INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940
             Release No.  1750 / September 14, 1998

             ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
             File No.  3-9703

                            IN THE MATTER OF ELLEN GRIGGS

              ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING INSTITUTED AGAINST ELLEN GRIGGS

             The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission")
             announced today that it had instituted public administrative
             proceedings against Ellen Griggs,  a former chief investment
             officer at Mitchell Hutchins Asset Management, Inc.
             ("Mitchell Hutchins") and former co-portfolio manager of the
             PaineWebber Short-Term U.S. Government Income Fund ("Fund").

             In a separate release, the Commission also announced today
             that it had filed an administrative order charging Stephen
             Brown, the Fund's day-to-day co-portfolio manager during
             September 1993 through April 1994, with, among other things,
             violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal
             securities laws in connection with the purchase and pricing
             of certain securities in the Fund's portfolio.
             Simultaneously with the institution of the administrative
             proceeding against him, and without admitting or denying the
             Commission's findings, Brown consented to entry of the
             Commission's order.  In September 1997, the Commission
             entered an administrative order charging Mitchell Hutchins
             with, among other things, violations of the antifraud
             provisions of the federal securities laws in the marketing
             and management of the Fund in 1993 and early 1994.
             Simultaneously with the institution of that proceeding, and
             without admitting or denying the Commission's findings,
             Mitchell Hutchins consented to entry of the Commission's
             order.

             In the Order instituting proceedings against Griggs
             ("Order") under Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers
             Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"), the Commission's Division of
             Enforcement alleges that the Fund was marketed to investors
             as a higher-yield and somewhat higher-risk alternative to
             money market funds and certificates of deposit.  The Fund's
             prospectus disclosed that its investment objective was to
             achieve the highest level of income consistent with
             preservation of capital and low volatility of net asset
             value.  The appendix to the prospectus also disclosed that
             the Fund had "no present intention" of investing in certain
             classes of interest-only ("IO") and principal-only ("PO")
             stripped mortgage-backed securities.  The Order alleges
             that, contrary to these public disclosures, Brown invested
             the Fund's assets in certain inappropriate IO and PO
             securities commencing in September 1993 and continuing
             through February 1994.  When interest rates increased
             sharply beginning in February 1994, the Fund incurred
             significant losses, performing well below comparable funds.

             The Order alleges that Brown's improper conduct remained
             undetected by Mitchell Hutchins until late April 1994, in
             part, because his supervisor, Griggs, failed to review his
             purchases of securities for the Fund's portfolio.  The Order
             further alleges that Griggs created a supervisory
             environment that gave Brown virtually total control over the
             purchase and valuation of portfolio securities, with little
             or no effective oversight.  As a result, the Order alleges
             that Griggs failed reasonably to supervise Brown with a view
             to preventing his violations of the federal securities laws.

             A hearing will be scheduled to determine whether the
             allegations are true and, if so, what, if any, remedial
             action is appropriate in the public interest under Section
             203(f) of the Advisers Act, and whether a money penalty
             should be imposed under Section 203(i) of the Advisers Act.