Officially, Fidelity denies pending turnover at the top, but cynics note that Fidelity denies everything said about the company right up to the point where it makes an announcement and confirms something. Unofficially, insiders say a departure wouldn't be a big surprise because Lawson returned to the company in 2007 and was never expected to stick around too long; he was always viewed as something of a "transitional" player, there to help shore up some of Fidelity's businesses over the short run.

Lawson became Fidelity's president about two years ago and much of his focus has been on improving operations internally, bringing in some new blood in responsible positions to shape up Fido's many different businesses. On that score, most observers believe he's been a success, making the business units and the company as a whole more valuable. On the fund front, Fidelity's funds were, on the whole, running in the middle of the pack when Lawson arrived, and they have stayed that way since, though sources within the company say that improved operating efficiency will eventually work its way to the bottom line.

Investors are wondering whether the rumored changes will have trickle-down effects. Fidelity customer Bob R. in Groton, Mass., raised the rumors in an e-mail, asking: "How much would any change at [the top of] Fidelity actually hit the funds? Would it be like what has happened at Putnam?"

It's a good question, because investors should worry about everything that can influence their funds, especially with the recent changes atop Fidelity's smaller crosstown rival, Putnam Investments, resulting in major alterations to how that firm's funds are run.

But it's also a wait-and-see situation, not only because Fido officials are so vehemently denying Lawson's would-be departure, but because fund-company top dogs operate at 30,000 feet, while fund shareholders are at sea level. It takes a while for changes at high altitudes to register on the ground.

"Even if [Lawson] were to leave tomorrow, it would have no impact on fund performance," said Jim Lowell, editor of the Fidelity Investor newsletter. "It could have impact on the business' performance, but that's an insider's concern. As an outsider, your concern is 'What is happening at my funds?' and a change in the president or CEO doesn't require an immediate response by investors."

What could require a response in the long run is any change in strategy or execution at the fund level. That's where the Putnam case is instructive; former Fidelity honcho Robert Reynolds took over a year ago and has been remaking the firm, with those changes directly translating to the firm's funds.

Under the direction of Ed Haldeman - who recently left his post as chairman - Putnam operated its funds under a team management structure, drawing most of its managerial talent from within the organization. Reynolds has remade the firm more in Fidelity's image, striking the team approach and giving managers individual responsibility, while bringing in star hires from outside (most notably from Fidelity).

At the end of June 2008, the firm's five biggest large-cap funds had one-year average performance ranked in the bottom 20 percent of their peer group, according to Lipper. This year, those same funds are averaging performance that's in the top 20 percent of their category.

Putnam, last week, announced a new ad campaign focusing on the new talent and results achieved under Reynolds.

If and when anything happens at Fidelity, shareholders should not expect to notice any difference for the foreseeable future. For starters, the chairman and CEO at the firm remains Ned Johnson, the company founder, and he - more than the president - sets the tone for the firm. Even when he cedes the big chair someday, it's unlikely that any future executive will toss out the strategies that worked so well in building the brand.

"The further away from the process the top guys are, the less impact change at the top has on your funds," said industry consultant Geoff Bobroff. "The top guy at Putnam is much closer to the action than the top guy at Fidelity, with 40,000 employees to worry about.

"In any case, I'd worry more if I lost a manager than if my fund company changed presidents," he added. "Change at the top simply puts the funds on your watch list, trying to see if the company culture changes so much that you don't want to own its funds any more."