 2, 2003, each of the SEC and the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York (“NYAG”) filed civil proceedings against INVESCO and Raymond R. Cunningham, in his capacity as the chief executive officer of INVESCO. In addition, on December 2, 2003, the State of Colorado filed civil proceedings against INVESCO. None of the INVESCO Funds has been named as a defendant in any of these proceedings.

The SEC proceeding, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado [Civil Action No. 03-N-2421 (PAC)], alleges that INVESCO failed to disclose in the INVESCO Funds’ prospectuses and to the INVESCO Funds’ independent directors that INVESCO had entered into certain arrangements permitting market timing of the INVESCO Funds. The SEC alleges violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 under that Act, Section 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Sections 34(b) and 36(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The SEC is seeking injunctions, including permanent injunctions from serving as an investment advisor, officer or director of an investment company; an accounting of all market timing as well as certain fees and compensation received; disgorgement; civil monetary penalties; and other relief.

The NYAG proceeding, filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (New York County), is also based on the circumstances described above. The NYAG proceeding alleges violation of Article 23-A (the “Martin Act”) and Section 349 of the General Business Law of the State of New York and Section 63(12) of the State of New York’s Executive Law. The NYAG is seeking injunctions, including permanent injunctions from directly or indirectly selling or distributing shares of mutual funds; disgorgement of all profits obtained, including fees collected, and payment of all restitution and damages caused, directly or indirectly from the alleged illegal activities; civil monetary penalties; and other relief.

The Colorado proceeding, filed in the Colorado District Court, in the City and County of Denver, Colorado, is also based on the circumstances described above. The Colorado proceeding alleges violations of Section 6-1-105(1) of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The State of Colorado is seeking injunctions; restitution, disgorgement and other equitable relief; civil monetary penalties; and other relief.

If INVESCO is unsuccessful in its defense of these proceedings, it could be barred from serving as an investment advisor for any investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (a “registered investment company”). Similarly, if Mr. Cunningham is unsuccessful in his defense of these proceedings, he could be barred from serving as an officer or director of any registered investment company. Such results could also affect the ability of AIM, or any other investment advisor directly or indirectly owned by AMVESCAP, from serving as an investment advisor to any registered investment company, including any of the Trust’s portfolios. AIM anticipates that, if either of these results occurs, it will seek exemptive relief from the SEC to permit it to continue to serve as an investment advisor. There can be no assurance that such exemptive relief will be granted.

Since December 2003, a number of civil class action lawsuits have been filed against one or more AIM or INVESCO Funds, their former and/or current investment adviser and/or certain other related parties that are related to the claims filed by the SEC and/or the NYAG against these parties.

Alliance Capital Management L.P.

Alliance Capital reached terms with the NYAG and the staff of the SEC for the resolution of regulatory claims with respect to market timing in some of its mutual funds. The agreement with the SEC is reflected in an Order of the Commission. The agreement with the NYAG is subject to final, definitive documentation.

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)

Among the key provisions of the agreements are the following:

•

Under both the SEC and NYAG agreements, Alliance Capital will establish a $250 million fund to compensate fund shareholders for the adverse effects of market timing in some of its mutual funds. Of the $250 million fund, the agreements characterize $150 million as disgorgement and $100 million as a penalty.

•	The agreement with the NYAG includes a weighted average reduction in fees of 20% on Alliance Capital’s U.S. long-term open-end retail funds, commencing January 1, 2004, for a minimum of 5 years.

Under both agreements, Alliance Capital’s Mutual Funds Boards, which have already moved to elect independent chairmen from among their independent directors, will also have independent directors that comprise at least 75% of each Board, and will retain an independent compliance officer who will assist the Boards in their oversight of compliance, fiduciary issues and conflicts of interest.

The terms and conditions of the agreements also include, among others:

•	Formation of a Code of Ethics Oversight Committee, composed of senior executives of Alliance Capital’s operating businesses, to oversee all matters relating to issues arising under the Alliance Capital Code of Ethics;

•

Establishment of an Internal Compliance Controls Committee, chaired by Alliance Capital’s Chief Compliance Officer, to review compliance issues throughout Alliance Capital, endeavor to develop solutions to those issues as they may arise from time to time, and oversee implementation of those solutions;

•	Establishment of a company ombudsman to whom Alliance Capital employees may convey concerns about Alliance Capital business matters that they believe involve matters of ethics or questionable practices;

•

Engagement of an Independent Compliance Consultant to conduct a comprehensive review of Alliance Capital’s supervisory, compliance, and other policies and procedures designed to prevent and detect conflicts of interest, breaches of fiduciary duty, breaches of the Alliance Capital Code of Ethics and federal securities law violations by Alliance Capital and its employees; and

•	Commencing in 2005, and at least once every other year thereafter, Alliance Capital shall undergo a compliance review by an independent third party.

On October 2, 2003, a putative class action complaint entitled Hindo et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund et al. (the “Hindo Complaint”) was filed against Alliance Capital; Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P.; Alliance Capital Management Corporation; AXA Financial, Inc.; certain of the AllianceBernstein Mutual Funds, including the AllianceBernstein Growth Funds; Gerald Malone; Charles Schaffran (collectively, the “Alliance Capital defendants”); and certain other defendants not affiliated with Alliance Capital. The Hindo Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by alleged shareholders of two of the AllianceBernstein Mutual Funds. The Hindo Complaint alleges that certain of the Alliance Capital defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and other unidentified parties to engage in late trading and market timing of AllianceBernstein Mutual Fund securities, violating Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 206 and 215 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Plantiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and rescission of their contracts with Alliance Capital, including recovery of all fees paid to Alliance Capital pursuant to such contracts.

Since October 2, 2003, approximately 40 additional lawsuits making factual allegations similar to those in the Hindo Complaint were filed against Alliance Capital and certain other defendants, some of which name the AllianceBernstein Growth Funds as defendants. All of these lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of damages.

Janus Capital Management LLC

In September 2003, the SEC and the NYAG publicly announced that they were investigating trading practices in the mutual fund industry. The investigation was prompted by the NYAG’s settlement with a hedge fund, Canary Capital, which allegedly engaged in irregular trading practices with certain mutual fund companies. While Janus was not named as a defendant in the NYAG complaint against the hedge fund, Janus was mentioned in the complaint as having allowed Canary Capital to “market time” certain Janus funds. The NYAG complaint alleges that this practice is in contradiction to policies stated in the prospectuses for certain Janus funds. In addition, the NYAG also filed a complaint on November 25, 2003, against former executives of Security Trust Company, N.A., in which the NYAG specifically alleges those executives submitted false documents to open an account in Janus Worldwide Fund.

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)

Certain Janus funds, as well as Janus Capital Group Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries, have received subpoenas and formal or informal document requests from a number of legal and regulatory agencies — including the NYAG, the SEC, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., the Colorado Securities Commissioner, the Colorado Attorney General, the West Virginia Attorney General, the Florida Department of Financial Services, and one or more U.S. Attorney offices or federal grand juries — which are conducting investigations into market timing, late trading and other potentially irregular trading practices in the mutual fund industry. The documentation and information sought by these agencies relate to a variety of matters, including but not limited to: late day trading, market timing, improper disclosure of portfolio holdings, trading by executives in fund shares, certain revenue sharing arrangements, information related to cash and non-cash compensation paid to brokers, trading by Janus investment personnel in portfolio securities owned by Janus funds, information provided to certain Janus fund Trustees in connection with the review and approval of management contracts related to Janus funds, information related to certain types of distribution and sales arrangements with brokers and other distributors of mutual fund products, and other topics related to the foregoing. In addition, Janus International Limited, a subsidiary of Janus Capital Group Inc. established in England and registered as an investment adviser with the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) in the United Kingdom, has received a request for information related to frequent trading, late day trading, revenue sharing and related topics from the FSA. The Janus funds, Janus Capital Group Inc. and its subsidiaries have complied, intend to comply with or intend to continue to comply with these subpoenas and other document and information requests, and will continue cooperating with the federal and state legal and regulatory authorities which are conducting investigations related to trading practices in the mutual fund industry.

As of April 2004, none of the legal or regulatory agencies conducting investigations into market timing, late trading and other trading practices in the mutual fund industry have brought an enforcement action or commenced other legal proceedings against any of the Janus funds, Janus Capital Group Inc. or its subsidiaries. While Janus has had discussions with government authorities to resolve the Colorado and other pending investigations, the outcome and timing of those discussions will be determined in large part by the government agencies. Janus anticipates that the government agencies will seek substantial civil penalties and other remedial measures.

Janus is in the process of conducting an internal review of market timing and other trading practices at Janus, which, as of the date of this prospectus, indicates that there were approximately twelve discretionary frequent trading arrangements across Janus’ U.S.-based mutual fund business, and that significant discretionary frequent trading appears to have occurred with respect to four of those arrangements. All of these arrangements have been terminated. It also appears that redemption fees payable on certain transactions may have been waived. Janus also believes that there were several discretionary frequent trading arrangements in Janus’ offshore mutual fund business, and these arrangements have also been terminated. In the case of one offshore fund, the Janus World Funds Plc (“JWF”), outside legal counsel retained by Janus International Limited conducted an investigation and concluded that there had been no wrongdoing in relation to frequent trading in JWF and reported its findings to the U.K. regulators. Similar investigations by outside legal counsel are underway in relation to the other Janus offshore funds. In addition, given that most offshore jurisdictions have their own unique set of business and product structures, as well as rules and regulations, Janus is working with its foreign legal counsel and its offshore distributors to develop appropriate guidelines for defining existing and future business practices.

As noted earlier, the pending investigations by the NYAG and other agencies seek to determine whether late trading occurred in mutual funds managed by Janus. Because many mutual fund transactions are cleared and settled through financial intermediaries and because certain individuals who dealt with several of the significant discretionary frequent trading relationships are no longer employees of Janus, Janus cannot exclude the possibility that one or more intermediaries may have submitted improper or unauthorized late trade transactions to Janus in violation of Janus’ agreements with those intermediaries. Additionally, Janus has been advised by certain financial intermediaries that, as a result of systems errors, such intermediaries may have permitted a small number of trades to be submitted late. The impact of these transactions is immaterial.

Legal counsel to the Independent Trustees of certain Janus funds hired Ernst & Young LLP (“EY”) to independently evaluate whether there was any monetary impact to any Janus funds in which discretionary market timing occurred. Following completion of that evaluation in December 2003, Janus and the Independent Trustees of certain U.S.-based Janus funds announced that Janus intends to restore approximately $31.5 million to the funds and/or the funds’ investors. The $31.5 million figure includes: (1) net gains of approximately $22.8 million realized by the discretionary frequent traders, (2) approximately $2.7 million representing lost opportunity cost of those gains had they been available to the funds, (3) management fees of approximately $1.0 million received by Janus related to discretionary trading accounts, and (4) waived redemption fees of approximately $5.0 million. The restoration amount was determined by EY and does not include any fines and penalties that may be sought by regulators. It is important to note that neither the methodology underlying the determination of such $31.5 million amount, nor the mechanics by which the payment might be made to the funds or fund shareholders, has been approved by or agreed to by regulators having authority over Janus or the funds.

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)

Subsequent to the initiation of the regulatory investigations, a number of civil lawsuits have been brought, in various federal and state courts, against Janus and certain of its affiliates, the Janus funds, and related entities and individuals on behalf of Janus fund shareholders and shareholders of Janus Capital Group Inc. The factual allegations made in these actions are generally based on the NYAG complaint against Canary Capital and in general allege that Janus allowed certain hedge funds and other investors to engage in “market timing” trades in Janus funds. Such lawsuits allege a variety of theories for recovery including, but not limited to: (i) violation of various provisions of the federal securities laws; (ii) breach of fiduciary duties, as established by state common law or federal law, to the funds and/or individual investors; (iii) breach of contract; (iv) unjust enrichment; (v) violations of Section 1962 of the Racketeering, Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; and (vi) failure to adequately implement fair value pricing for portfolio securities in Janus funds.

The actions include actions purportedly on behalf of a class of Janus fund investors, cases allegedly brought on behalf of the funds themselves, a case asserting claims both on behalf of an investor class and derivatively on behalf of the funds, cases brought on behalf of shareholders of Janus Capital Group Inc. on a derivative basis against the Board of Directors of Janus Capital Group Inc., purported ERISA actions against the managers of the Janus 401(k) plan, and a non-class “representative action” purportedly brought on behalf of the general public. The complaints also name various defendants. One or more Janus entities (Janus Capital Group Inc., Janus International Holding LLC, Janus Capital Management LLC or Janus Capital Corporation) are named in every action. In addition, actions have been brought against Janus Investment Fund and/or one or more of the individual Janus funds, the Janus fund Trustees, officers of the Janus funds, officers of Janus, officers of Janus Capital Group Inc., and directors of Janus Capital Group Inc.

These lawsuits were filed in a number of state and federal jurisdictions. Janus Capital Group Inc. filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “MDL Panel”) to have all of the actions against Janus Capital Group Inc. or any of its affiliates, including the Janus funds, transferred to the Southern District of New York, or in the alternative to the District of Colorado, for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Transfer motions were also filed by other plaintiffs and defendants. On February 20, 2004, the MDL Panel ruled on all of the transfer and coordination motions, and transferred all of the actions involved, including all of the actions involving Janus Capital Group Inc. or any of its affiliates, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland for further coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Federal District Court in Maryland now has scheduled an initial hearing in all of the transferred actions for April 2, 2004 in Baltimore. For each case, Janus Capital Group Inc. had requested a stay of all proceedings pending a transfer order from the MDL Panel. Such a stay was entered, or was not opposed, in the majority of pending cases. A stay was denied in only one case, in the Southern District of Illinois, and that case was remanded to Illinois state court for further proceedings.

Additional lawsuits arising out of these circumstances and presenting similar allegations and requests for relief may be filed against certain of the Janus funds, Janus and related parties in the future. Janus does not currently believe that any of the pending actions will materially affect its ability to continue to provide to the funds the services it has agreed to provide.

MFS Investment Management

MFS has reached agreement with the SEC, the NYAG and the Bureau of Securities Regulation of the State of New Hampshire (“NH”) to settle administrative proceedings alleging false and misleading information in certain MFS fund prospectuses regarding market timing and related matters. These regulators alleged that prospectus language for certain MFS funds was false and misleading because, although the prospectuses for those funds in the regulators’ view indicated that the funds prohibited market timing, MFS did not limit trading activity in 11 domestic large cap stock, high grade bond and money market funds. MFS’ former Chief Executive Officer, John W. Ballen, and former President, Kevin R. Parke, have also reached agreement with the SEC (Messrs. Ballen and Parke resigned their director and officer positions with MFS on February 13, 2004). Under the terms of the settlements, MFS and the executives neither admit nor deny wrongdoing.

Under the terms of the settlements, a $225 million pool will be established for distribution to shareholders in certain of the MFS funds offered to retail investors (“Retail Funds”), which will be funded by MFS and of which $50 million is characterized as a penalty. This pool will be distributed in accordance with a methodology developed by an independent distribution consultant with consultation with MFS and the Boards of Trustees of the Retail Funds, and acceptable to the SEC. MFS has further agreed with the NYAG to reduce its management fees in the aggregate amount of approximately $25 million annually over the next five years, and not to increase certain management fees during this period. MFS will also pay an administrative fine to NH in the amount of $1 million, which will be used for investor education purposes (NH will retain $250,000 and $750,000 will be contributed to the North American Securities Administrators Association’s Investor Protection Trust).

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)

In addition, under the terms of the settlement, MFS will adopt certain governance changes, which include, among others:

•	formation of a Code of Ethics Oversight Committee, comprised of senior executives of MFS’ operating businesses, to oversee all matters relating to issues arising under MFS’ Code of Ethics;

•

establishment of an Internal Compliance Controls Committee, chaired by MFS’ Chief Compliance Officer and comprised of senior executives of MFS’ operating businesses, to review compliance issues as they may arise from time to time, endeavor to develop solutions to those issues, and oversee implementation of those solutions;

•	establishment of a company ombudsman to whom MFS employees may convey concerns about MFS business matters that they believe involve matters of ethics or questionable practices;

•

establishment of a full-time senior-level position reporting to MFS’ Chief Compliance Officer whose responsibilities include compliance matters related to conflicts of interest; this officer or another designated compliance officer will implement and oversee the funds’ excessive trading policies and compliance procedures;

•

engagement of an Independent Compliance Consultant to conduct a comprehensive review of MFS supervisory, compliance, and other policies and procedures designed to prevent and detect conflicts of interest, breaches of fiduciary duty, breaches of the MFS Code of Ethics and federal securities law violations by MFS and its employees; and

•	commencing in 2006, and at least once every other year thereafter, MFS shall undergo a compliance review by an independent third party.

In addition, under the terms of the settlement, MFS has undertaken to use its best efforts to cause the Retail Funds to operate in accordance with the following governance policies and practices:

•	at least 75% of the Retail Funds’ Boards of Trustees will be independent of MFS and will not have been directors, officers or employees of MFS at any point during the preceding 10 years (a standard to which the Retail Funds’ Boards currently adhere);

•	the chair of the Retail Funds’ Boards of Trustees will be independent of MFS and will not have been a director, officer or employee of MFS at any point during the preceding 10 years (a standard to which the Retail Funds’ Boards currently adhere);

•	all action taken by the Retail Funds’ Boards of Trustees or a committee thereof will be approved by a majority of the independent trustees of the Boards or committee, respectively;

•	commencing in 2005 and not less than every fifth calendar year thereafter, the Retail Funds will hold shareholder meetings at which the Boards of Trustees will be elected; and

•

the Retail Funds will designate an independent compliance officer reporting to the Boards of Trustees responsible for assisting the Boards in monitoring compliance by MFS with the federal securities laws, its fiduciary duties to fund shareholders and its Code of Ethics in all matters relevant to the operations of the funds.

Under the terms of the NYAG settlement, MFS has undertaken, on behalf of the funds, that:

•	the funds will retain a senior officer responsible for assisting in the review of fee arrangements and administering the funds’ compliance policies and procedures, and the Board of Trustees of the funds has determined that MFS shall reimburse the funds for the expense of this senior officer; and

•	certain statements sent by MFS to fund shareholders will disclose fees and costs in actual dollar amounts charged to each investor on his or her actual investment based upon the investor’s most recent quarterly closing balance and on a hypothetical $10,000 investment held for ten years.

Messrs. Ballen and Parke have agreed to suspensions from association with any investment adviser or registered investment company for periods of 9 months and 6 months, respectively. Upon completion of these suspensions, for periods of 27 months (Mr. Ballen) and 30 months (Mr. Parke), Messrs. Ballen and Parke have agreed not to serve as an employee, officer or trustee of any registered investment company; not to serve as chairman, director or as an officer of any investment adviser; and to otherwise perform only limited functions for an investment adviser, which may include strategic planning and analysis, portfolio management and non-mutual fund marketing. Messrs. Ballen and Parke will pay approximately $315,000 each to the SEC, $250,000 of which is characterized as a penalty. In addition, Messrs. Ballen and Parke resigned as trustees of the funds’ Boards of Trustees, and Mr. Ballen resigned as the funds’ President, effective February 6, 2004.

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)

Since December 2003, MFS, Sun Life Financial Inc., various MFS funds, the Trustees of these MFS funds, and certain officers of MFS have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits filed in federal and state courts. The lawsuits variously have been commenced as class actions or individual actions on behalf of investors who purchased, held or redeemed shares of the funds during specified periods, as class actions on behalf of participants in certain retirement plan accounts, or as derivative actions on behalf of the MFS funds. The lawsuits generally allege that some or all of the defendants permitted or acquiesced in market timing and/or late trading in some of the MFS funds, inadequately disclosed MFS’ internal policies concerning market timing and such matters, and received excessive compensation as fiduciaries to the MFS funds. The actions assert that some or all of the defendants violated the federal securities laws, including the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as well as fiduciary duties and other violations of common law. The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages. Insofar as any of the actions is appropriately brought derivatively on behalf of any of the MFS funds, any recovery will inure to the benefit of the funds. The defendants are reviewing the allegations of the multiple complaints and will respond appropriately. Additional lawsuits based on similar allegations may be filed in the future.

Any potential resolution of these matters may include, but not be limited to, judgments or settlements for damages against MFS, the MFS funds, or any other named defendant. As noted above, as part of the regulatory settlements, MFS will establish a restitution pool in the amount of $225 million to compensate certain shareholders of the Retail Funds for damages that they allegedly sustained as a result of market timing or late trading in certain of the Funds. It is not clear whether the restitution pool will be sufficient to compensate shareholders for all of the damage they allegedly sustained, whether certain shareholders or putative class members may have additional claims to compensation, or whether the damages that may be awarded in any of the actions will exceed the amounts available in the restitution pool. In the event the MFS funds incur any losses, costs or expenses in connection with such lawsuits, the Boards of Trustees of the affected funds may pursue claims on behalf of such funds against any party that may have liability to the funds in respect thereof.

In November 2003, the SEC and Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. (Morgan Stanley) settled an enforcement action against Morgan Stanley relating to the undisclosed receipt of fees from certain mutual fund companies in return for preferred marketing of their funds. MFS was one of the 14 fund companies reported to be on Morgan Stanley’s preferred list. As a result, MFS has been under investigation by the SEC relating to its directed brokerage and revenue-sharing arrangements with various distributors of its products, including Morgan Stanley. MFS is cooperating with the SEC’s investigation, which is ongoing. The outcome of this investigation is not yet determinable and may result in sanctions, compensation payments or other financial penalties.

Review of these matters by the independent Trustees of the MFS funds and their counsel is continuing. There can be no assurance that these regulatory actions and lawsuits, or the adverse publicity associated with these developments will not result in increased fund redemptions, reduced sales of fund shares, or other adverse consequences to the funds.

Pacific Investment Management Company LLC

On February 17, 2004, the Attorney General of New Jersey filed a complaint against PIMCO, which serves as subadviser to certain portfolios of the Trust (the “portfolios”) and certain of PIMCO’s affiliates. The complaint alleges, among other things, that inappropriate trading by shareholders engaged in market timing activities took place in certain series of the PIMCO Funds: Pacific Investment Management Series (“PIMS Funds”), for which PIMCO serves as investment adviser and the PIMCO Funds: Multi-Manager Series (“MMS Funds”). In addition, PIMCO and certain of its affiliates have been named as defendants in several putative class action lawsuits, relating to alleged facts similar to those iterated in the New Jersey Attorney General’s complaint. These class action lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages.

In November 2003, the SEC settled an enforcement action against a broker-dealer not affiliated with PIMCO, relating to the undisclosed receipt of fees from certain mutual fund companies in return for preferred marketing of their funds and announced that it would be investigating mutual funds and their distributors generally with respect to compensation arrangements relating to the sale of mutual fund shares. Pursuant to that announcement, PIMCO and certain of its affiliates are under investigation by the SEC relating to directed brokerage and revenue-sharing arrangements. PIMCO and certain of its affiliates also have been named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit that challenges the brokerage and distribution arrangements, including revenue sharing arrangements, of the MMS Funds and PIMS Funds. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, on February 17, 2004, on behalf of certain shareholders of the PIMS Funds and MMS Funds, generally alleges that the respective investment adviser to the funds inappropriately used fund assets to pay brokers to promote the funds by directing fund brokerage transactions to such brokers, and did not fully disclose such arrangements to shareholders. The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages. In addition, the Attorney General of the State of California has publicly announced an investigation into the matters referenced above.

MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Manager and the Sub-advisers (cont’d)

PIMCO believes that other similar lawsuits may be filed in federal or state courts naming PIMCO and certain of its affiliates as defendants. These suits may be commenced as putative class actions or individual actions on behalf of investors who purchased, held or redeemed shares of certain MMS Funds and PIMS Funds during specified periods, or as derivative actions on behalf of these funds.

None of the allegations concerning PIMCO or its affiliates relate to the portfolios. It is possible that these matters and/or other developments resulting from these matters could result in increased portfolio redemptions or other adverse consequences to the portfolios. However, PIMCO believes that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the portfolio or on PIMCO’s ability to perform its investment advisory services to the portfolio.

While additional litigation or regulatory actions in connection with the matters discussed above may be brought against PIMCO or its affiliates in the future, the foregoing disclosure of litigation and regulatory matters will be updated only if those developments are material.

PORTFOLIO SERVICES

Buying and Selling Shares

Each portfolio offers Class A and Class B shares. All shares are purchased and sold at their net asset value without any sales load. These portfolios are not designed for market-timers, see the section entitled “Purchase Restrictions on Market-Timers and Active Traders.”

The price at which a purchase or sale is effected is based on the next calculation of net asset value after an order is placed by an insurance company or qualified retirement plan investing in or redeeming from the Trust. All redemption requests will be processed and payment with respect thereto will normally be made within seven days after tender.

Restrictions on Buying and Selling Shares

Purchase Restrictions

The portfolios reserve the right to suspend or change the terms of purchasing or selling shares.

Purchase Restrictions on Market-Timers and Active Traders

Each portfolio and the Co-distributors reserve the right to refuse or limit any purchase order by a particular purchaser (or group of related purchasers) if the transaction is deemed harmful to the portfolio’s other shareholders or would disrupt the management of the portfolio.

Frequent transfers, including market timing and other program trading strategies, may be disruptive to the portfolios. Disruptive transfer activity may hurt the long term performance of a portfolio by, for example, requiring it to maintain larger amounts of cash or to liquidate portfolio holdings at a disadvantageous time or price. We currently use the procedures described below to discourage disruptive transfer activity. You should understand, however, that these procedures are subject to the following limitations:

•	They do not eliminate the possibility that disruptive transfer activity, including market timing, will occur or that portfolio performance will be affected by such activity.

•	The design of such procedures involves inherently subjective judgments, which we and the Trust seek to make in a fair and reasonable manner consistent with interests of all Contract owners.

If we determine that your transfer patterns among the Trust’s portfolios are disruptive to the Trust’s portfolios, we may, among other things, restrict the availability of personal telephone requests, facsimile transmissions, automated telephone services, internet services or any electronic transfer services. We may also refuse to act on transfer instructions of an agent acting under a power of attorney who is acting on behalf of more than one owner. In making these determinations, we may consider the combined transfer activity of Contracts that we believe are under common ownership, control or direction.

We currently consider transfers into and out of (or vice versa) a portfolio within a five business day period as potentially disruptive transfer activity. In order to reduce disruptive activity, we monitor the frequency of transfers, including the size of transfers in relation to portfolio assets, in each portfolio. When a potentially disruptive transfer into or out of a portfolio occurs on a day when the portfolio’s aggregate deposits or aggregate redemptions exceed our threshold, we may take the actions described above to restrict availability of voice, fax and automated transaction services. We also currently provide a letter to Contract owners who have engaged in disruptive transfer activity of our intention to restrict access to communication services. However, we may not continue to provide such letters. Consistent with seeking to discourage potentially disruptive transfer activity, we may also, in our sole discretion and without further notice, change what we consider potentially disruptive transfer activity and our monitoring procedures and thresholds, as well as change our procedures to restrict this activity. You should consult the Contract prospectus that accompanies this prospectus for information on other specific limitations on the transfer privilege.

Notwithstanding our efforts, we may be unable to detect or deter market timing activity by certain persons, which can lead to disruption of management of, and excess costs to, the particular portfolio.

PORTFOLIO SERVICES

Selling Restrictions

The table below describes restrictions placed on selling shares of any portfolio described in this Prospectus.



Restriction		Situation

The portfolio may suspend the right of redemption or postpone payment for more than 7 days:		• When the New York Stock Exchange is closed (other than a weekend/holiday). • During an emergency. • Any other period permitted by the SEC.

A portfolio may pay the redemption price in whole or part by a distribution in kind of readily marketable securities in lieu of cash or may take up to 7 days to pay a redemption request in order to raise capital:		• When it is detrimental for a portfolio to make cash payments as determined in the sole discretion of Equitable.

How Portfolio Shares are Priced

“Net asset value” is the price of one share of a portfolio without a sales charge, and is calculated each business day using the following formula:


Net Asset Value	=	Total market value of securities + Cash and other assets – Liabilities
Net Asset Value	=	Number of outstanding shares

The net asset value of portfolio shares is determined according to this schedule:

•	A share’s net asset value is determined as of the close of regular trading on the New York Stock Exchange (“Exchange”) on the days the Exchange is open for trading. This is normally 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

•	The price you pay for purchasing or redeeming a share will be based upon the net asset value next calculated after your order is placed by an insurance company or qualified retirement plan.

•	A portfolio heavily invested in foreign securities may have net asset value changes on days when you cannot buy or sell its shares.

Generally, portfolio securities are valued as follows:

•	Equity securities — most recent sales price or official closing price or if there is no sale or official closing price, latest available bid price.

•	Debt securities (other than short-term obligations) — based upon pricing service valuations.

•	Short-term obligations (with maturities of 60 days or less) — amortized cost (which approximates market value).

•

Securities traded on foreign exchanges — most recent sales or bid price on the foreign exchange or market, unless a significant event or circumstance occurs after the close of that market or exchange will materially affect its value. In that case, fair value as determined by or under the direction of the board of trustees at the close of regular trading on the Exchange. Foreign currency is converted into U.S. dollar equivalent daily at current exchange rates.

•	Options — last sales price or, if not available, previous day’s sales price. Options not traded on an exchange or actively traded are valued according to fair value methods.

•	Futures — last sales price or, if there is no sale, latest available bid price.

•	Other Securities — other securities and assets for which market quotations are not readily available or for which valuation cannot be provided are valued at their fair value under the direction of the Trust’s board of trustees.

Events or circumstances affecting the values of portfolio securities that occur between the closing of the principal markets on which they trade and the time the net asset value of portfolio shares is determined may be reflected in the Trust’s calculation of net asset values for

PORTFOLIO SERVICES

each applicable portfolio when the Trust deems that the particular event or circumstance would materially affect such portfolio’s net asset value.

The effect of fair value pricing as described above is that securities may not be priced on the basis of quotations from the primary market in which they are traded, but rather may be priced by another method that the Trust’s board of trustees believes reflects fair value. This policy is intended to assure that each portfolio’s net asset value fairly reflects security values as of the time of pricing.

Dividends and Other Distributions

The portfolios generally distribute most or all of their net investment income and their net realized gains, if any, annually. The Core Bond Portfolio normally pays dividends of net investment income monthly, and its net realized gains, if any, annually. Dividends and other distributions are automatically reinvested at net asset value in shares of the portfolios.

Tax Consequences

Each portfolio is treated as a separate entity, and intends to qualify to be treated as a regulated investment company, for federal income tax purposes. Regulated investment companies are usually not taxed at the entity (portfolio) level. They pass through their income and gains to their shareholders by paying dividends. A portfolio will be treated as a regulated investment company if it meets specified federal income tax rules, including types of investments, limits on investments, types of income, and dividend payment requirements. Although the Trust intends that it and each portfolio will be operated to have no federal tax liability, if they have any federal tax liability, it could hurt the investment performance of the portfolio in question. Also, any portfolio investing in foreign securities or holding foreign currencies could be subject to foreign taxes, which could reduce the investment performance of the portfolio.

It is important for each portfolio to maintain its regulated investment company status because the shareholders of the portfolio that are insurance company separate accounts will then be able to use a favorable investment diversification testing rule in determining whether the Contracts indirectly funded by the portfolio meet tax qualification rules for variable insurance contracts. If a portfolio fails to meet specified investment diversification requirements, owners of non-pension plan Contracts funded through the Trust could be taxed immediately on the accumulated investment earnings under their Contracts and could lose any benefit of tax deferral. Equitable, in its capacity as Manager and as the administrator for the Trust, therefore carefully monitors compliance with all of the regulated investment company rules and variable insurance contract investment diversification rules.

Contract owners seeking to understand the tax consequences of their investment should consult with their tax advisers or the insurance company that issued their variable product or refer to their Contract prospectus.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Bid price — The price a prospective buyer is ready to pay. This term is used by traders who maintain firm bid and offer prices in a given security by standing ready to buy or sell security units at publicly quoted prices.

Capital gain distributions — Payments to a portfolio’s shareholders of profits earned from selling securities in that portfolio. Capital gain distributions are usually paid once a year.

Core investing — An investment style that includes both the strategies used when seeking either growth companies (those with strong earnings growth) or value companies (those that may be temporarily out of favor or have earnings or assets not fully reflected in their stock price).

Derivative — A financial instrument whose value and performance are based on the value and performance of another security or financial instrument.

Diversification — The strategy of investing in a wide range of companies to reduce the risk if an individual company suffers losses.

Duration — A measure of how much a bond’s price fluctuates with changes in comparable interest rates.

Earnings growth — A pattern of increasing rate of growth in earnings per share from one period to another, which usually causes a stock’s price to rise.

Fundamental analysis — An analysis of the balance sheet and income statements of a company in order to forecast its future stock price movements. Fundamental analysis considers past records of assets, earnings, sales, products, management and markets in predicting future trends in these indicators of a company’s success or failure. By appraising a company’s prospects, analysts using such an approach assess whether a particular stock or group of stocks is undervalued or overvalued at its current market price.

Growth investing — An investment style that emphasizes companies with strong earnings growth. Growth investing is generally considered more aggressive than “value” investing.

Interest rate — Rate of interest charged for the use of money, usually expressed as an annual rate.

Market capitalization — Market price of a company’s shares multiplied by number of shares outstanding. A common measure of the relative size of a company.

Net asset value (NAV) — The market value of one share of a portfolio on any given day without taking into account any front-end sales charge or CDSC. It is determined by dividing a portfolio’s total net assets by the number of shares outstanding.

Price-to-book value ratio — Current market price of a stock divided by its book value, or net asset value.

Price-to-earnings ratio — Current market price of a stock divided by its earnings per share. Also known as the “multiple,” the price-to-earnings ratio gives investors an idea of how much they are paying for a company’s earning power and is a useful tool for evaluating the costs of different securities.

Value investing — An investment style that focuses on companies that may be temporarily out of favor or have earnings or assets not fully reflected in their stock prices.

Volatility — The general variability of a portfolio’s value resulting from price fluctuations of its investments. In most cases, the more diversified a portfolio is, the less volatile it will be.

Yield — The rate at which a portfolio earns income, expressed as a percentage. Mutual fund yield calculations are standardized, based upon a formula developed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

DESCRIPTION OF BENCHMARKS

Each portfolio’s performance is compared to that of a broad-based securities market index.

Broad-based securities indices are unmanaged and are not subject to fees and expenses typically associated with managed investment company portfolios. Investments cannot be made directly in a broad-based securities index.

Russell 3000 Index

Composed of 3,000 large U.S. securities, as determined by total market capitalization. This index is capitalization weighted and represents approximately 98% of the investable U.S. equity market.

Russell 1000 Growth Index

Contains those Russell 1000 securities (1,000 largest securities in the Russell 3000 Index) with a greater-than-average growth orientation. Securities in this index tend to exhibit higher price-to-book and price-to-earnings ratios, lower dividend yields and higher forecasted growth values than the Value universe.

Russell 1000 Value Index

Contains those Russell 1000 securities (1,000 largest securities in the Russell 3000 Index) with a less-than-average growth orientation. It represents the universe of stocks from which value managers typically select. Securities in this index tend to exhibit lower price-to-book and price-to-earnings ratios, higher dividend yields and lower forecasted growth values than the Growth universe.

Standard & Poor’s 500 Index

Contains 500 of the largest U.S. industrial, transportation, utility and financial companies deemed by Standard and Poor’s to be representative of the larger capitalization portion of the U.S. stock market. The index is capitalization weighted, thereby giving greater weight to companies with the largest market capitalizations.

Russell 1000 Index

Contains 1,000 of the largest companies in the Russell 3000 Index, representing approximately 92% of the total market capitalization of the Russell 3000 Index.

Russell 2000 Index

Contains 2,000 of the smallest companies in the Russell 3000 Index, representing approximately 8% of the total market capitalization of the Russell 3000 Index.

Russell 2500 Growth Index

Contains those Russell 2500 securities (the bottom 500 securities in the Russell 1000 Index and all 2,000 securities in the Russell 2000 Index) with a greater-than-average growth orientation. Securities in this index tend to exhibit higher price-to-book and price-earnings ratios, lower dividend yields and higher forecasted growth values than the Value universe.

Russell 2500 Value Index

Contains those Russell 2500 securities (the bottom 500 securities in the Russell 1000 Index and all 2,000 securities in the Russell 2000 Index) with a less-than-average growth orientation. Securities in this index tend to exhibit lower price-to-book and price-earnings ratios, lower dividend yields and higher forecasted growth values than the Growth universe.

Russell 1000 Technology Index

Contains those Russell 1000 securities (1,000 largest securities in the Russell 3000 Index) that are deemed technology companies by the Russell sector classification scheme. This sector includes securities in the following industries: computer hardware, computer software, communications technology, electrical & electronics, semiconductors, and scientific equipment & suppliers. The index is market value weighted.

DESCRIPTION OF BENCHMARKS

Russell 1000 Healthcare Index

Contains those Russell 1000 securities (1,000 largest securities in the Russell 3000 Index) that are deemed healthcare companies by the Russell sector classification scheme.

Morgan Stanley Capital International EAFE Index

Contains a market capitalization weighted sampling of securities deemed by Morgan Stanley Capital International to be representative of the market structure of the developed equity markets in Europe, Australasia and the Far East. To construct the index, MSCI targets at least 60% coverage of the market capitalization of each industry within each country in the EAFE index. Companies with less than 40% of their market capitalization publicly traded are float-adjusted to include only a fraction of their market capitalization in the broader EAFE index. EAFE index assumes dividends reinvested net of withholding taxes and do not reflect any fees and expenses.

Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index

Covers the U.S. investment-grade fixed-rate bond market, including government and credit securities, taxable municipal securities, agency mortgage pass-through securities, asset-backed securities, and commercial mortgage-based securities. To qualify for inclusion in the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index, a bond must have at least one year remaining to final maturity, $200 million in par value outstanding, rated Baa3 or better by Moody’s, and rated BBB- or better by S&P (and if neither is available for CMBS, then Fitch is used) have a fixed coupon rate, and be U.S. dollar denominated.

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

The financial highlights table is intended to help you understand the financial performance of the Trust’s Class A and Class B shares. The financial information in the table below is for the fiscal periods ended December 31, 2002 and December 31, 2003. The information below has been derived from the financial statements of the Trust, which have been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, independent public accountants. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s report on the Trust’s financial statements as of December 31, 2003 appears in the Trust’s Annual Report. Certain information reflects financial results for a single portfolio share. The total returns in the tables represent the rate that a shareholder would have earned (or lost) on an investment in the portfolio (assuming reinvestment of all dividends and disbursements). The total return figures shown below do not reflect any separate account or Contract fees and charges. The total return figures would be lower if they did reflect such fees and charges. The information should be read in conjunction with the financial statements contained in the Trust’s Annual Report which are incorporated by reference into the Trust’s Statement of Additional Information (SAI) and available upon request.

AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Growth Portfolio


	Class A						Class B
	Year Ended December 31,						Year Ended December 31,
	2003			2002(a)			2003			2002(a)
Net asset value, beginning of year	$	6.90		$	10.00		$	6.88		$	10.00

Income from investment operations:
Net investment loss		(0.01	)		(0.01	)		(0.03	)		(0.03	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		2.14			(3.09	)		2.14			(3.09	)

Total from investment operations		2.13			(3.10	)		2.11			(3.12	)

Net asset value, end of year	$	9.03		$	6.90		$	8.99		$	6.88

Total return		30.87	%		(31.00	)%		30.67	%		(31.20	)%

Ratios/Supplemental Data:
Net assets, end of year (000’s)	$	8,168		$	2,637		$	253,326		$	76,577
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers		1.10	%		1.10	%		1.35	%		1.35	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers and fees paid indirectly		1.07	%		0.96	%		1.32	%		1.21	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets before waivers and fees paid indirectly		1.33	%		1.84	%		1.58	%		2.09	%
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets after waivers		(0.32	)%		(0.31	)%		(0.57	)%		(0.56	)%
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets after waivers and fees paid indirectly		(0.29	)%		(0.17	)%		(0.54	)%		(0.42	)%
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets before waivers and fees paid indirectly		(0.55	)%		(1.05	)%		(0.80	)%		(1.30	)%
Portfolio turnover rate		30	%		19	%		30	%		19	%
Effect of expense limitation during the year:
Per share benefit to net investment loss	$	0.01		$	0.06		$	0.01		$	0.05

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (cont’d)

AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Core Equity Portfolio


	Class A						Class B
	Year Ended December 31,						Year Ended December 31,
	2003			2002(a)			2003			2002(a)
Net asset value, beginning of year	$	7.73		$	10.00		$	7.73		$	10.00

Income from investment operations:
Net investment income		0.03			0.05			0.01			0.02
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency transactions		2.17			(2.28	)		2.16			(2.27	)

Total from investment operations		2.20			(2.23	)		2.17			(2.25	)

Less distributions:
Dividends from net investment income		(0.04	)		(0.04	)		(0.01	)		(0.02	)

Net asset value, end of year	$	9.89		$	7.73		$	9.89		$	7.73

Total return		28.41	%		(22.34	)%		28.09	%		(22.53	)%

Ratios/Supplemental Data:
Net assets, end of year (000’s)	$	5,049		$	2,305		$	136,178		$	48,689
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers and reimbursements		1.10	%		1.10	%		1.35	%		1.35	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers, reimbursements and fees paid indirectly		1.07	%		1.04	%		1.32	%		1.29	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets before waivers, reimbursements and fees paid indirectly		1.42	%		2.02	%		1.67	%		2.27	%
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets after waivers and reimbursements		0.42	%		0.49	%		0.17	%		0.24	%
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets after waivers, reimbursements and fees paid indirectly		0.45	%		0.55	%		0.20	%		0.30	%
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets before waivers, reimbursements and fees paid indirectly		0.10	%		(0.43	)%		(0.15	)%		(0.68	)%
Portfolio turnover rate		45	%		39	%		45	%		39	%
Effect of expense limitation during the year:
Per share benefit to net investment income	$	0.03		$	0.08		$	0.03		$	0.08

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (cont’d)

AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Value Portfolio


	Class A						Class B
	Year Ended December 31,						Year Ended December 31,
	2003			2002(a)			2003			2002(a)
Net asset value, beginning of year	$	7.98		$	10.00		$	7.98		$	10.00

Income from investment operations:
Net investment income		0.07			0.09			0.05			0.07
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency transactions		2.43			(2.05	)		2.43			(2.05	)

Total from investment operations		2.50			(1.96	)		2.48			(1.98	)

Less distributions:
Dividends from net investment income		(0.07	)		(0.06	)		(0.05	)		(0.04	)
Distributions from net realized gains		(0.13	)		—			(0.13	)		—

Total dividends and distributions		(0.20	)		(0.06	)		(0.18	)		(0.04	)

Net asset value, end of year	$	10.28		$	7.98		$	10.28		$	7.98

Total return		31.44	%		(19.63	)%		31.11	%		(19.84	)%

Ratios/Supplemental Data:
Net assets, end of year (000’s)	$	5,999		$	2,345		$	256,460		$	86,036
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers		1.10	%		1.10	%		1.35	%		1.35	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers and fees paid indirectly		1.03	%		0.92	%		1.28	%		1.17	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets before waivers and fees paid indirectly		1.33	%		1.77	%		1.58	%		2.02	%
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets after waivers		0.92	%		0.90	%		0.67	%		0.65	%
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets after waivers and fees paid indirectly		0.99	%		1.08	%		0.74	%		0.83	%
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets before waivers and fees paid indirectly		0.69	%		0.23	%		0.44	%		(0.02	)%
Portfolio turnover rate		135	%		129	%		135	%		129	%
Effect of expense limitation during the year:
Per share benefit to net investment income	$	0.02		$	0.06		$	0.02		$	0.06

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (cont’d)

AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio


	Class A						Class B
	Year Ended December 31,						Year Ended December 31,
	2003			2002(a)			2003			2002(a)
Net asset value, beginning of year	$	6.30		$	10.00		$	6.28		$	10.00

Income from investment operations:
Net investment loss		(0.02	)		(0.06	)		(0.05	)		(0.08	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		2.58			(3.64	)		2.58			(3.64	)

Total from investment operations		2.56			(3.70	)		2.53			(3.72	)

Less distributions:
Distributions from net realized gains		(0.11	)		—			(0.11	)		—

Net asset value, end of year	$	8.75		$	6.30		$	8.70		$	6.28

Total return		40.60	%		(37.00	)%		40.25	%		(37.20	)%

Ratios/Supplemental Data:
Net assets, end of year (000’s)	$	242,059		$	2,571		$	334,622		$	85,237
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers		1.35	%		1.35	%		1.60	%		1.60	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers and fees paid indirectly		1.21	%		1.26	%		1.46	%		1.51	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets before waivers and fees paid indirectly		1.45	%		2.06	%		1.70	%		2.31	%
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets after waivers		(0.96	)%		(0.99	)%		(1.21	)%		(1.24	)%
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets after waivers and fees paid indirectly		(0.82	)%		(0.90	)%		(1.07	)%		(1.15	)%
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets before waivers and fees paid indirectly		(1.06	)%		(1.70	)%		(1.31	)%		(1.95	)%
Portfolio turnover rate		119	%		196	%		119	%		196	%
Effect of expense limitation during the year:
Per share benefit to net investment income loss	$	0.01		$	0.05		$	0.01		$	0.05

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (cont’d)

AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Value Portfolio


	Class A						Class B
	Year Ended December 31,						Year Ended December 31,
	2003			2002(a)			2003			2002(a)
Net asset value, beginning of year	$	7.49		$	10.00		$	7.47		$	10.00

Income from investment operations:
Net investment income (loss)		0.01			0.01			(0.01	)		(0.01	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency transactions		3.06			(2.52	)		3.05			(2.52	)

Total from investment operations		3.07			(2.51	)		3.04			(2.53	)

Less distributions:
Distributions from realized gains		(0.06	)		—			(0.06	)		—

Net asset value, end of year	$	10.50		$	7.49		$	10.45		$	7.47

Total return		40.94	%		(25.10	)%		40.64	%		(25.30	)%

Ratios/Supplemental Data:
Net assets, end of year (000’s)	$	546,951		$	2,981		$	321,345		$	93,565
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers		1.35	%		1.35	%		1.60	%		1.60	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers and fees paid indirectly		1.27	%		1.21	%		1.52	%		1.46	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets before waivers and fees paid indirectly		1.41	%		1.93	%		1.66	%		2.18	%
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets after waivers		0.01	%		0.03	%		(0.24	)%		(0.22	)%
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets after waivers and fees paid indirectly		0.09	%		0.17	%		(0.16	)%		(0.08	)%
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets before waivers and fees paid indirectly		(0.05	)%		(0.55	)%		(0.30	)%		(0.80	)%
Portfolio turnover rate		63	%		88	%		63	%		88	%
Effect of expense limitation during the year:
Per share benefit to net investment income (loss)	$	0.01		$	0.05		$	0.01		$	0.05

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (cont’d)

AXA Premier VIP International Equity Portfolio


	Class A						Class B
	Year Ended December 31,						Year Ended December 31,
	2003			2002(a)			2003			2002(a)
Net asset value, beginning of year	$	7.93		$	10.00		$	7.91		$	10.00

Income from investment operations:
Net investment income		0.05			0.03			0.03			0.01
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency transactions		2.69			(2.10	)		2.69			(2.10	)

Total from investment operations		2.74			(2.07	)		2.72			(2.09	)

Less distributions:
Dividends from net investment income		(0.07	)		—			(0.05	)		—

Net asset value, end of year	$	10.60		$	7.93		$	10.58		$	7.91

Total return		34.64	%		(20.70	)%		34.39	%		(20.90	)%

Ratios/Supplemental Data:
Net assets, end of year (000’s)	$	16,003		$	2,180		$	166,915		$	47,097
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers and reimbursements		1.55	%		1.55	%		1.80	%		1.80	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers, reimbursements and fees paid indirectly		1.48	%		1.53	%		1.73	%		1.78	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets before waivers, reimbursements and fees paid indirectly		1.78	%		2.72	%		2.03	%		2.97	%
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets after waivers and reimbursements		0.45	%		0.35	%		0.20	%		0.10	%
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets after waivers, reimbursements and fees paid indirectly		0.52	%		0.37	%		0.27	%		0.12	%
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets before waivers, reimbursements and fees paid indirectly		0.22	%		(0.82	)%		(0.03	)%		(1.07	)%
Portfolio turnover rate		72	%		22	%		72	%		22	%
Effect of expense limitation during the year:
Per share benefit to net investment income	$	0.02		$	0.10		$	0.02		$	0.10

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (cont’d)

AXA Premier VIP Technology Portfolio


	Class A						Class B
	Year Ended December 31,						Year Ended December 31,
	2003			2002(a)			2003			2002(a)
Net asset value, beginning of year	$	5.76		$	10.00		$	5.74		$	10.00

Income from investment operations:
Net investment loss		(0.05	)		(0.08	)		(0.06	)		(0.09	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency transactions		3.38			(4.16	)		3.36			(4.17	)

Total from investment operations		3.33			(4.24	)		3.30			(4.26	)

Less distributions:
Distributions from net realized gains		(0.22	)		—			(0.22	)		—

Net asset value, end of year	$	8.87		$	5.76		$	8.82		$	5.74

Total return		58.24	%		(42.50	)%		57.64	%		(42.60	)%

Ratios/Supplemental Data:
Net assets, end of year (000’s)	$	9,303		$	1,597		$	113,251		$	21,937
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers and reimbursements		1.60	%		1.60	%		1.85	%		1.85	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers, reimbursements and fees paid indirectly		1.45	%		1.48	%		1.70	%		1.73	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets before waivers, reimbursements and fees paid indirectly		2.03	%		3.52	%		2.28	%		3.77	%
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets after waivers and reimbursements		(1.35	)%		(1.29	)%		(1.60	)%		(1.54	)%
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets after waivers, reimbursements and fees paid indirectly		(1.20	)%		(1.17	)%		(1.45	)%		(1.42	)%
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets before waivers, reimbursements and fees paid indirectly		(1.78	)%		(3.21	)%		(2.03	)%		(3.46	)%
Portfolio turnover rate		169	%		154	%		169	%		154	%
Effect of expense limitation during the year:
Per share benefit to net investment loss	$	0.02		$	0.13		$	0.02		$	0.13

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (cont’d)

AXA Premier VIP Health Care Portfolio


	Class A						Class B
	Year Ended December 31,						Year Ended December 31,
	2003(a)			2002(a)			2003(a)			2002(a)
Net asset value, beginning of year	$	8.02		$	10.00		$	8.01		$	10.00

Income from investment operations:
Net investment loss		(0.06	)		(0.06	)		(0.08	)		(0.08	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency transactions		2.35			(1.92	)		2.33			(1.91	)

Total from investment operations		2.29			(1.98	)		2.25			(1.99	)

Less distributions:
Distributions from net realized gains		(0.09	)		—			(0.09	)		—

Net asset value, end of year	$	10.22		$	8.02		$	10.17		$	8.01

Total return		28.59	%		(19.80	)%		28.12	%		(19.90	)%

Ratios/Supplemental Data:
Net assets, end of year (000’s)	$	6,376		$	2,506		$	167,416		$	49,826
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers		1.60	%		1.60	%		1.85	%		1.85	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers and fees paid indirectly		1.59	%		1.57	%		1.84	%		1.82	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets before waivers and fees paid indirectly		1.68	%		2.34	%		1.93	%		2.59	%
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets after waivers		(0.69	)%		(0.73	)%		(0.94	)%		(0.98	)%
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets after waivers and fees paid indirectly		(0.68	)%		(0.70	)%		(0.93	)%		(0.95	)%
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets before waivers and fees paid indirectly		(0.77	)%		(1.47	)%		(1.02	)%		(1.72	)%
Portfolio turnover rate		108	%		91	%		108	%		91	%
Effect of expense limitation during the year:
Per share benefit to net investment loss	$	0.01		$	0.06		$	0.01		$	0.06

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (cont’d)

AXA Premier VIP Core Bond Portfolio


	Class A						Class B
	Year Ended December 31,						Year Ended December 31,
	2003			2002(a)			2003			2002(a)
Net asset value, beginning of year	$	10.37		$	10.00		$	10.37		$	10.00
Income from investment operations:
Net investment income		0.24			0.34			0.20			0.31
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		0.18			0.48			0.19			0.49

Total from investment operations		0.42			0.82			0.39			0.80

Less distributions:
Dividends from net investment income		(0.25	)		(0.32	)		(0.23	)		(0.30	)
Distributions from realized gains		(0.12	)		(0.13	)		(0.12	)		(0.13	)

Total dividends and distributions		(0.37	)		(0.45	)		(0.35	)		(0.43	)

Net asset value, end of year	$	10.42		$	10.37		$	10.41		$	10.37

Total return		4.10	%		8.42	%		3.74	%		8.21	%

Ratios/Supplemental Data:
Net assets, end of year (000’s)	$	431,203		$	4,614		$	666,007		$	345,589
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers		0.70	%		0.70	%		0.95	%		0.95	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets after waivers and fees paid indirectly		0.70	%		0.70	%		0.95	%		0.95	%
Ratio of expenses to average net assets before waivers and fees paid indirectly		0.86	%		1.01	%		1.11	%		1.26	%
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets after waivers		2.23	%		3.28	%		1.98	%		3.03	%
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets after waivers and fees paid indirectly		2.23	%		3.28	%		1.98	%		3.03	%
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets before waivers and fees paid indirectly		2.07	%		2.97	%		1.82	%		2.72	%
Portfolio turnover rate		633	%		536	%		633	%		536	%
Effect of expense limitation during the year:
Per share benefit to net investment income	$	0.02		$	0.03		$	0.02		$	0.03

(a)	Net investment income and capital changes are based on monthly average shares outstanding.

If you would like more information about the portfolios, the following documents are available free upon request.

Annual and Semi-Annual Reports — Includes more information about the portfolios’ performance. The reports usually include performance information, a discussion of market conditions and the investment strategies that affected the portfolios’ performance during the last fiscal year.

Statement of Additional Information (SAI) — Provides more detailed information about the portfolios, has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is incorporated into this Prospectus by reference.

To order a free copy of a portfolio’s SAI and/or Annual and Semi-Annual Report, contact

your financial professional, or the portfolios at:

AXA Premier VIP Trust

1290 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10104

Telephone: 866-231-8585

Your financial professional or AXA Premier VIP Trust will also be happy to answer your questions or to provide any additional information that you may require.

Information about the portfolios (including the SAI) can be reviewed and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. Information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the SEC at 1-202-942-8090. Reports and other information about the portfolios are available on the EDGAR database on the SEC’s Internet site at:

http://www.sec.gov.

Investors may also obtain this information, after paying a duplicating fee, by electronic request at the following E-mail address:

publicinfo@sec.gov or by writing the SEC’s

Public Reference Section,

Washington, D.C. 20549-0102.

AXA Premier VIP Trust


AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Growth Portfolio AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Core Equity Portfolio AXA Premier VIP Large Cap Value Portfolio AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Growth Portfolio AXA Premier VIP Small/Mid Cap Value Portfolio		AXA Premier VIP International Equity Portfolio AXA Premier VIP Technology Portfolio AXA Premier VIP Health Care Portfolio AXA Premier VIP Core Bond Portfolio

(Investment Company Act File No. 811-10509)