Item 1. Business.
What is UGA?
The United States Gasoline Fund, LP (“UGA”) is a Delaware limited partnership organized on April 13, 2007. UGA maintains its main business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland, California 94612. UGA is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership interests (“shares”) traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “NYSE Arca”). It operates pursuant to the terms of the Second Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the “LP Agreement”), which grants full management control to its general partner, United States Commodity Funds LLC (“USCF”).
The investment objective of UGA is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share net asset value (“NAV”) to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of gasoline (also known as reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygen blending, or “RBOB”, for delivery to the New York harbor), as measured by the daily changes in the price of the futures contract for gasoline traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the “NYMEX”), that is the near month contract to expire, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case the futures contract will be the next month contract to expire (the “Benchmark Futures Contract”), less UGA’s expenses. It is not the intent of UGA to be operated in a fashion such that the per share NAV will equal, in dollar terms, the spot price of gasoline or any particular futures contract based on gasoline. It is not the intent of UGA to be operated in a fashion such that its per share NAV will reflect the percentage change of the price of any particular futures contract as measured over a time period greater than one day. USCF believes that it is not practical to manage the portfolio to achieve such an investment goal when investing in Futures Contracts (as defined below) and Other Gasoline-Related Investments (as defined below). UGA’s shares began trading on February 26, 2008. USCF is the general partner of UGA and is responsible for the management of UGA.
Who is USCF?
USCF is a single member limited liability company that was formed in the state of Delaware on May 10, 2005. USCF maintains its main business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland, California 94612. USCF is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wainwright Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Wainwright”). Mr. Nicholas Gerber (discussed below) controls Wainwright by virtue of his ownership of Wainwright’s shares. Wainwright is a holding company that currently holds both USCF, as well as USCF Advisers LLC, an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended. USCF Advisers LLC serves as the investment adviser for the Stock Split Index Fund, a series of the USCF ETF Trust. USCF ETF Trust is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Board of Trustees for the USCF ETF Trust consists of different independent trustees than those independent directors who serve on the Board of Directors of USCF. USCF is a member of the National Futures Association (the “NFA”) and registered as a commodity pool operator (“CPO”) with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) on December 1, 2005 and as a swaps firm on August 8, 2013.
USCF also serves as general partner or sponsor of the United States Oil Fund, LP (“USO”), the United States Natural Gas Fund, LP (“UNG”), the United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP (“USL”), the United States Diesel-Heating Oil Fund, LP (“UHN”), the United States Short Oil Fund, LP (“DNO”), the United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund, LP (“UNL”), the United States Brent Oil Fund, LP (“BNO”), the United States Commodity Index Fund (“USCI”), the United States Copper Index Fund (“CPER”), the United States Agriculture Index Fund (“USAG”) and the United States Metals Index Fund (“USMI”). USO, UNG, USL, UHN, DNO, UNL, BNO, USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI are actively operating funds and all are listed on the NYSE Arca. On January 30, 2015, USCF as the sponsor of United States Commodity Index Funds Trust (the “Trust”) and its series USMI announced that its officers and members had authorized a plan to (i) liquidate USMI, (ii) terminate the continuous offering of USMI, and (iii) deregister USMI under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and therefore, terminate the Trust’s obligation to include USMI on its periodic and current reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). USCF has submitted written notice to the NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) of its decision to liquidate USMI, terminate the offering and to terminate USMI’s obligations under the Exchange Act.
USCF intends to file a post-effective amendment on behalf of the Trust and USMI to terminate the offering of the registered and unsold shares of USMI. The NYSE Arca will file a Form 25 with the SEC to affect the withdrawal of the listing of USMI from the NYSE Arca. Delisting from the NYSE Arca will become effective 10 days after the filing date of the Form 25. Provided that USMI continues to meet the applicable legal requirements, USCF intends to file a Form 15 on behalf of the Trust and USMI with the SEC in early April 2015 to suspend the Trust’s duty to include USMI on its reports under Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act. USMI expects the termination of registration will become effective 90 days after the date of the filing of the Form 15 with the SEC.
All funds listed previously are referred to collectively herein as the “Related Public Funds.” The Related Public Funds are subject to reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). For more information about each of the Related Public Funds, investors in UGA may call 1.800.920.0259 or visit www.unitedstatescommodityfunds.com or the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “SEC”) website at www.sec.gov.
USCF is required to evaluate the credit risk of UGA to the futures commission merchant (“FCM”), oversee the purchase and sale of UGA’s shares by certain authorized purchasers (“Authorized Participants”), review daily positions and margin requirements of UGA and manage UGA’s investments. USCF also pays the fees of ALPS Distributors, Inc., which serves as the marketing agent for UGA (the “Marketing Agent”), and Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“BBH&Co.”), which serves as the administrator (the “Administrator”) and the custodian (the “Custodian”) for UGA.
Limited partners have no right to elect USCF as the general partner on an annual or any other continuing basis. If USCF voluntarily withdraws as general partner, however, the holders of a majority of UGA’s outstanding shares (excluding for purposes of such determination shares owned, if any, by the withdrawing USCF and its affiliates) may elect its successor. USCF may not be removed as general partner except upon approval by the affirmative vote of the holders of at least 66 and 2/3 percent of UGA’s outstanding shares (excluding shares owned, if any, by USCF and its affiliates), subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions set forth in the LP Agreement.
The business and affairs of USCF are managed by a board of directors (the “Board”), which is comprised of three management directors (the “Management Directors”), some of whom are also its executive officers, and three independent directors who meet the independent director requirements established by the NYSE Arca Equities Rules and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The Management Directors have the authority to manage USCF pursuant to the terms of the Fifth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of USCF, dated as of July 22, 2011 (as amended from time to time, the “LLC Agreement”). Through its Management Directors, USCF manages the day-to-day operations of UGA. The Board has an audit committee which is made up of the three independent directors (Gordon L. Ellis, Malcolm R. Fobes III and Peter M. Robinson). For additional information relating to the audit committee, please see “Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance - Audit Committee” in this annual report on Form 10-K.
How Does UGA Operate?
An investment in the shares provides a means for diversifying an investor’s portfolio or hedging exposure to changes in gasoline prices. An investment in the shares allows both retail and institutional investors to easily gain this exposure to the gasoline market in a transparent, cost-effective manner.
The net assets of UGA consist primarily of investments in futures contracts for gasoline, other types of gasoline, crude oil, diesel-heating oil, natural gas and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the NYMEX, ICE Futures or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Futures Contracts”) and, to a lesser extent, in order to comply with regulatory requirements or in view of market conditions, other gasoline-related investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for gasoline, cleared swap contracts and non-exchange traded (“over-the-counter”) transactions that are based on the price of gasoline, crude oil and other petroleum-based fuels, Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Gasoline-Related Investments”). Market conditions that USCF currently anticipates could cause UGA to invest in Other Gasoline-Related Investments include those allowing UGA to obtain greater liquidity or to execute transactions with more favorable pricing. For convenience and unless otherwise specified, Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments collectively are referred to as “Gasoline Interests” in this annual report on Form 10-K. UGA invests substantially the entire amount of its assets in Futures Contracts while supporting such investments by holding the amounts of its margin, collateral and other requirements relating to these obligations in short-term obligations of the United States of two years or less (“Treasuries”), cash and cash equivalents. The daily holdings of UGA are available on UGA’s website at www.unitedstatescommodityfunds.com.
The investment objective of UGA is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share NAV to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of gasoline, as measured by the daily changes in the price of the futures contract on gasoline (also known as RBOB, for delivery to the New York harbor), traded on the NYMEX that is the near month contract to expire, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case it will be measured by the futures contract that is the next month contract to expire (the “Benchmark Futures Contract”), less UGA’s expenses. It is not the intent of UGA to be operated in a fashion such that its per share NAV will equal, in dollar terms, the spot price of gasoline or any particular futures contract based on gasoline. It is not the intent of UGA to be operated in a fashion such that its per share NAV will reflect the percentage change of the price of any particular futures contract as measured over a time period greater than one day. UGA may invest in interests other than the Benchmark Futures Contract to comply with accountability levels and position limits. For a detailed discussion of accountability levels and position limits, see “Item 1. Business - What are Futures Contracts?” below in this annual report on Form 10-K.
USCF employs a “neutral” investment strategy in order to track changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract regardless of whether the price goes up or goes down. UGA’s “neutral” investment strategy is designed to permit investors generally to purchase and sell UGA’s shares for the purpose of investing indirectly in gasoline in a cost-effective manner, and/or to permit participants in the gasoline or other industries to hedge the risk of losses in their gasoline-related transactions. Accordingly, depending on the investment objective of an individual investor, the risks generally associated with investing in gasoline and/or the risks involved in hedging may exist. In addition, an investment in UGA involves the risk that the daily changes in the price of UGA’s shares, in percentage terms, will not accurately track the daily changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract, in percentage terms, and that daily changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract, in percentage terms, will not closely correlate with daily changes in the spot prices of gasoline, in percentage terms.
The Benchmark Futures Contract is changed from the near month contract to expire to the next month contract to expire during one day each month. On that day, USCF closes or sells UGA’s Gasoline Interests and also reinvests or “rolls” in new Gasoline Interests.
The anticipated dates on which the Benchmark Futures Contracts will be changed and UGA’s Gasoline Interests will be “rolled” are posted on UGA’s website at www.unitedstatescommodityfunds.com, and are subject to change without notice.
UGA’s total portfolio composition is disclosed on its website each business day that the NYSE Arca is open for trading. The website disclosure of portfolio holdings is made daily and includes, as applicable, the name and value of each Gasoline Interest, the specific types of Other Gasoline-Related Investments and characteristics of such Other Gasoline-Related Investments, the name and value of each Treasury and cash equivalent, and the amount of cash held in UGA’s portfolio. UGA’s website is publicly accessible at no charge. UGA’s assets used for margin and collateral are held in segregated accounts pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA”) and CFTC regulations.
The shares issued by UGA may only be purchased by Authorized Participants and only in blocks of 50,000 shares called Creation Baskets. The amount of the purchase payment for a Creation Basket is equal to the aggregate NAV of the shares in the Creation Basket. Similarly, only Authorized Participants may redeem shares and only in blocks of 50,000 shares called Redemption Baskets. The amount of the redemption proceeds for a Redemption Basket is equal to the aggregate NAV of shares in the Redemption Basket. The purchase price for Creation Baskets, and the redemption price for Redemption Baskets, are the actual NAV calculated at the end of the business day when a request for a purchase or redemption is received by UGA. The NYSE Arca publishes an approximate per share NAV intra-day based on the prior day’s per share NAV and the current price of the Benchmark Futures Contract, but the price of Creation Baskets and Redemption Baskets is determined based on the actual per share NAV calculated at the end of the day.
While UGA issues shares only in Creation Baskets, shares are listed on the NYSE Arca and investors may purchase and sell shares at market prices like any listed security.
What is UGA’s Investment Strategy?
In managing UGA’s assets, USCF does not use a technical trading system that issues buy and sell orders. USCF instead employs a quantitative methodology whereby each time a Creation Basket is sold, USCF purchases Gasoline Interests, such as the Benchmark Futures Contract, that have an aggregate market value that approximates the amount of Treasuries and/or cash received upon the issuance of the Creation Basket.
By remaining invested as fully as possible in Futures Contracts or Other Gasoline-Related Investments, USCF believes that the daily changes in percentage terms in UGA’s per share NAV will continue to closely track the daily changes in percentage terms in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. USCF believes that certain arbitrage opportunities result in the price of the shares traded on the NYSE Arca closely tracking the per share NAV of UGA. Additionally, Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX have closely tracked the spot price of gasoline for delivery to the New York harbor. Based on these expected interrelationships, USCF believes that the daily changes in the price of UGA’s shares traded on the NYSE Arca, on a percentage basis, have closely tracked and will continue to closely track the daily changes in the spot price of gasoline, on a percentage basis. For performance data relating to UGA’s ability to track its benchmark, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Tracking UGA’s Benchmark” in this annual report on Form 10-K.
USCF endeavors to place UGA’s trades in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments and otherwise manage UGA’s investments so that “A” will be within plus/minus ten percent (10%) of “B”, where:
-A is the average daily change in UGA’s per share NAV for any period of 30 successive valuation days; i.e., any NYSE Arca trading day as of which UGA calculates its per share NAV; and
-B is the average daily percentage change in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract over the same period.
USCF believes that market arbitrage opportunities will cause the daily changes in UGA’s share price on the NYSE Arca to closely track the daily changes in UGA’s per share NAV. USCF believes that the net effect of these two expected relationships and the relationships described above between UGA’s per share NAV and the Benchmark Futures Contract, will be that the daily changes in the price of UGA’s shares on the NYSE Arca will closely track, in percentage terms, the daily changes in the spot price of gasoline, less UGA’s expenses. For performance data relating to UGA’s ability to track its benchmark, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Tracking UGA’s Benchmark” in this annual report on Form 10-K.
The specific Futures Contracts purchased depend on various factors, including a judgment by USCF as to the appropriate diversification of UGA’s investments in Futures Contracts with respect to the month of expiration, and the prevailing price volatility of particular contracts. While USCF has made significant investments in NYMEX Futures Contracts, for various reasons, including the ability to enter into the precise amount of exposure to the crude oil market, position limits or other regulatory requirements limiting UGA’s holdings, and market conditions, it may invest in Futures Contracts traded on other exchanges or invest in Other Gasoline-Related Investments. To the extent that UGA invests in Other Gasoline-Related Investments, it would prioritize investments in contracts and instruments that are economically equivalent to the Benchmark Futures Contract, including cleared swaps that satisfy such criteria, and then, to a lesser extent, it would invest in other types of cleared swaps and other contracts, instruments and non-cleared swaps, such as swaps in the over-the-counter market (or commonly referred to as the “OTC market”). If UGA is required by law or regulation, or by one of its regulators, including a futures exchange, to reduce its position in the Benchmark Futures Contracts to the applicable position limit or to a specified accountability level or if market conditions dictate it would be more appropriate to invest in Other Gasoline-Related Investments, a substantial portion of UGA’s assets could be invested in accordance with such priority in Other Gasoline-Related Investments that are intended to replicate the return on the Benchmark Futures Contract. As UGA’s assets reach higher levels, it is more likely to exceed position limits, accountability levels or other regulatory limits and, as a result, it is more likely that it will invest in accordance with such priority in Other Gasoline-Related Investments at such higher levels. In addition, market conditions that USCF currently anticipates could cause UGA to invest in Other Gasoline-Related Investments include those allowing UGA to obtain greater liquidity or to execute transactions with more favorable pricing. See “Item 1. Business -Regulation” in this annual report on Form 10-K for a discussion of the potential impact of regulation on UGA’s ability to invest in over-the-counter transactions and cleared swaps.
USCF may not be able to fully invest UGA’s assets in Futures Contracts having an aggregate notional amount exactly equal to UGA’s NAV. For example, as standardized contracts, the Futures Contracts are for a specified amount of a particular commodity, and UGA’s NAV and the proceeds from the sale of a Creation Basket are unlikely to be an exact multiple of the amounts of those contracts. As a result, in such circumstances, UGA may be better able to achieve the exact amount of exposure to changes in price of the Benchmark Futures Contract through the use of Other Gasoline-Related Investments, such as over-the-counter contracts that have better correlation with changes in price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.
UGA anticipates that to the extent it invests in Futures Contracts other than contracts on gasoline (such as futures contracts for diesel-heating oil, natural gas, and other petroleum-based fuels) and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, it will enter into various non-exchange-traded derivative contracts to hedge the short-term price movements of such Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments against the current Benchmark Futures Contract.
USCF does not anticipate letting UGA’s Futures Contracts expire and taking delivery of the underlying commodity. Instead, USCF closes existing positions, e.g., when it changes the Benchmark Futures Contract or Other Gasoline-Related Investments or it otherwise determines it would be appropriate to do so and reinvests the proceeds in new Futures Contracts or Other Gasoline-Related Investments. Positions may also be closed out to meet orders for Redemption Baskets and in such case proceeds for such baskets will not be reinvested.
What is the Gasoline Market and the Petroleum-Based Fuel Market?
UGA may purchase Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX that are based on gasoline. The ICE Futures also offers an RBOB Gasoline Futures Contract which trades in units of 42,000 U.S. gallons (1,000 barrels). The RBOB Gasoline Futures Contract is cash settled against the prevailing market price for RBOB gasoline in the New York harbor. It may also purchase contracts on other exchanges, including the ICE Futures, the Singapore Exchange and the Dubai Mercantile Exchange.
Gasoline. Gasoline is the largest single volume refined product sold in the U.S. and accounts for almost half of national oil consumption. The gasoline futures contract listed and traded on the NYMEX trades in units of 42,000 gallons (1,000 barrels) and is based on delivery at petroleum products terminals in the New York harbor, the major East Coast trading center for imports and domestic shipments from refineries in the New York harbor area or from the Gulf Coast refining centers. The price of gasoline has historically been volatile.
Light, Sweet Crude Oil. Light, sweet crudes are preferred by refiners because of their low sulfur content and relatively high yields of high-value products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, diesel-heating oil, and jet fuel. The price of light, sweet crude oil has historically exhibited periods of significant volatility.
Demand for petroleum products by consumers, as well as agricultural, manufacturing and transportation industries, determines demand for crude oil by refiners. Since the precursors of product demand are linked to economic activity, crude oil demand will tend to reflect economic conditions. However, other factors such as weather also influence product and crude oil demand.
Crude oil supply is determined by both economic and political factors. Oil prices (along with drilling costs, availability of attractive prospects for drilling, taxes and technology, among other factors) determine exploration and development spending, which influence output capacity with a lag. In the short run, production decisions by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”) also affect supply and prices. Oil export embargoes and the current conflicts in the Middle East represent other routes through which political developments move the market. It is not possible to predict the aggregate effect of all or any combination of these factors.
Diesel-Heating Oil. Diesel-heating oil, also known as No. 2 fuel oil, accounts for 25% of the yield of a barrel of crude oil, the second largest “cut” from oil after gasoline. The heating oil futures contract listed and traded on the NYMEX trades in units of 42,000 gallons (1,000 barrels) and is based on delivery in the New York harbor, the principal cash market center. The ICE Futures also offers a Diesel-Heating Oil Futures Contract which trades in units of 42,000 U.S. gallons (1,000 barrels). The Diesel-Heating Oil Futures Contract is cash-settled against the prevailing market price for heating oil delivered to the New York Harbor.
Natural Gas. Natural gas accounts for almost a quarter of U.S. energy consumption. The natural gas futures contract listed and traded on the NYMEX trades in units of 10,000 million British thermal units and is based on delivery at the Henry Hub in Louisiana, the nexus of 16 intra- and interstate natural gas pipeline systems that draw supplies from the region’s prolific gas deposits. The pipelines serve markets throughout the U.S. East Coast, the Gulf Coast, the Midwest, and up to the Canadian border. The price of natural gas has historically been volatile.
What are Futures Contracts?
Futures Contracts are agreements between two parties. One party agrees to buy a commodity such as gasoline from the other party at a later date at a price and quantity agreed-upon when the contract is made. Futures Contracts are traded on futures exchanges, including the NYMEX. For example, the Benchmark Futures Contract is traded on the NYMEX in units of 42,000 gallons (1,000 barrels). Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX are priced by floor brokers and other exchange members both through an “open outcry” of offers to purchase or sell the contracts and through an electronic, screen-based system that determines the price by matching electronically offers to purchase and sell. Additional risks of investing in Futures Contracts are included in “Item 1A.
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
The following risk factors should be read in connection with the other information included in this annual report on Form 10-K, including Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and UGA’s financial statements and the related notes.
UGA’s investment objective is for the daily percentage change in the net asset value (“NAV”) per share to reflect the daily percentage changes of the spot price of unleaded gasoline, as measured by the daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract, less UGA’s expenses. UGA seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing in a combination of Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments such that the daily changes in its NAV, measured in percentage terms, will closely track the changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract, also measured in percentage terms. UGA’s investment strategy is designed to provide investors with a cost-effective way to invest indirectly in unleaded gasoline and to hedge against movements in the spot price of unleaded gasoline. An investment in UGA involves investment risk similar to a direct investment in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, and correlation risk, or the risk that investors purchasing shares to hedge against movements in the price of unleaded gasoline will have an efficient hedge only if the price they pay for their shares closely correlates with the price of unleaded gasoline. In addition to investment risk and correlation risk, an investment in UGA involves tax risks, over-the-counter risks, and other risks.
Investment Risk
The net asset value of UGA’s shares relates directly to the value of the Benchmark Futures Contracts and other assets held by UGA and fluctuations in the prices of these assets could materially adversely affect an investment in UGA’s shares.
The net assets of UGA consist primarily of investments in Futures Contracts and, to a lesser extent, in Other Gasoline-Related Investments. The NAV of UGA’s shares relates directly to the value of these assets (less liabilities, including accrued but unpaid expenses), which in turn relates to the price of unleaded gasoline in the marketplace. Unleaded gasoline prices depend on local, regional and global events or conditions that affect supply and demand for oil.
Economic conditions. The demand for unleaded gasoline correlates closely with general economic growth rates. The occurrence of recessions or other periods of low or negative economic growth will typically have a direct adverse impact on unleaded gasoline prices. Other factors that affect general economic conditions in the world or in a major region, such as changes in population growth rates, periods of civil unrest, government austerity programs, or currency exchange rate fluctuations, can also impact the demand for unleaded gasoline. Sovereign debt downgrades, defaults, inability to access debt markets due to credit or legal constraints, liquidity crises, the breakup or restructuring of fiscal, monetary, or political systems such as the European Union, and other events or conditions that impair the functioning of financial markets and institutions also may adversely impact the demand for unleaded gasoline.
Other demand-related factors. Other factors that may affect the demand for unleaded gasoline and therefore its price, include technological improvements in energy efficiency; seasonal weather patterns, which affect the demand for unleaded gasoline associated with heating and cooling; increased competitiveness of alternative energy sources that have so far generally not been competitive with oil without the benefit of government subsidies or mandates; and changes in technology or consumer preferences that alter fuel choices, such as toward alternative fueled vehicles.
Other supply-related factors. Unleaded gasoline prices also vary depending on a number of factors affecting supply. For example, increased supply from the development of new oil supply sources and technologies to enhance recovery from existing sources tends to reduce unleaded gasoline prices to the extent such supply increases are not offset by commensurate growth in demand. Similarly, increases in industry refining or petrochemical manufacturing capacity may impact the supply of unleaded gasoline. World oil supply levels can also be affected by factors that reduce available supplies, such as adherence by member countries to OPEC production quotas and the occurrence of wars, hostile actions, natural disasters, disruptions in competitors’ operations, or unexpected unavailability of distribution channels that may disrupt supplies. Technological change can also alter the relative costs for companies in the petroleum industry to find, produce, and refine oil and to manufacture petrochemicals, which in turn may affect the supply of and demand for gasoline.
Other market factors. The supply of and demand for unleaded gasoline may also be impacted by changes in interest rates, inflation, and other local or regional market conditions.
Correlation Risk
Investors purchasing shares to hedge against movements in the price of unleaded gasoline will have an efficient hedge only if the price they pay for their shares closely correlates with the price of unleaded gasoline. Investing in UGA’s shares for hedging purposes involves the following risks:
·The market price at which the investor buys or sells shares may be significantly less or more than NAV.
·Daily percentage changes in NAV may not closely correlate with daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.
·Daily percentage changes in the prices of the Benchmark Futures Contract may not closely correlate with daily percentage changes in the price of unleaded gasoline.
The market price at which investors buy or sell shares may be significantly less or more than net asset value.
UGA’s NAV per share will change throughout the day as fluctuations occur in the market value of UGA’s portfolio investments. The public trading price at which an investor buys or sells shares during the day from their broker may be different from the NAV of the shares. Price differences may relate primarily to supply and demand forces at work in the secondary trading market for shares that are closely related to, but not identical to, the same forces influencing the prices of the unleaded gasoline and the Benchmark Futures Contract at any point in time. USCF expects that exploitation of certain arbitrage opportunities by Authorized Participants and their clients and customers will tend to cause the public trading price to track NAV per share closely over time, but there can be no assurance of that.
The NAV of UGA’s shares may also be influenced by non-concurrent trading hours between the NYSE Arca and the various futures exchanges on which unleaded gasoline is traded. While the shares trade on the NYSE Arca from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, the trading hours for the futures exchanges on which sweet, light unleaded gasoline trade may not necessarily coincide during all of this time. For example, while the shares trade on the NYSE Arca until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, liquidity in the global gasoline market will be reduced after the close of the NYMEX at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time. As a result, during periods when the NYSE Arca is open and the futures exchanges on which unleaded gasoline is traded are closed, trading spreads and the resulting premium or discount on the shares may widen and, therefore, increase the difference between the price of the shares and the NAV of the shares.
Daily percentage changes in UGA’s net asset value may not correlate with daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.
It is possible that the daily percentage changes in UGA’s NAV per share may not closely correlate to daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. Non-correlation may be attributable to disruptions in the market for unleaded gasoline, the imposition of position or accountability limits by regulators or exchanges, or other extraordinary circumstances. As UGA approaches or reaches position limits with respect to the Benchmark Futures Contract and other Futures Contracts or in view of market conditions, UGA may begin investing in Other Gasoline-Related Investments. In addition, UGA is not able to replicate exactly the changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract because the total return generated by UGA is reduced by expenses and transaction costs, including those incurred in connection with UGA’s trading activities, and increased by interest income from UGA’s holdings of Treasury securities. Tracking the Benchmark Futures Contract requires trading of UGA’s portfolio with a view to tracking the Benchmark Futures Contract over time and is dependent upon the skills of USCF and its trading principals, among other factors.
Daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract may not correlate with daily percentage changes in the spot price of unleaded gasoline.
The correlation between changes in prices of the Benchmark Futures Contract and the spot price of unleaded gasoline may at times be only approximate. The degree of imperfection of correlation depends upon circumstances such as variations in the speculative gasoline market, supply of and demand for Futures Contracts (including the Benchmark Futures Contract) and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, and technical influences in oil futures trading.
Natural forces in the oil futures market known as “backwardation” and “contango” may increase UGA’s tracking error and/or negatively impact total return.
The design of UGA’s Benchmark Futures Contract is such that every month it begins by using the near month contract to expire until the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, when, over a four day period, it transitions to the next month contract to expire as its benchmark contract and keeps that contract as its benchmark until it becomes the near month contract and close to expiration. In the event of an unleaded gasoline futures market where near month contracts trade at a higher price than next month to expire contracts, a situation described as “backwardation” in the futures market, then absent the impact of the overall movement in unleaded gasoline prices the value of the benchmark contract would tend to rise as it approaches expiration. Conversely, in the event of a unleaded gasoline futures market where near month contracts trade at a lower price than next month contracts, a situation described as “contango” in the futures market, then absent the impact of the overall movement in unleaded gasoline prices the value of the benchmark contract would tend to decline as it approaches expiration. When compared to total return of other price indices, such as the spot price of unleaded gasoline, the impact of backwardation and contango may cause the total return of UGA’s per share NAV to vary significantly. Moreover, absent the impact of rising or falling gasoline prices, a prolonged period of contango could have a significant negative impact on UGA’s per share NAV and total return and investors could lose part or all of their investment. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in this annual report on Form 10-K for a discussion of the potential effects of contango and backwardation.
Accountability levels, position limits, and daily price fluctuation limits set by the exchanges have the potential to cause tracking error, which could cause the price of shares to substantially vary from the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.
Designated contract markets, such as the NYMEX and ICE Futures, have established accountability levels and position limits on the maximum net long or net short futures contracts in commodity interests that any person or group of persons under common trading control (other than as a hedge, which an investment by UGA is not) may hold, own or control. In addition to accountability levels and position limits, the NYMEX and ICE Futures also set daily price fluctuation limits on futures contracts. The daily price fluctuation limit establishes the maximum amount that the price of a futures contract may vary either up or down from the previous day’s settlement price. Once the daily price fluctuation limit has been reached in a particular futures contract, no trades may be made at a price beyond that limit.
On November 5, 2013, the CFTC proposed a rulemaking that would establish specific limits on speculative positions in 28 physical commodity futures and option contracts as well as swaps that are economically equivalent to such contracts in the agriculture, energy and metals markets (the “Position Limit Rules”). On the same date, the CFTC proposed another rule addressing the circumstances under which market participants would be required to aggregate their positions with other persons under common ownership or control (the “Proposed Aggregation Requirements”). Specifically, the Position Limit Rules, among other things: identify which contracts are subject to speculative position limits; set thresholds that restrict the number of speculative positions that a person may hold in a spot month, individual month, and all months combined; create an exemption for positions that constitute bona fide hedging transactions; impose responsibilities on DCMs and SEFs to establish position limits or, in some cases, position accountability rules; and apply to both futures and swaps across four relevant venues - OTC, DCMs, SEFs as well as non-U.S. located trading platforms.
Until such time as the Position Limit Rules are adopted, the regulatory architecture in effect prior to the adoption of the Position Limit Rules will govern transactions in commodities and related derivatives (collectively, “Referenced Contracts”). Under that system, the CFTC enforces federal limits on speculation in agricultural products (e.g., corn, wheat and soy), while futures exchanges enforce position limits and accountability levels for agricultural and certain energy products (e.g., oil and natural gas). As a result, UGA may be limited with respect to the size of its investments in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investment subject to these limits. Finally, subject to certain narrow exceptions, the Position Limit Rules require the aggregation, for purposes of the position limits, of all positions in the 28 Referenced Contracts held by a single entity and its affiliates, regardless of whether such position existed on U.S. futures exchanges, non-U.S. futures exchanges, in cleared swaps or in over-the-counter swaps. Under the CFTC’s existing position limits requirements and the Position Limit Rules, a market participant is generally required to aggregate all positions for which that participant controls the trading decisions with all positions for which that participant has a ten percent (10%) or greater ownership interest in an account or position, as well as the positions of two or more persons acting pursuant to an express or implied agreement or understanding. At this time, it is unclear how the Proposed Aggregation Requirements may affect UGA, but it may be substantial and adverse. By way of example, the Proposed Aggregation Requirements in combination with the Position Limit Rules may negatively impact the ability of UGA to meet its investment objectives through limits that may inhibit USCF’s ability to sell additional Creation Baskets of UGA.
All of these limits may potentially cause a tracking error between the price of UGA’s shares and the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. This may in turn prevent investors from being able to effectively use UGA as a way to hedge against gasoline-related losses or as a way to indirectly invest in unleaded gasoline.
UGA has not limited the size of its offering and is committed to utilizing substantially all of its proceeds to purchase Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments. If UGA encounters accountability levels, position limits, or price fluctuation limits for Futures Contracts on the NYMEX or ICE Futures, it may then, if permitted under applicable regulatory requirements, purchase Futures Contracts on other exchanges that trade listed unleaded gasoline futures. In addition, if UGA exceeds accountability levels on either the NYMEX or ICE Futures and is required by such exchanges to reduce its holdings, such reduction could potentially cause a tracking error between the price of UGA’s shares and the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.
Tax Risk
An investor’s tax liability may exceed the amount of distributions, if any, on its shares.
Cash or property will be distributed at the sole discretion of USCF. USCF has not and does not currently intend to make cash or other distributions with respect to shares. Investors will be required to pay U.S. federal income tax and, in some cases, state, local, or foreign income tax, on their allocable share of UGA’s taxable income, without regard to whether they receive distributions or the amount of any distributions. Therefore, the tax liability of an investor with respect to its shares may exceed the amount of cash or value of property (if any) distributed.
An investor’s allocable share of taxable income or loss may differ from its economic income or loss on its shares.
Due to the application of the assumptions and conventions applied by UGA in making allocations for tax purposes and other factors, an investor’s allocable share of UGA’s income, gain, deduction or loss may be different than its economic profit or loss from its shares for a taxable year. This difference could be temporary or permanent and, if permanent, could result in it being taxed on amounts in excess of its economic income.
Items of income, gain, deduction, loss and credit with respect to shares could be reallocated if the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) does not accept the assumptions and conventions applied by UGA in allocating those items, with potential adverse consequences for an investor.
The U.S. tax rules pertaining to partnerships are complex and their application to large, publicly traded partnerships such as UGA is in many respects uncertain. UGA applies certain assumptions and conventions in an attempt to comply with the intent of the applicable rules and to report taxable income, gains, deductions, losses and credits in a manner that properly reflects shareholders’ economic gains and losses. These assumptions and conventions may not fully comply with all aspects of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) and applicable Treasury Regulations, however, and it is possible that the IRS will successfully challenge UGA’s allocation methods and require UGA to reallocate items of income, gain, deduction, loss or credit in a manner that adversely affects investors. If this occurs, investors may be required to file an amended tax return and to pay additional taxes plus deficiency interest.
UGA could be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, which may substantially reduce the value of the shares.
UGA has received an opinion of counsel that, under current U.S. federal income tax laws, UGA will be treated as a partnership that is not taxable as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, provided that (i) at least 90 percent of UGA’s annual gross income consists of “qualifying income” as defined in the Code, (ii) UGA is organized and operated in accordance with its governing agreements and applicable law and (iii) UGA does not elect to be taxed as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. Although USCF anticipates that UGA has satisfied and will continue to satisfy the “qualifying income” requirement for all of its taxable years, that result cannot be assured. UGA has not requested and will not request any ruling from the IRS with respect to its classification as a partnership not taxable as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. If the IRS were to successfully assert that UGA is taxable as a corporation for federal income tax purposes in any taxable year, rather than passing through its income, gains, losses and deductions proportionately to shareholders, UGA would be subject to tax on its net income for the year at corporate tax rates. In addition, although USCF does not currently intend to make distributions with respect to shares, any distributions would be taxable to shareholders as dividend income. Taxation of UGA as a corporation could materially reduce the after-tax return on an investment in shares and could substantially reduce the value of the shares.
UGA is organized and operated as a limited partnership in accordance with the provisions of the LP Agreement and applicable state law, and therefore, UGA has a more complex tax treatment than traditional mutual funds.
UGA is organized and operated as a limited partnership in accordance with the provisions of the LP Agreement and applicable state law. No U.S. federal income tax is paid by UGA on its income. Instead, UGA will furnish shareholders each year with tax information on IRS Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) and each U.S. shareholder is required to report on its U.S. federal income tax return its allocable share of the income, gain, loss and deduction of UGA.
This must be reported without regard to the amount (if any) of cash or property the shareholder receives as a distribution from UGA during the taxable year. A shareholder, therefore, may be allocated income or gain by UGA but receive no cash distribution with which to pay the tax liability resulting from the allocation, or may receive a distribution that is insufficient to pay such liability.
In addition to federal income taxes, shareholders may be subject to other taxes, such as state and local income taxes, unincorporated business taxes, business franchise taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that may be imposed by the various jurisdictions in which UGA does business or owns property or where the shareholders reside. Although an analysis of those various taxes is not presented here, each prospective shareholder should consider their potential impact on its investment in UGA. It is each shareholder’s responsibility to file the appropriate U.S. federal, state, local and foreign tax returns.
Over-the-Counter Contract Risk
Currently, over-the-counter transactions are subject to changing regulation.
A portion of UGA’s assets may be used to trade over-the-counter Gasoline Interests, such as forward contracts or swap or spot contracts. Over-the-counter contracts are typically contracts traded on a principal-to-principal, non-cleared basis through dealer markets that are dominated by major money center and investment banks and other institutions. The markets for over-the-counter contracts rely upon the integrity of market participants in lieu of the additional regulation imposed by the CFTC on participants in the futures markets. While certain regulations adopted over the past two years are intended to provide additional protections to participants in the over-the-counter market, the current regulation of the over-the-counter contracts could expose UGA in certain circumstances to significant losses in the event of trading abuses or financial failure by participants. As a result of such regulations, if UGA enters into certain interest rate and credit default swaps, such swaps will be required to be centrally cleared. Determination on other types of swaps are expected in the future, and, when finalized, could require UGA to centrally clear certain over-the-counter instruments presently entered into and settled on a bi-lateral basis. See “Item 1. Business - Regulation” for a discussion of how the over-the-counter market will be subject to much more extensive regulatory oversight.
UGA will be subject to credit risk with respect to counterparties to over-the-counter contracts entered into by UGA or held by special purpose or structured vehicles.
UGA faces the risk of non-performance by the counterparties to the over-the-counter contracts. Unlike in futures contracts, the counterparty to these contracts is generally a single bank or other financial institution, rather than a clearing organization backed by a group of financial institutions. As a result, there will be greater counterparty credit risk in these transactions. A counterparty may not be able to meet its obligations to UGA, in which case UGA could suffer significant losses on these contracts.
If a counterparty becomes bankrupt or otherwise fails to perform its obligations due to financial difficulties, UGA may experience significant delays in obtaining any recovery in a bankruptcy or other reorganization proceeding. UGA may obtain only limited recovery or may obtain no recovery in such circumstances.
Valuing over-the-counter derivatives may be less certain that actively traded financial instruments.
In general, valuing over-the-counter derivatives is less certain than valuing actively traded financial instruments such as exchange traded futures contracts and securities or cleared swaps because the price and terms on which such over-the-counter derivatives are entered into or can be terminated are individually negotiated, and those prices and terms may not reflect the best price or terms available from other sources. In addition, while market makers and dealers generally quote indicative prices or terms for entering into or terminating over-the-counter contracts, they typically are not contractually obligated to do so, particularly if they are not a party to the transaction. As a result, it may be difficult to obtain an independent value for an outstanding over-the-counter derivatives transaction.
Other Risks
Certain of UGA’s investments could be illiquid, which could cause large losses to investors at any time or from time to time.
Futures positions cannot always be liquidated at the desired price. It is difficult to execute a trade at a specific price when there is a relatively small volume of buy and sell orders in a market. A market disruption, such as a foreign government taking political actions that disrupt the market for its currency, its unleaded gasoline production or exports, or another major export, can also make it difficult to liquidate a position. Because both Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments may be illiquid, UGA's Gasoline Interests may be more difficult to liquidate at favorable prices in periods of illiquid markets and losses may be incurred during the period in which positions are being liquidated. The large size of the positions that UGA may acquire increases the risk of illiquidity both by making its positions more difficult to liquidate and by potentially increasing losses while trying to do so.
Over-the-counter contracts that are not subject to clearing may be even less marketable than futures contracts because they are not traded on an exchange, do not have uniform terms and conditions, and are entered into based upon the creditworthiness of the parties and the availability of credit support, such as collateral, and in general, they are not transferable without the consent of the counterparty. These conditions make such contracts less liquid than standardized futures contracts traded on a commodities exchange and could adversely impact UGA’s ability to realize the full value of such contracts. In addition, even if collateral is used to reduce counterparty credit risk, sudden changes in the value of over-the-counter transactions may leave a party open to financial risk due to a counterparty default since the collateral held may not cover a party’s exposure on the transaction in such situations.
UGA is not actively managed and tracks the Benchmark Futures Contract during periods in which the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract is flat or declining as well as when the price is rising.
UGA is not actively managed by conventional methods. Accordingly, if UGA’s investments in Gasoline Interests are declining in value, UGA will not close out such positions except in connection with paying the proceeds to an Authorized Participant upon the redemption of a basket or closing out futures positions in connection with the monthly change in the Benchmark Futures Contract. USCF will seek to cause the NAV of UGA’s shares to track the Benchmark Futures Contract during periods in which its price is flat or declining as well as when the price is rising.
The NYSE Arca may halt trading in UGA’s shares, which would adversely impact an investor’s ability to sell shares.
UGA’s shares are listed for trading on the NYSE Arca under the market symbol “UGA.” Trading in shares may be halted due to market conditions or, in light of NYSE Arca rules and procedures, for reasons that, in the view of the NYSE Arca, make trading in shares inadvisable. In addition, trading is subject to trading halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to “circuit breaker” rules that require trading to be halted for a specified period based on a specified market decline. Additionally, there can be no assurance that the requirements necessary to maintain the listing of UGA’s shares will continue to be met or will remain unchanged.
The lack of an active trading market for UGA’s shares may result in losses on an investor’s investment in UGA at the time the investor sells the shares.
Although UGA’s shares are listed and traded on the NYSE Arca, there can be no guarantee that an active trading market for the shares will be maintained. If an investor needs to sell shares at a time when no active trading market for them exists, the price the investor receives upon sale of the shares, assuming they were able to be sold, likely would be lower than if an active market existed.
USCF is leanly staffed and relies heavily on key personnel to manage UGA and other funds.
USCF was formed to be the sponsor and manager of investment vehicles such as UGA and has been managing such investment vehicles since April 2006. Since April 2006, the Chief Investment Officer and Chief Financial Officer have been managing and directing the day-to-day activities and affairs of UGA. Since January 2015, Mr. Gerber has assumed a more active role in the day-to-day activities of USCF, UGA and the Related Public Funds. The Chief Investment Officer has resigned effective May 1, 2015. Mr. Gerber has stated that it is his intent to not replace the Chief Investment Officer’s position, but to utilize current and future staff to fill any material gaps that may ensue from the Chief Investment Officer’s departure. There is a risk that not replacing the Chief Investment Officer may have a material adverse effect on the management and/or financial results of UGA.
The Fifth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of USCF (the “LLC Agreement”) provides limited authority to the Non-Management Directors, and any Director of USCF may be removed by USCF’s parent company, which is a closely-held private company where the majority of shares has historically been voted by one person.
USCF’s Board of Directors currently consists of three Management Directors, each of whom are shareholders of USCF’s parent, Wainwright Holdings, Inc. (“Wainwright”), and three Non-Management Directors, each of whom are considered independent for purposes of applicable NYSE Arca and SEC rules. Under USCF’s LLC Agreement, the Non-Management Directors have only such authority as the Management Directors expressly confer upon them, which means that the Non-Management Directors may have less authority to control the actions of the Management Directors than is typically the case with the independent members of a company’s Board of Directors. In addition, any Director may be removed by written consent of Wainwright, which is the sole member of USCF. Wainwright is a privately held company in which the majority of shares are held by or on behalf of Nicholas D. Gerber and his immediate family members (the “Gerber Family”). Historically, shares of Wainwright have been voted by, and on behalf of, the Gerber Family by Nicholas D. Gerber, and it is anticipated that such trend will continue in the future. Accordingly, although USCF is governed by the USCF Board of Directors, which consists of both Management Directors and Non-Management Directors, pursuant to the LLC Agreement, it is possible for Mr. Gerber to exercise his control of Wainwright to effect the removal of any Director (including the Non-Management Directors which comprise the Audit Committee) and to replace that Director with another Director. Having control in one person could have a negative impact on USCF and UGA, including their regulatory obligations.
There is a risk that UGA will not earn trading gains sufficient to compensate for the fees and expenses that it must pay and as such UGA may not earn any profit.
UGA pays brokerage charges of approximately 0.10% of average total net assets based on brokerage fees of $3.50 per buy or sell, management fees of 0.60% of NAV on its average net assets, and over-the-counter spreads and extraordinary expenses (e.g., subsequent offering expenses, other expenses not in the ordinary course of business, including the indemnification of any person against liabilities and obligations to the extent permitted by law and required under the LP Agreement and under agreements entered into by USCF on UGA’s behalf and the bringing and defending of actions at law or in equity and otherwise engaging in the conduct of litigation and the incurring of legal expenses and the settlement of claims and litigation) that cannot be quantified.
These fees and expenses must be paid in all cases regardless of whether UGA’s activities are profitable. Accordingly, UGA must earn trading gains sufficient to compensate for these fees and expenses before it can earn any profit.
Regulation of the commodity interests and energy markets is extensive and constantly changing; future regulatory developments are impossible to predict but may significantly and adversely affect UGA.
The futures markets are subject to comprehensive statutes, regulations, and margin requirements. In addition, the CFTC and futures exchanges are authorized to take extraordinary actions in the event of a market emergency, including, for example, the retroactive implementation of speculative position limits or higher margin requirements, the establishment of daily price limits and the suspension of trading. Regulation of commodity interest transactions in the United States is a rapidly changing area of law and is subject to ongoing modification by governmental and judicial action. Considerable regulatory attention has been focused on non-traditional investment pools that are publicly distributed in the United States. In addition, various national governments outside of the United States have expressed concern regarding the disruptive effects of speculative trading in the energy markets and the need to regulate the derivatives markets in general. The effect of any future regulatory change on UGA is impossible to predict, but it could be substantial and adverse. For a more detailed discussion of the regulations to be imposed by the CFTC and the SEC and the potential impacts thereof on UGA, please see “Item 1. Business - Regulation” in this annual report on Form 10-K.
An investment in UGA may provide little or no diversification benefits. Thus, in a declining market, UGA may have no gains to offset losses from other investments, and an investor may suffer losses on an investment in UGA while incurring losses with respect to other asset classes.
Historically, Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments have generally been non-correlated to the performance of other asset classes such as stocks and bonds. Non-correlation means that there is a low statistically valid relationship between the performance of futures and other commodity interest transactions, on the one hand, and stocks or bonds, on the other hand.
However, there can be no assurance that such non-correlation will continue during future periods. If, contrary to historic patterns, UGA's performance were to move in the same general direction as the financial markets, investors will obtain little or no diversification benefits from an investment in UGA’s shares. In such a case, UGA may have no gains to offset losses from other investments, and investors may suffer losses on their investment in UGA at the same time they incur losses with respect to other investments.
Variables such as drought, floods, weather, embargoes, tariffs and other political events may have a larger impact on unleaded gasoline prices and unleaded gasoline-linked instruments, including Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, than on traditional securities. These additional variables may create additional investment risks that subject UGA's investments to greater volatility than investments in traditional securities.
Non-correlation should not be confused with negative correlation, where the performance of two asset classes would be opposite of each other. There is no historical evidence that the spot price of unleaded gasoline and prices of other financial assets, such as stocks and bonds, are negatively correlated. In the absence of negative correlation, UGA cannot be expected to be automatically profitable during unfavorable periods for the stock market, or vice versa.
UGA is not a registered investment company so shareholders do not have the protections of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”).
UGA is not an investment company subject to the 1940 Act. Accordingly, investors do not have the protections afforded by that statute, which, for example, requires investment companies to have a majority of disinterested directors and regulates the relationship between the investment company and its investment manager.
Trading in international markets could expose UGA to credit and regulatory risk.
UGA invests primarily in Futures Contracts, a significant portion of which are traded on United States exchanges, including the NYMEX. However, a portion of UGA’s trades may take place on markets and exchanges outside the United States. Some non-U.S. markets present risks because they are not subject to the same degree of regulation as their U.S. counterparts. Trading in non-U.S. markets also leaves UGA susceptible to swings in the value of the local currency against the U.S. dollar. Additionally, trading on non-U.S. exchanges is subject to the risks presented by exchange controls, expropriation, increased tax burdens and exposure to local economic declines and political instability. An adverse development with respect to any of these variables could reduce the profit or increase the loss earned on trades in the affected international markets.
UGA and USCF may have conflicts of interest, which may permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of shareholders.
UGA is subject to actual and potential inherent conflicts involving USCF, various commodity futures brokers and Authorized Participants. USCF’s officers, directors and employees do not devote their time exclusively to UGA. These persons are directors, officers or employees of other entities that may compete with UGA for their services. They could have a conflict between their responsibilities to UGA and to those other entities. As a result of these and other relationships, parties involved with UGA have a financial incentive to act in a manner other than in the best interests of UGA and the shareholders. USCF has not established any formal procedure to resolve conflicts of interest. Consequently, investors are dependent on the good faith of the respective parties subject to such conflicts of interest to resolve them equitably. Although USCF attempts to monitor these conflicts, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for USCF to ensure that these conflicts do not, in fact, result in adverse consequences to the shareholders.
UGA may also be subject to certain conflicts with respect to the FCM, including, but not limited to, conflicts that result from receiving greater amounts of compensation from other clients, or purchasing opposite or competing positions on behalf of third party accounts traded through the FCM. In addition, USCF’s principals, officers, directors or employees may trade futures and related contracts for their own account. A conflict of interest may exist if their trades are in the same markets and at the same time as UGA trades using the clearing broker to be used by UGA. A potential conflict also may occur if USCF’s principals, officers, directors or employees trade their accounts more aggressively or take positions in their accounts which are opposite, or ahead of, the positions taken by UGA.
UGA could terminate at any time and cause the liquidation and potential loss of an investor’s investment and could upset the overall maturity and timing of an investor’s investment portfolio.
UGA may terminate at any time, regardless of whether UGA has incurred losses, subject to the terms of the LP Agreement. In particular, unforeseen circumstances, including the death, adjudication of incompetence, bankruptcy, dissolution, or removal of USCF as the general partner of UGA could cause UGA to terminate unless a majority interest of the limited partners within 90 days of the event elects to continue the partnership and appoints a successor general partner, or the affirmative vote of a majority in interest of the limited partners subject to certain conditions. However, no level of losses will require USCF to terminate UGA. UGA’s termination would cause the liquidation and potential loss of an investor’s investment. Termination could also negatively affect the overall maturity and timing of an investor’s investment portfolio.
UGA does not expect to make cash distributions.
UGA has not previously made any cash distributions and intends to reinvest any realized gains in additional Gasoline Interests rather than distributing cash to limited partners. Therefore, unlike mutual funds, commodity pools or other investment pools that actively manage their investments in an attempt to realize income and gains from their investing activities and distribute such income and gains to their investors, UGA generally does not expect to distribute cash to limited partners. An investor should not invest in UGA if the investor will need cash distributions from UGA to pay taxes on its share of income and gains of UGA, if any, or for any other reason. Nonetheless, although UGA does not intend to make cash distributions, the income earned from its investments held directly or posted as margin may reach levels that merit distribution, e.g., at levels where such income is not necessary to support its underlying investments in Gasoline Interests and investors adversely react to being taxed on such income without receiving distributions that could be used to pay such tax. If this income becomes significant then cash distributions may be made.
An unanticipated number of redemption requests during a short period of time could have an adverse effect on UGA’s net asset value.
If a substantial number of requests for redemption of Redemption Baskets are received by UGA during a relatively short period of time, UGA may not be able to satisfy the requests from UGA’s assets not committed to trading. As a consequence, it could be necessary to liquidate positions in UGA’s trading positions before the time that the trading strategies would otherwise dictate liquidation.
Proposed Money Market Reform
On July 23, 2014, the SEC adopted final rules governing the structure and operation of money market funds, in a release adopting amendments to Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act. The new rules will require institutional prime money market funds to price their shares using market-based values instead of the amortized cost method (i.e., to use a “floating NAV”). In addition, all money market funds will be able, and in certain cases will be required, to impose liquidity fees and temporarily suspend redemptions during periods of market stress, subject to certain board findings. Finally, the SEC also revised certain diversification provisions of Rule 2a-7, as well as provisions relating to stress testing. UGA currently invests in money market funds, as well as Treasuries with a maturity date of two years or less, as an investment for assets not used for margin or collateral in the Futures Contracts. It is unclear at this time what impact of money market reform would have on UGA’s ability to hedge risk, however, the imposition of a floating NAV could cause UGA to limit remaining assets solely in Treasuries and cash.
The failure or bankruptcy of a clearing broker or UGA’s Custodian could result in a substantial loss of UGA’s assets and could impair UGA in its ability to execute trades.
Under CFTC regulations, a clearing broker maintains customers’ assets in a bulk segregated account. If a clearing broker fails to do so, or even if the customers’ funds are segregated by the clearing broker but the clearing broker is unable to satisfy a substantial deficit in a customer account, the clearing broker’s other customers may be subject to risk of a substantial loss of their funds in the event of that clearing broker’s bankruptcy. In that event, the clearing broker’s customers, such as UGA, are entitled to recover, even in respect of property specifically traceable to them, only a proportional share of all property available for distribution to all of that clearing broker’s customers. The bankruptcy of a clearing broker could result in the complete loss of UGA’s assets posted with the clearing broker, although the majority of UGA’s assets are held in Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents with the Custodian and would not be impacted by the bankruptcy of a clearing broker. UGA may also be subject to the risk of the failure of, or delay in performance by, any exchanges and markets and their clearing organizations, if any, on which commodity interest contracts are traded.
In addition, to the extent UGA’s clearing broker is required to post UGA’s assets as margin to a clearinghouse, the margin will be maintained in an omnibus account containing the margin of all the clearing broker’s customers. If UGA’s clearing broker defaults to a clearinghouse because of a default by one of the clearing broker’s other customers or otherwise, then the clearinghouse can look to all of the margin in the omnibus account, including margin posted by UGA and any other non-defaulting customers of the clearing broker to satisfy the obligations of the clearing broker.
From time to time, clearing brokers may be subject to legal or regulatory proceedings in the ordinary course of their business. A clearing broker’s involvement in costly or time-consuming legal proceedings may divert financial resources or personnel away from the clearing broker’s trading operations, which could impair the clearing broker’s ability to successfully execute and clear UGA’s trades.
In addition, the majority of UGA’s assets are held in Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents with the Custodian. The insolvency of the Custodian could result in a complete loss of UGA’s assets held by that Custodian, which, at any given time, would likely comprise a substantial portion of UGA’s total assets.
Third parties may infringe upon or otherwise violate intellectual property rights or assert that USCF has infringed or otherwise violated their intellectual property rights, which may result in significant costs and diverted attention.
It is possible that third parties might utilize UGA’s intellectual property or technology, including the use of its business methods, trademarks and trading program software, without permission. USCF has a patent for UGA’s business method and has registered its trademarks. UGA does not currently have any proprietary software. However, if it obtains proprietary software in the future, any unauthorized use of UGA’s proprietary software and other technology could also adversely affect its competitive advantage. UGA may not have adequate resources to implement procedures for monitoring unauthorized uses of its patents, trademarks, proprietary software and other technology. Also, third parties may independently develop business methods, trademarks or proprietary software and other technology similar to that of USCF or claim that USCF has violated their intellectual property rights, including their copyrights, trademark rights, trade names, trade secrets and patent rights. As a result, USCF may have to litigate in the future to protect its trade secrets, determine the validity and scope of other parties’ proprietary rights, defend itself against claims that it has infringed or otherwise violated other parties’ rights, or defend itself against claims that its rights are invalid. Any litigation of this type, even if USCF is successful and regardless of the merits, may result in significant costs, divert its resources from UGA, or require it to change its proprietary software and other technology or enter into royalty or licensing agreements.
Item 1B.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
Not applicable.
Item 2.
Item 2. Properties.
Not applicable.
Item 3.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
Although UGA may, from time to time, be involved in litigation arising out of its operations in the normal course of business or otherwise, UGA is currently not a party to any pending material legal proceedings.
Item 4.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Not applicable.
Part II
Item 5.
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
Price Range of Shares
UGA’s shares have traded on the NYSE Arca under the symbol “UGA” since November 25, 2008. Prior to trading on the NYSE Arca, UGA’s shares traded on the AMEX under the symbol “UGA” since its initial public offering on February 26, 2008. The following table sets forth the range of reported high and low sales prices of the shares as reported on the AMEX and NYSE Arca, as applicable, for the periods indicated below.
As of December 31, 2014, UGA had approximately 5,251 holders of shares.
Dividends
UGA has not made and does not currently intend to make cash distributions to its shareholders.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
UGA does not purchase shares directly from its shareholders; however, in connection with its redemption of baskets held by Authorized Participants, UGA redeemed 7 baskets (comprising 350,000 shares) during the year ended December 31, 2014.
Item 6.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data.
Financial Highlights (for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010)
(Dollar amounts in 000’s except for per share information)
Item 7.
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and the notes thereto of UGA included elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K.
Forward-Looking Information
This annual report on Form 10-K, including this “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” contains forward-looking statements regarding the plans and objectives of management for future operations. This information may involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause UGA’s actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by any forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements, which involve assumptions and describe UGA’s future plans, strategies and expectations, are generally identifiable by use of the words “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “believe,” “intend” or “project,” the negative of these words, other variations on these words or comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions that may be incorrect, and UGA cannot assure investors that the projections included in these forward-looking statements will come to pass. UGA’s actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors.
UGA has based the forward-looking statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K on information available to it on the date of this annual report on Form 10-K, and UGA assumes no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. Although UGA undertakes no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, investors are advised to consult any additional disclosures that UGA may make directly to them or through reports that UGA in the future files with the SEC, including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K.
Introduction
UGA, a Delaware limited partnership, is a commodity pool that issues shares that may be purchased and sold on the NYSE Arca. The investment objective of UGA is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share NAV to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of gasoline, as measured by the daily changes, in percentage terms, in the price of the futures contract for unleaded gasoline (also known as reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygen blending, or “RBOB”, for delivery to the New York harbor), traded on the NYMEX that is the near month contract to expire, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case it will be measured by the futures contract that is the next month contract to expire (the “Benchmark Futures Contract”), less UGA’s expenses. “Near month contract” means the next contract traded on the NYMEX due to expire. “Next month contract” means the first contract traded on the NYMEX due to expire after the near month contract. It is not the intent of UGA to be operated in a fashion such that the per share NAV will equal, in dollar terms, the spot price of gasoline or any particular futures contract based on gasoline. It is not the intent of UGA to be operated in a fashion such that its per share NAV will reflect the percentage change of the price of any particular futures contract as measured over a time period greater than one day. USCF believes that it is not practical to manage the portfolio to achieve such an investment goal when investing in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments.
UGA seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing in a combination of Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments such that daily changes in its per share NAV, measured in percentage terms, will closely track the daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract, also measured in percentage terms. USCF believes the daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract have historically exhibited a close correlation with the daily changes in the spot price of gasoline.
On any valuation day, the Benchmark Futures Contract is the near month futures contract for gasoline traded on the NYMEX unless the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration in which case the Benchmark Futures Contract is the next month contract for gasoline traded on the NYMEX.
The regulation of commodity interest trading in the United States and other countries is an evolving area of the law. The various statements made in this summary are subject to modification by legislative action and changes in the rules and regulations of the CFTC, the NFA, the futures exchanges, clearing organizations and other regulatory bodies. Pending final resolution of all applicable regulatory requirements, some examples of how new rules and regulations could impact UGA are discussed in “Item 1. Business” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this annual report on Form 10-K.
Price Movements
Gasoline futures prices were volatile during the year ended December 31, 2014. The price of the Benchmark Futures Contract started the year at $2.7859 per gallon. Prices hit a peak on June 24, 2014 of $3.0965 per gallon. The low for the year was on December 29, 2014, when the prices dropped to $1.4670 per gallon. The year ended with the Benchmark Futures Contract at $1.4721 per gallon, down approximately 47.16% over the year (investors are cautioned that these represent prices for gasoline on a wholesale basis and should not be directly compared to retail prices at a gasoline service station). UGA’s per share NAV began the year at $59.89 and ended the year at $33.90 on December 31, 2014, a decrease of approximately 43.40% over the year. UGA’s per share NAV reached its high for the year on June 20, 2014 at $64.13 and reached its low for the year on December 29, 2014 at $33.79. The Benchmark Futures Contract prices listed above began with the February 2014 contract and ended with the February 2015 contract. The decrease of approximately 47.16% on the Benchmark Futures Contract listed above is a hypothetical return only and could not actually be achieved by an investor holding Futures Contracts. An investment in Futures Contracts would need to be rolled forward during the time period described in order to achieve such a result. Furthermore, the change in the nominal price of these differing Futures Contracts, measured from the start of the year to the end of the year, does not represent the actual benchmark results that UGA seeks to track, which are more fully described below in the section titled “Tracking UGA’s Benchmark.”
During the year ended December 31, 2014, the gasoline futures market exhibited periods of both contango and backwardation, with the market in backwardation the majority of the time. During periods of contango, the price of the near month gasoline Futures Contract was typically lower than the price of the next month gasoline Futures Contract, or contracts further away from expiration. On days when the market was in backwardation, the price of the near month gasoline Futures Contract was typically higher than the price of the next month gasoline Futures Contract, or contracts further away from expiration. For a discussion of the impact of backwardation and contango on total returns, see “Term Structure of Gasoline Prices and the Impact on Total Returns” below.
Valuation of Futures Contracts and the Computation of the Per Share NAV
The per share NAV of UGA’s shares is calculated once each NYSE Arca trading day. The per share NAV for a particular trading day is released after 4:00 p.m. New York time. Trading during the core trading session on the NYSE Arca typically closes at 4:00 p.m. New York time. The Administrator uses the NYMEX closing price (determined at the earlier of the close of the NYMEX or 2:30 p.m. New York time) for the contracts held on the NYMEX, but calculates or determines the value of all other UGA investments, including ICE Futures contracts or other futures contracts, as of the earlier of the close of the NYSE Arca or 4:00 p.m. New York time.
Results of Operations and the Gasoline Market
Results of Operations. On February 26, 2008, UGA listed its shares on the AMEX under the ticker symbol “UGA.” On that day, UGA established its initial offering price at $50.00 per share and issued 300,000 shares to the initial Authorized Participant, Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Group, in exchange for $15,001,000 in cash. As a result of the acquisition of the AMEX by NYSE Euronext, UGA’s shares no longer trade on the AMEX and commenced trading on the NYSE Arca on November 25, 2008.
Since its initial offering of 30,000,000 shares, UGA has registered one subsequent offering of its shares: 50,000,000 shares which were registered with the SEC on April 30, 2010. As of December 31, 2014, UGA had issued 9,700,000 shares, 1,200,000 of which were outstanding. As of December 31, 2014, there were 70,300,000 shares registered but not yet issued.
More shares may have been issued by UGA than are outstanding due to the redemption of shares. Unlike funds that are registered under the 1940 Act, shares that have been redeemed by UGA cannot be resold by UGA. As a result, UGA contemplates that additional offerings of its shares will be registered with the SEC in the future in anticipation of additional issuances and redemptions.
As of December 31, 2014, UGA had the following Authorized Participants: Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., JP Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., NewEdge USA LLC, Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, Virtu Financial BD LLC and Virtu Financial Capital Markets.
For the Year Ended December 31, 2014 Compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2013; and for the Year Ended December 31, 2013 Compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2012
Portfolio Expenses. UGA’s expenses consist of investment management fees, brokerage fees and commissions, certain offering costs, licensing fees, the fees and expenses of the independent directors of USCF and expenses relating to tax accounting and reporting requirements. The management fee that UGA pays to USCF is calculated as a percentage of the total net assets of UGA. The fee is accrued daily and paid monthly.
The decrease in the per share NAV for December 31, 2014, compared to the year ended December 31, 2013, was a result of lower prices for gasoline and the related decrease in the value of the Benchmark Futures Contracts held and traded by UGA; and the increase in the per share NAV for the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to December 31, 2012, was a result of higher prices for gasoline and the related increase in the value of the Benchmark Futures Contracts held and traded by UGA.
UGA’s decrease in cash deposits and investments in Treasuries and money market funds for December 31, 2014, compared to year ended December 31, 2013; and for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to the year ended December 31, 2012, were the result of UGA’s smaller size as measured by total net assets.
Average interest rates on short-term investments held by UGA, including cash, cash equivalents and Treasuries, were similar during the year ended December 31, 2014, and were similar for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to 2012, as measured by total net assets.
The decrease in total fees and expenses excluding management fees for the year ended December 31, 2014, compared to the year ended December 31, 2013; and for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to year ended December 31, 2012, was due to UGA’s smaller size as measured by total net assets.
UGA’s total commissions accrued to brokers as a percentage of net assets for December 31, 2014, compared to the year ended December 31, 2013, was similar; and was also similar for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to December 31, 2012, as a percentage of net assets.
For the Three Months Ended December 31, 2014 Compared to the Three Months Ended December 31, 2013; and for the Three Months Ended December 31, 2013 Compared to the Three Months Ended December 31, 2012
Average interest rates earned on short-term investments held by UGA, including cash, cash equivalents and Treasuries, were similar during the three months ended December 31, 2014, compared to the three months ended December 31, 2013 and 2012; and during the three months ended December 31, 2014, compared to the three months ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, as measured by total net assets.
UGA’s total fees and other expenses excluding management fees for the three months ended December 31, 2014, compared to the three months ended December 31, 2013, were similar, as were the three months ended December 31, 2013, compared to the three months ended December 31, 2012.
The total commissions accrued to brokers by UGA for the three months ended December 31, 2014, compared to the three months ended December 31, 2013, were similar, as were the three months ended December 31, 2013, compared to the three months ended December 31, 2012, as measured by total net assets.
Tracking UGA’s Benchmark. USCF seeks to manage UGA’s portfolio such that average daily changes in its per share NAV, on a percentage basis, closely track the average daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract, also on a percentage basis. Specifically, USCF seeks to manage the portfolio such that over any rolling period of 30 valuation days, the average daily change in UGA’s per share NAV is within a range of 90% to 110% (0.9 to 1.1) of the average daily change in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. As an example, if the average daily movement of the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract for a particular 30-valuation day time period was 0.5% per day, USCF would attempt to manage the portfolio such that the average daily movement of the per share NAV during that same time period fell between 0.45% and 0.55% (i.e., between 0.9 and 1.1 of the benchmark’s results). UGA’s portfolio management goals do not include trying to make the nominal price of UGA’s per share NAV equal to the nominal price of the current Benchmark Futures Contract or the spot price for gasoline. USCF believes that it is not practical to manage the portfolio to achieve such an investment goal when investing in listed gasoline Futures Contracts, Other Gasoline-Related Investments.
For the 30 valuation days ended December 31, 2014, the simple average daily change in the Benchmark Futures Contract was (1.027)%, while the simple average daily change in the per share NAV of UGA over the same time period was (1.03)%. The average daily difference was (0.003)% (or (0.3) basis points, where 1 basis point equals 1/100 of 1%). As a percentage of the daily movement of the Benchmark Futures Contract, the average error in daily tracking by the per share NAV was (0.242)%, meaning that over this time period UGA’s tracking error was within the plus or minus 10% range established as its benchmark tracking goal. The first chart below shows the daily movement of UGA’s per share NAV versus the daily movement of the Benchmark Futures Contract for the 30-valuation day period ended December 31, 2014, the last trading day in December. The second chart below shows the monthly total returns of UGA as compared to the monthly value of the Benchmark Futures Contract for the five years ended December 31, 2014.
Since December 2009 to December 31, 2014, the simple average daily change in the Benchmark Futures Contract was 0.005%, while the simple average daily change in the per share NAV of UGA over the same time period was 0.002%. The average daily difference was (0.003)% (or (0.3) basis points, where 1 basis point equals 1/100 of 1%). As a percentage of the daily movement of the Benchmark Futures Contract, the average error in daily tracking by the per share NAV was (0.936)%, meaning that over this time period UGA’s tracking error was within the plus or minus 10% range established as its benchmark tracking goal.
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
An alternative tracking measurement of the return performance of UGA versus the return of its Benchmark Futures Contract can be calculated by comparing the actual return of UGA, measured by changes in its per share NAV, versus the expected changes in its per share NAV under the assumption that UGA’s returns had been exactly the same as the daily changes in its Benchmark Futures Contract.
For the year ended December 31, 2014, the actual total return of UGA as measured by changes in its per share NAV was (43.40)%. This is based on an initial per share NAV of $59.89 on December 31, 2013 and an ending per share NAV as of December 31, 2014 of $33.90. During this time period, UGA made no distributions to its shareholders. However, if UGA’s daily changes in its per share NAV had instead exactly tracked the changes in the daily total return of the Benchmark Futures Contract, UGA would have had an estimated per share NAV of $34.16 as of December 31, 2014, for a total return over the relevant time period of (42.96)%. The difference between the actual per share NAV total return of UGA of (43.40)% and the expected total return based on the Benchmark Futures Contract of (42.96)% was an error over the time period of (0.44)%, which is to say that UGA’s actual total return underperformed the benchmark result by that percentage. USCF believes that a portion of the difference between the actual total return and the expected benchmark total return can be attributed to the net impact of the expenses that UGA pays, offset in part by the income that UGA collects on its cash and cash equivalent holdings. During the year ended December 31, 2014, UGA earned dividend and interest income of $13,292, which is equivalent to a weighted average income rate of approximately 0.03% for such period. In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2014, UGA also collected $6,650 from its Authorized Participants for creating or redeeming baskets of shares. This income also contributed to UGA’s actual total return. During the year ended December 31, 2014, UGA incurred net expenses of $402,672. Income from dividends and interest and Authorized Participant collections net of expenses was $(382,730) which is equivalent to a weighted average net income rate of approximately (0.78)% for the year ended December 31, 2014.
By comparison, for the year ended December 31, 2013, the actual total return of UGA as measured by changes in its per share NAV was 2.57%. This is based on an initial per share NAV of $58.39 on December 31, 2012 and an ending per share NAV as of December 31, 2013 of $59.89. During this time period, UGA made no distributions to its shareholders. However, if UGA’s daily changes in its per share NAV had instead exactly tracked the changes in the daily total return of the Benchmark Futures Contract, UGA would have had an estimated per share NAV of $60.46 as of December 31, 2013, for a total return over the relevant time period of 3.54%. The difference between the actual per share NAV total return of UGA of 2.57% and the expected total return based on the Benchmark Futures Contract of 3.54% was an error over the time period of (0.97)%, which is to say that UGA’s actual total return underperformed the benchmark result by that percentage. USCF believes that a portion of the difference between the actual total return and the expected benchmark total return can be attributed to the net impact of the expenses that UGA pays, offset in part by the income that UGA collects on its cash and cash equivalent holdings. During the year ended December 31, 2013, UGA earned dividend and interest income of $14,479, which is equivalent to a weighted average income rate of approximately 0.02% for such period. In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2013, UGA also collected $5,600 from its Authorized Participants for creating or redeeming baskets of shares. This income also contributed to UGA’s actual total return. During the year ended December 31, 2013, UGA incurred net expenses of $546,537. Income from dividends and interest and Authorized Participant collections net of expenses was $(526,458) which is equivalent to a weighted average net income rate of approximately (0.90)% for the year ended December 31, 2013.
By comparison, for the year ended December 31, 2012, the actual total return of UGA as measured by changes in its per share NAV was 20.72%. This was based on an initial per share NAV of $48.37 on December 31, 2011 and an ending per share NAV as of December 31, 2012 of $58.39. During this time period, UGA made no distributions to its shareholders. However, if UGA’s daily changes in its per share NAV had instead exactly tracked the changes in the daily total return of the Benchmark Futures Contract, UGA would have had an estimated per share NAV of $58.89 as of December 31, 2012, for a total return over the relevant time period of 21.75%. The difference between the actual per share NAV total return of UGA of 20.72% and the expected total return based on the Benchmark Futures Contract of 21.75% was an error over the time period of (1.03)%, which is to say that UGA’s actual total return underperformed the benchmark result by that percentage. USCF believes that a portion of the difference between the actual total return and the expected benchmark total return can be attributed to the net impact of the expenses that UGA paid, offset in part by the income that UGA collected on its cash and cash equivalent holdings. In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2012, UGA earned dividend and interest income of $26,007, which is equivalent to a weighted average income rate of approximately 0.03% for such period. In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2012, UGA also collected $12,250 from its Authorized Participants for creating or redeeming baskets of shares. This income also contributed to UGA’s actual total return. During the year ended December 31, 2012, UGA incurred net expenses of $803,038. Income from dividends and interest and Authorized Participant collections net of expenses was $(764,781), which is equivalent to a weighted average net income rate of approximately (0.83)% for the year ended December 31, 2012.
There are currently three factors that have impacted or are most likely to impact UGA’s ability to accurately track its Benchmark Futures Contract.
First, UGA may buy or sell its holdings in the then current Benchmark Futures Contract at a price other than the closing settlement price of that contract on the day during which UGA executes the trade. In that case, UGA may pay a price that is higher, or lower, than that of the Benchmark Futures Contract, which could cause the daily changes in the per share NAV of UGA to either be too high or too low relative to the daily changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract. During the year ended December 31, 2014, USCF attempted to minimize the effect of these transactions by seeking to execute its purchase or sale of the Benchmark Futures Contract at, or as close as possible to, the end of the day settlement price. However, it may not always be possible for UGA to obtain the closing settlement price and there is no assurance that failure to obtain the closing settlement price in the future will not adversely impact UGA’s attempt to track the Benchmark Futures Contract over time.
Second, UGA incurs expenses primarily composed of the management fees, brokerage commissions for the buying and selling of futures contracts, and other expenses. The impact of these expenses tends to cause daily changes in the per share NAV of UGA to track slightly lower than daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. At the same time, UGA earns dividend and interest income on its cash, cash equivalents and Treasuries. UGA is not required to distribute any portion of its income to its shareholders and did not make any distributions to shareholders during the year ended December 31, 2014. Interest payments, and any other income, were retained within the portfolio and added to UGA’s NAV. When this income exceeds the level of UGA’s expenses for its management fee, brokerage commissions and other expenses (including ongoing registration fees, licensing fees and the fees and expenses of the independent directors of USCF), UGA will realize a net yield that will tend to cause daily changes in the per share NAV of UGA to track slightly higher than daily changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract. During the year ended December 31, 2014, UGA earned, on an annualized basis, approximately 0.03% on its cash and cash equivalent holdings. It also incurred cash expenses on an annualized basis of (0.60)% for management fees, approximately (0.08)% in brokerage commission costs related to the purchase and sale of futures contracts, and approximately (0.51)% for other expenses. The foregoing fees and expenses, net of other income and reimbursements, resulted in a net yield on an annualized basis of approximately (0.79)% and affected UGA’s ability to track its benchmark. If short-term interest rates rise above the current levels, the level of deviation created by the yield would decrease. Conversely, if short-term interest rates were to decline, the amount of error created by the yield would increase. When short-term yields drop to a level lower than the combined expenses of the management fee and the brokerage commissions, then the tracking error becomes a negative number and would tend to cause the daily returns of the per share NAV to underperform the daily returns of the Benchmark Futures Contract. USCF anticipates that interest rates will continue to remain at historical lows and, therefore, it is anticipated that fees and expenses paid by UGA will continue to be higher than interest earned by UGA. As such, USCF anticipates that UGA will continue to underperform its benchmark until such time when interest earned at least equals or exceeds the fees and expenses paid by UGA.
Third, UGA may hold Other Gasoline-Related Investments in its portfolio that may fail to closely track the Benchmark Futures Contract’s total return movements. In that case, the error in tracking the Benchmark Futures Contract could result in daily changes in the per share NAV of UGA that are either too high, or too low, relative to the daily changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract. During the year ended December 31, 2014, UGA did not hold any Other Gasoline-Related Investments. If UGA increases in size, and due to its obligations to comply with regulatory limits, UGA may invest in Other Gasoline-Related Investments which may have the effect of increasing transaction related expenses and may result in increased tracking error.
Term Structure of Gasoline Futures Prices and the Impact on Total Returns. Several factors determine the total return from investing in a futures contract position. One factor that impacts the total return that will result from investing in near month futures contracts and “rolling” those contracts forward each month is the price relationship between the current near month contract and the next month contract. For example, if the price of the near month contract is higher than the next month contract (a situation referred to as “backwardation” in the futures market), then absent any other change there is a tendency for the price of a next month contract to rise in value as it becomes the near month contract and approaches expiration. Conversely, if the price of a near month contract is lower than the next month contract (a situation referred to as “contango” in the futures market), then absent any other change there is a tendency for the price of a next month contract to decline in value as it becomes the near month contract and approaches expiration.
As an example, assume that the price of gasoline for immediate delivery (the “spot” price), was $2 per gallon, and the value of a position in the near month futures contract was also $2. Over time, the price of a gallon of gasoline will fluctuate based on a number of market factors, including demand for gasoline relative to its supply. The value of the near month contract will likewise fluctuate in reaction to a number of market factors. If investors seek to maintain their position in a near month contract and not take delivery of the gasoline, every month they must sell their current near month contract as it approaches expiration and invest in the next month contract.
If the futures market is in backwardation, e.g., when the expected price of gasoline in the future would be less, the investor would be buying a next month contract for a lower price than the current near month contract. Using the $2 per gallon price above to represent the front month price, the price of the next month contract could be $1.96 per barrel, that is, 2% cheaper than the front month contract. Hypothetically, and assuming no other changes to either prevailing gasoline prices or the price relationship between the spot price, the near month contract and the next month contract (and ignoring the impact of commission costs and the income earned on cash and/or cash equivalents), the value of the $1.96 next month contract would rise as it approaches expiration and becomes the new near month contract with a price of $2. In this example, the value of an investment in the second month contract would tend to rise faster than the spot price of gasoline, or fall slower. As a result, it would be possible in this hypothetical example for the spot price of gasoline to have risen 10% after some period of time, while the value of the investment in the second month futures contract would have risen 12%, assuming backwardation is large enough or enough time has elapsed. Similarly, the spot price of gasoline could have fallen 10% while the value of an investment in the futures contract could have fallen only 8%. Over time, if backwardation remained constant, the difference would continue to increase.
If the futures market is in contango, the investor would be buying a next month contract for a higher price than the current near month contract. Using again the $2 per gallon price above to represent the front month price, the price of the next month contract could be $2.04 per barrel, that is, 2% more expensive than the front month contract. Hypothetically, and assuming no other changes to either prevailing gasoline prices or the price relationship between the spot price, the near month contract and the next month contract (and ignoring the impact of commission costs and the income earned on cash and/or cash equivalents), the value of the next month contract would fall as it approaches expiration and becomes the new near month contract with a price of $2. In this example, it would mean that the value of an investment in the second month would tend to rise slower than the spot price of gasoline, or fall faster. As a result, it would be possible in this hypothetical example for the spot price of gasoline to have risen 10% after some period of time, while the value of the investment in the second month futures contract will have risen only 8%, assuming contango is large enough or enough time has elapsed. Similarly, the spot price of gasoline could have fallen 10% while the value of an investment in the second month futures contract could have fallen 12%. Over time, if contango remained constant, the difference would continue to increase.
The chart below compares the price of the near month contract to the price of the next month contract over the last 10 years for gasoline. When the price of the near month contract is higher than the price of the next month contract, the market would be described as being in backwardation. When the price of the near month contract is lower than the price of the next month contract, the market would be described as being in contango. Although the prices of the near month contract and the price of the next month contract do tend to move up or down together, it can be seen that at times the near month prices are clearly higher than the price of the next month contract (backwardation), and other times they are below the price of the next month contract (contango). In addition, investors can observe that gasoline prices, both near month and next month, often display a seasonal pattern in which the price of gasoline tends to rise in the summer months and decline in the winter months. This mirrors the physical demand for gasoline, which typically peaks in the summer.
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
An alternative way to view backwardation and contango data over time is to subtract the dollar price of the next month gasoline futures contract from the dollar price of the near month gasoline futures contract. If the resulting number is a positive number, then the price of the near month contract is higher than the price of the next month and the market could be described as being in backwardation. If the resulting number is a negative number, then the near month price is lower than the price of the next month and the market could be described as being in contango. The chart below shows the results from subtracting the next month contract price from the price of the near month contract for the 10 year period between December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2014. Investors will note that the near month gasoline futures contract spent time in both backwardation and contango.
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
While the investment objective of UGA is not to have the market price of its shares match, dollar for dollar, changes in the spot price of gasoline, contango and backwardation have impacted the total return on an investment in UGA shares during the past year relative to a hypothetical direct investment in gasoline. For example, an investment in UGA shares made on December 31, 2013 and held to December 31, 2014 decreased based upon the changes in the NAV for UGA shares on those days, by approximately (43.40)%, while the spot price of gasoline for immediate delivery during the same period decreased by (47.16)% (note: this comparison ignores the potential costs associated with physically owning and storing gasoline, which could be substantial). By comparison, an investment in UGA shares made on December 31, 2012 and held to December 31, 2013 increased based upon the changes in the NAV for UGA shares on those days, by approximately 2.57%, while the spot price of gasoline for immediate delivery during the same period increased by 0.88% (note: this comparison ignores the potential costs associated with physically owning and storing gasoline, which could be substantial).
Periods of contango or backwardation do not materially impact UGA’s investment objective of having the daily percentage changes in its per share NAV track the daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract since the impact of backwardation and contango tend to equally impact the daily percentage changes in price of both UGA’s shares and the Benchmark Futures Contract. It is impossible to predict with any degree of certainty whether backwardation or contango will occur in the future. It is likely that both conditions will occur during different periods.
Gasoline Market. During the year ended December 31, 2014, the price of unleaded gasoline in the United States was primarily impacted by sharply declining crude oil prices in the United States . The price of the Benchmark Futures Contract began 2014 at $2.7859 per gallon. Prices hit a peak on June 24, 2014 of $3.0965 per gallon before falling for the remainder of the year. The low for the year was on December 29, 2014, when the price dropped to $1.4670 per gallon. The year ended with the Benchmark Futures Contract at $1.4721 per gallon, down approximately (47.16)% over the year (investors are cautioned that these represent prices for gasoline on a wholesale basis and should not be directly compared to retail prices at a gasoline service station).
During the year ended December 31, 2014, crude oil prices were impacted by several factors. On the consumption side, demand growth remained moderate inside and outside the United States as global economic growth, including emerging economies such as China and India, showed signs of slow economic growth. Europe in particular showed signs of weakness as the ongoing financial and banking crisis raised concerns during the first quarter of 2013. On the supply side, efforts to reduce production in recent years by OPEC to more closely match global consumption were partially successful. However, continuing concerns about the political standoff with Iran have left the market subject to bouts of heightened volatility as OPEC’s ability to replace Iranian oil currently subject to embargo is not unlimited. In addition, security issues in Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Syria also contributed to heightened volatility. In recent years, oil production in the United States and Canada has increased. However, limits on oil transportation infrastructure, including pipelines, have made it more difficult for the increased production to move to the centers of refining, often leading to a build-up in crude oil inventory in areas of the United States, such as the U.S. Midwest, and Canada. The result is that crude oil prices in the U.S. Midwest, where the pricing point of the light, sweet crude oil contract is located, have tended to trade at a lower price than crude oil in other parts of the United States and lower than global crude oil benchmarks such as Brent crude oil. United States crude oil prices finished the year ended December 31, 2014 approximately 45.87% higher than at the beginning of the year, as the global economy continues to adjust to periods of slow recovery and economic growth. USCF believes that should the global economic situation cease to improve, or decline, there is a meaningful possibility that crude oil prices could further retreat from their current levels, while any military actions involving Iran would likely have the opposite effect.
USCF believes that over both the medium-term and the long-term, changes in the price of crude oil will exert the greatest influence on the price of refined petroleum products such as gasoline. At the same time, there can be other factors that, particularly in the short term, cause the price of gasoline to rise (or fall), more (or less) than the price of crude oil. For example, higher gasoline prices cause American consumers to reduce their gasoline consumption, particularly during the high demand period of the summer driving season and gasoline prices are impacted by the availability of refining capacity. Furthermore, a slowdown or recession in the U.S. economy may have a greater impact on U.S. gasoline prices than on global crude oil prices. As a result, it is possible that changes in gasoline prices may not match the changes in crude oil prices.
Unleaded Gasoline Price Movements in Comparison to Other Energy Commodities and Investment Categories. USCF believes that investors frequently measure the degree to which prices or total returns of one investment or asset class move up or down in value in concert with another investment or asset class. Statistically, such a measure is usually done by measuring the correlation of the price movements of the two different investments or asset classes over some period of time. The correlation is scaled between 1 and -1, where 1 indicates that the two investment options move up or down in price or value together, known as “positive correlation,” and -1 indicates that they move in completely opposite directions, known as “negative correlation.” A correlation of 0 would mean that the movements of the two are neither positively nor negatively correlated, known as “non-correlation.” That is, the investment options sometimes move up and down together and other times move in opposite directions.
For the ten year time period between 2004 and 2014, the table below compares the monthly movements of unleaded gasoline prices versus the monthly movements of the prices of several other energy commodities, such as natural gas, crude oil and diesel-heating oil, as well as several major non-commodity investment asset classes, such as large cap U.S. equities, U.S. government bonds and global equities. It can be seen that over this particular time period, the movement of unleaded gasoline on a monthly basis was neither strongly correlated nor inversely correlated with the movements of large cap U.S. equities, U.S. government bonds, global equities or natural gas. However, movements in unleaded gasoline were strongly correlated to movements in crude oil and diesel-heating oil.
Source: Bloomberg, NYMEX
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
The table below covers a more recent, but much shorter, range of dates than the above table. Over the one-year period ended December 31, 2014, unleaded gasoline was neither strongly correlated nor inversely correlated with large cap U.S. equities, U.S. government bonds, global equities, and natural gas. Unleaded gasoline remained strongly correlated with crude oil and diesel-heating oil over the shorter period.
Source: Bloomberg, NYMEX
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
Investors are cautioned that the historical price relationships between gasoline and various other energy commodities, as well as other investment asset classes, as measured by correlation may not be reliable predictors of future price movements and correlation results. The results pictured above would have been different if a different range of dates had been selected. USCF believes that gasoline has historically not demonstrated a strong correlation with equities or bonds over long periods of time. However, USCF also believes that in the future it is possible that gasoline could have long term correlation results that indicate prices of gasoline more closely track the movements of equities or bonds. In addition, USCF believes that, when measured over time periods shorter than ten years, there will always be some periods where the correlation of gasoline to equities and bonds will be either more strongly positively correlated or more strongly negatively correlated than the long term historical results suggest.
The correlations between gasoline, crude oil, natural gas and diesel-heating oil are relevant because USCF endeavors to invest UGA’s assets in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments so that daily changes in percentage terms in UGA’s per share NAV correlate as closely as possible with daily changes in percentage terms in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. If certain other fuel-based commodity futures contracts do not closely correlate with the gasoline Futures Contract, then their use could lead to greater tracking error. As noted above, USCF also believes that the daily changes in percentage terms in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract will closely correlate with daily changes in percentage terms in the spot price of gasoline.
Critical Accounting Policies
Preparation of the financial statements and related disclosures in compliance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires the application of appropriate accounting rules and guidance, as well as the use of estimates. UGA’s application of these policies involves judgments and actual results may differ from the estimates used.
USCF has evaluated the nature and types of estimates that it makes in preparing UGA’s financial statements and related disclosures and has determined that the valuation of its investments, which are not traded on a United States or internationally recognized futures exchange (such as forward contracts and over-the-counter contracts) involves a critical accounting policy. The values which are used by UGA for its Futures Contracts are provided by its commodity broker who uses market prices when available, while over-the-counter contracts are valued based on the present value of estimated future cash flows that would be received from or paid to a third party in settlement of these derivative contracts prior to their delivery date and valued on a daily basis. In addition, UGA estimates interest and dividend income on a daily basis using prevailing rates earned on its cash and cash equivalents. These estimates are adjusted to the actual amount received on a monthly basis and the difference, if any, is not considered material.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
UGA has not made, and does not anticipate making, use of borrowings or other lines of credit to meet its obligations. UGA has met, and it is anticipated that UGA will continue to meet, its liquidity needs in the normal course of business from the proceeds of the sale of its investments or from the Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents that it intends to hold at all times. UGA’s liquidity needs include: redeeming shares, providing margin deposits for its existing Futures Contracts or the purchase of additional Futures Contracts and posting collateral for its over-the-counter contracts and payment of its expenses, summarized below under “Contractual Obligations.”
UGA currently generates cash primarily from: (i) the sale of Creation Baskets and (ii) income earned on Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents. UGA has allocated substantially all of its net assets to trading in Gasoline Interests. UGA invests in Gasoline Interests to the fullest extent possible without being leveraged or unable to satisfy its current or potential margin or collateral obligations with respect to its investments in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments. A significant portion of UGA’s NAV is held in Treasuries, cash and cash equivalents that are used as margin and as collateral for its trading in Gasoline Interests. The balance of the assets is held in UGA’s account at the Custodian and in investments in Treasuries at the FCM. Income received from UGA’s investments in money market funds and Treasuries is paid to UGA. During the year ended December 31, 2014, UGA’s expenses exceeded the income UGA earned and the cash earned from the sale of Creation Baskets and the redemption of Redemption Baskets. By comparison, during the year ended December 31, 2013, UGA’s expensed exceeded the income UGA earned and the cash earned from the sale of Creation Baskets and the redemption of Redemption Baskets. During the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, UGA used other assets to pay cash expenses, which could cause a decrease in UGA’s NAV over time. To the extent expenses exceed income, UGA’s NAV will be negatively impacted.
UGA’s investments in Gasoline Interests may be subject to periods of illiquidity because of market conditions, regulatory considerations and other reasons. For example, most commodity exchanges limit the fluctuations in futures contracts prices during a single day by regulations referred to as “daily limits.” During a single day, no trades may be executed at prices beyond the daily limit. Once the price of a futures contract has increased or decreased by an amount equal to the daily limit, positions in the contracts can neither be taken nor liquidated unless the traders are willing to effect trades at or within the specified daily limit. Such market conditions could prevent UGA from promptly liquidating its positions in Futures Contracts. During the year ended December 31, 2014, UGA did not purchase or liquidate any of its positions while daily limits were in effect; however, UGA cannot predict whether such an event may occur in the future.
Prior to the initial offering of UGA, all payments with respect to UGA’s expenses were paid by USCF. UGA does not have an obligation or intention to refund such payments by USCF. USCF is under no obligation to pay UGA’s current or future expenses. Since the initial offering of shares, UGA has been responsible for expenses relating to: (i) management fees, (ii) brokerage fees and commissions, (iii) licensing fees for the use of intellectual property, (iv) ongoing registration expenses in connection with offers and sales of its shares subsequent to the initial offering, (v) other expenses, including tax reporting costs, (vi) fees and expenses of the independent directors of USCF and (vii) other extraordinary expenses not in the ordinary course of business, while USCF has been responsible for expenses relating to the fees of UGA’s Marketing Agent, Administrator and Custodian and registration expenses relating to the initial offering of shares. If USCF and UGA are unsuccessful in raising sufficient funds to cover these respective expenses or in locating any other source of funding, UGA will terminate and investors may lose all or part of their investment.
Market Risk
Trading in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, such as forwards, involves UGA entering into contractual commitments to purchase or sell gasoline at a specified date in the future. The aggregate market value of the contracts will significantly exceed UGA’s future cash requirements since UGA intends to close out its open positions prior to settlement. As a result, UGA is generally only subject to the risk of loss arising from the change in value of the contracts. UGA considers the “fair value” of its derivative instruments to be the unrealized gain or loss on the contracts. The market risk associated with UGA’s commitments to purchase gasoline is limited to the aggregate market value of the contracts held. However, should UGA enter into a contractual commitment to sell gasoline, it would be required to make delivery of the gasoline at the contract price, repurchase the contract at prevailing prices or settle in cash. Since there are no limits on the future price of gasoline, the market risk to UGA could be unlimited.
UGA’s exposure to market risk depends on a number of factors, including the markets for gasoline, the volatility of interest rates and foreign exchange rates, the liquidity of the Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments markets and the relationships among the contracts held by UGA. Drastic market occurrences could ultimately lead to the loss of all or substantially all of an investor’s capital.
Credit Risk
When UGA enters into Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, it is exposed to the credit risk that the counterparty will not be able to meet its obligations. The counterparty for the Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX and on most other futures exchanges is the clearinghouse associated with the particular exchange. In general, in addition to margin required to be posted by the clearinghouse in connection with cleared trades, clearinghouses are backed by their members who may be required to share in the financial burden resulting from the nonperformance of one of their members and, therefore, this additional member support should significantly reduce credit risk. Some foreign exchanges are not backed by their clearinghouse members but may be backed by a consortium of banks or other financial institutions. There can be no assurance that any counterparty, clearinghouse, or their members or their financial backers will satisfy their obligations to UGA in such circumstances.
USCF attempts to manage the credit risk of UGA by following various trading limitations and policies. In particular, UGA generally posts margin and/or holds liquid assets that are approximately equal to the market value of its obligations to counterparties under the Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments it holds. USCF has implemented procedures that include, but are not limited to, executing and clearing trades only with creditworthy parties and/or requiring the posting of collateral or margin by such parties for the benefit of UGA to limit its credit exposure. An FCM, when acting on behalf of UGA in accepting orders to purchase or sell Futures Contracts on United States exchanges, is required by CFTC regulations to separately account for and segregate as belonging to UGA, all assets of UGA relating to domestic Futures Contracts trading. These FCMs are not allowed to commingle UGA’s assets with their other assets. In addition, the CFTC requires commodity brokers to hold in a secure account UGA’s assets related to foreign Futures Contracts trading.
If, in the future, UGA purchases over-the-counter contracts, see “Item 7A.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
Over-the-Counter Derivatives (Including Spreads and Straddles)
UGA may purchase over-the-counter contracts (“OTC Contracts”). Unlike most exchange-traded futures contracts or exchange-traded options on such futures, each party to an OTC Contract bears the credit risk that the other party may not be able to perform its obligations under its contract.
UGA may enter into certain transactions where an over-the-counter component is exchanged for a corresponding futures contract. (“Exchange for Risk” or “EFR” transaction.) These EFR transactions may expose UGA to counterparty risk during the interim period between the execution of the over-the-counter component and the exchange for a corresponding futures contract. Generally, the counterparty risk from the EFR transaction will exist only on the day of execution.
Swap transactions, like other financial transactions, involve a variety of significant risks. The specific risks presented by a particular swap transaction necessarily depend upon the terms and circumstances of the transaction. In general, however, all swap transactions involve some combination of market risk, credit risk, counterparty credit risk, funding risk, liquidity risk and operational risk.
Highly customized swap transactions in particular may increase liquidity risk, which may result in a suspension of redemptions. Highly leveraged transactions may experience substantial gains or losses in value as a result of relatively small changes in the value or level of an underlying or related market factor.
In evaluating the risks and contractual obligations associated with a particular swap transaction, it is important to consider that a swap transaction may be modified or terminated only by mutual consent of the original parties and subject to agreement on individually negotiated terms. Therefore, it may not be possible for USCF to modify, terminate or offset UGA’s obligations or its exposure to the risks associated with a transaction prior to its scheduled termination date.
To reduce the credit risk that arises in connection with such contracts, UGA will generally enter into an agreement with each counterparty based on the Master Agreement published by ISDA that provides for the netting of its overall exposure to its counterparty, if the counterparty is unable to meet its obligations to UGA due to the occurrence of a specified event, such as the insolvency of the counterparty.
USCF assesses or reviews, as appropriate, the creditworthiness of each potential or existing counterparty to an OTC Contract pursuant to guidelines approved by USCF’s Board. Furthermore, USCF on behalf of UGA only enters into OTC Contracts with counterparties who are, or are affiliates of, (a) banks regulated by a United States federal bank regulator, (b) broker-dealers regulated by the SEC, (c) insurance companies domiciled in the United States, or (d) producers, users or traders of energy, whether or not regulated by the CFTC. Any entity acting as a counterparty shall be regulated in either the United States or the United Kingdom unless otherwise approved by the Board after consultation with its legal counsel. Existing counterparties are also reviewed periodically by USCF. UGA will also require that the counterparty be highly rated and /or provide collateral or other credit support. Even if collateral is used to reduce counterparty credit risk, sudden changes in the value of OTC transactions may leave a party open to financial risk due to a counterparty default since the collateral held may not cover a party’s exposure on the transaction in such situations.
In general, valuing OTC derivatives is less certain than valuing actively traded financial instruments such as exchange-traded futures contracts and securities or cleared swaps because the price and terms on which such OTC derivatives are entered into or can be terminated are individually negotiated, and those prices and terms may not reflect the best price or terms available from other sources. In addition, while market makers and dealers generally quote indicative prices or terms for entering into or terminating OTC Contracts, they typically are not contractually obligated to do so, particularly if they are not a party to the transaction. As a result, it may be difficult to obtain an independent value for an outstanding OTC derivatives transaction.
During the reporting period of this annual report on Form 10-K, UGA limited its over-the-counter activities to EFR transactions.
UGA anticipates that the use of Other Gasoline-Related Investments together with its investments in Futures Contracts will produce price and total return results that closely track the investment goals of UGA. However, there can be no assurance of this. OTC Contracts may result in higher transaction-related expenses than the brokerage commissions paid in connection with the purchase of Futures Contracts, which may impact UGA’s ability to successfully track the Benchmark Futures Contract.
Item 8.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.
USCF assessed the effectiveness of UGA’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014. In making this assessment, it used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in Internal Control Integrated Framework. Based on the assessment, USCF believes that, as of December 31, 2014, UGA’s internal control over financial reporting is effective.
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Partners of
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
We have audited the accompanying statements of financial condition of United States Gasoline Fund, LP (the “Fund”) as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, including the schedule of investments as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the related statements of operations, changes in partners’ capital and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of United States Gasoline Fund, LP as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
/s/ Spicer Jeffries LLP
Greenwood Village, Colorado
March 26, 2015
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Statements of Financial Condition
At December 31, 2014 and 2013
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Schedule of Investments
At December 31, 2014
* Collateral amounted to $6,161,581 on open futures contracts.
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Schedule of Investments
At December 31, 2013
* Collateral amounted to $2,053,484 on open futures contracts.
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Statements of Operations
For the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Statements of Changes in Partners' Capital
For the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Statements of Cash Flows
For the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Notes to Financial Statements
For the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
NOTE 1 - ORGANIZATION AND BUSINESS
The United States Gasoline Fund, LP (“UGA”) was organized as a limited partnership under the laws of the state of Delaware on April 13, 2007. UGA is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership shares (“shares”) that may be purchased and sold on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “NYSE Arca”). Prior to November 25, 2008, UGA’s shares traded on the American Stock Exchange (the “AMEX”). UGA will continue in perpetuity, unless terminated sooner upon the occurrence of one or more events as described in its Second Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of March 1, 2013 (the “LP Agreement”). The investment objective of UGA is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share net asset value (“NAV”) to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of gasoline (also known as reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygen blending, or “RBOB”, for delivery to the New York harbor), as measured by the daily changes in the price of the futures contract for gasoline traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the “NYMEX”) that is the near month contract to expire, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case the futures contract will be the next month contract to expire (the “Benchmark Futures Contract”), less UGA’s expenses. It is not the intent of UGA to be operated in a fashion such that the per share NAV will equal, in dollar terms, the spot price of gasoline or any particular futures contract based on gasoline. It is not the intent of UGA to be operated in a fashion such that its per share NAV will reflect the percentage change of the price of any particular futures contract as measured over a time period greater than one day. United States Commodity Funds LLC (“USCF”), the general partner of UGA, believes that it is not practical to manage the portfolio to achieve such an investment goal when investing in Futures Contracts (as defined below) and Other Gasoline-Related Investments (as defined below). UGA accomplishes its objective through investments in futures contracts for gasoline, crude oil, natural gas, diesel-heating oil and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the NYMEX, ICE Futures or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Futures Contracts”) and other gasoline-related investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for gasoline, cleared swap contracts and over-the-counter transactions that are based on the price of gasoline, crude oil and other petroleum-based fuels, Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Gasoline-Related Investments”). As of December 31, 2014, UGA held 658 Futures Contracts for gasoline traded on the NYMEX and did not hold any Futures Contracts traded on ICE Futures.
UGA commenced investment operations on February 26, 2008 and has a fiscal year ending on December 31. USCF is responsible for the management of UGA. USCF is a member of the National Futures Association (the “NFA”) and became a commodity pool operator registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) effective December 1, 2005. USCF is also the general partner of the United States Oil Fund, LP (“USO”), the United States Natural Gas Fund, LP (“UNG”), the United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP (“USL”) and the United States Diesel-Heating Oil Fund, LP (“UHN”), which listed their limited partnership shares on the AMEX under the ticker symbols “USO” on April 10, 2006, “UNG” on April 18, 2007, “USL” on December 6, 2007 and “UHN” on April 9, 2008, respectively. As a result of the acquisition of the AMEX by NYSE Euronext, each of USO’s, UNG’s, USL’s and UHN’s shares commenced trading on the NYSE Arca on November 25, 2008. USCF is also the general partner of the United States Short Oil Fund, LP (“DNO”), the United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund, LP (“UNL”) and the United States Brent Oil Fund, LP (“BNO”), which listed their limited partnership shares on the NYSE Arca under the ticker symbols “DNO” on September 24, 2009, “UNL” on November 18, 2009 and “BNO” on June 2, 2010, respectively. USCF is also the sponsor of the United States Commodity Index Fund (“USCI”), the United States Copper Index Fund (“CPER”), the United States Agriculture Index Fund (“USAG”) and the United States Metals Index Fund (“USMI”), each a series of the United States Commodity Index Funds Trust. USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI listed their shares on the NYSE Arca under the ticker symbol “USCI” on August 10, 2010, “CPER” on November 15, 2011, “USAG” on April 13, 2012 and “USMI” on June 19, 2012, respectively. On January 30, 2015, USCF as the sponsor of United States Commodity Index Funds Trust (the “Trust”) and its series USMI announced that its officers and members had authorized a plan to (i) liquidate USMI, (ii) terminate the continuous offering of USMI, and (iii) deregister USMI under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and therefore, terminate the Trust’s obligation to include USMI on its periodic and current reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). USCF has submitted written notice to the NYSE Arca of its decision to liquidate USMI, terminate the offering and to terminate USMI’s obligations under the Exchange Act.
USCF intends to file a post-effective amendment on behalf of the Trust and USMI to terminate the offering of the registered and unsold shares of USMI. The NYSE Arca will file a Form 25 with the SEC to affect the withdrawal of the listing of USMI from the NYSE Arca. Delisting from the NYSE Arca will become effective 10 days after the filing date of the Form 25. Provided that USMI continues to meet the applicable legal requirements, USCF intends to file a Form 15 on behalf of the Trust and USMI with the SEC in early April 2015 to suspend the Trust’s duty to include USMI on its reports under Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act. USMI expects the termination of registration will become effective 90 days after the date of the filing of the Form 15 with the SEC. All funds listed previously are referred to collectively herein as the “Related Public Funds.”
UGA issues shares to certain Authorized Participants (“Authorized Participants”) by offering baskets consisting of 50,000 shares (“Creation Baskets”) through ALPS Distributors, Inc., as the marketing agent (the “Marketing Agent”). The purchase price for a Creation Basket is based upon the NAV of a share calculated shortly after the close of the core trading session on the NYSE Arca on the day the order to create the basket is properly received.
From July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2014 (and continuing at least through April 30, 2015), the applicable transaction fee paid by Authorized Participants is $350 to UGA for each order they place to create or redeem one or more baskets (“Redemption Baskets”); prior to July 1, 2011, this fee was $1,000. Shares may be purchased or sold on a nationally recognized securities exchange in smaller increments than a Creation Basket or Redemption Basket. Shares purchased or sold on a nationally recognized securities exchange are not purchased or sold at the per share NAV of UGA but rather at market prices quoted on such exchange.
In November 2007, UGA initially registered 30,000,000 shares on Form S-1 with the SEC. On February 26, 2008, UGA listed its shares on the AMEX under the ticker symbol “UGA”. On that day, UGA established its initial per share NAV by setting the price at $50.00 and issued 300,000 shares in exchange for $15,000,000. UGA also commenced investment operations on February 26, 2008, by purchasing Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX based on gasoline. As of December 31, 2014, UGA had registered a total of 80,000,000 shares.
NOTE 2 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Revenue Recognition
Commodity futures contracts, forward contracts, physical commodities, and related options are recorded on the trade date. All such transactions are recorded on the identified cost basis and marked to market daily. Unrealized gains or losses on open contracts are reflected in the statements of financial condition and represent the difference between the original contract amount and the market value (as determined by exchange settlement prices for futures contracts and related options and cash dealer prices at a predetermined time for forward contracts, physical commodities, and their related options) as of the last business day of the year or as of the last date of the financial statements. Changes in the unrealized gains or losses between periods are reflected in the statements of operations. UGA earns interest on its assets denominated in U.S. dollars on deposit with the FCM at the 90-day Treasury bill rate. In addition, UGA earns income on funds held at the custodian or FCM at prevailing market rates earned on such investments.
Brokerage Commissions
Brokerage commissions on all open commodity futures contracts are accrued on a full-turn basis.
Income Taxes
UGA is not subject to federal income taxes; each partner reports his/her allocable share of income, gain, loss deductions or credits on his/her own income tax return.
In accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), UGA is required to determine whether a tax position is more likely than not to be sustained upon examination by the applicable taxing authority, including resolution of any tax related appeals or litigation processes, based on the technical merits of the position. UGA files an income tax return in the U.S. federal jurisdiction, and may file income tax returns in various U.S. states. UGA is not subject to income tax return examinations by major taxing authorities for years before 2011. The tax benefit recognized is measured as the largest amount of benefit that has a greater than fifty percent likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement. De-recognition of a tax benefit previously recognized results in UGA recording a tax liability that reduces net assets. However, UGA’s conclusions regarding this policy may be subject to review and adjustment at a later date based on factors including, but not limited to, on-going analysis of and changes to tax laws, regulations and interpretations thereof. UGA recognizes interest accrued related to unrecognized tax benefits and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax fees payable, if assessed. No interest expense or penalties have been recognized as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014.
Creations and Redemptions
Authorized Participants may purchase Creation Baskets or redeem Redemption Baskets only in blocks of 50,000 shares at a price equal to the NAV of the shares calculated shortly after the close of the core trading session on the NYSE Arca on the day the order is placed.
UGA receives or pays the proceeds from shares sold or redeemed within three business days after the trade date of the purchase or redemption. The amounts due from Authorized Participants are reflected in UGA’s statements of financial condition as receivable for shares sold, and amounts payable to Authorized Participants upon redemption are reflected as payable for shares redeemed.
Partnership Capital and Allocation of Partnership Income and Losses
Profit or loss shall be allocated among the partners of UGA in proportion to the number of shares each partner holds as of the close of each month. USCF may revise, alter or otherwise modify this method of allocation as described in the LP Agreement.
Calculation of Per Share Net Asset Value (“NAV”)
UGA’s per share NAV is calculated on each NYSE Arca trading day by taking the current market value of its total assets, subtracting any liabilities and dividing that amount by the total number of shares outstanding. UGA uses the closing price for the contracts on the relevant exchange on that day to determine the value of contracts held on such exchange.
Net Income (Loss) Per Share
Net income (loss) per share is the difference between the per share NAV at the beginning of each period and at the end of each period. The weighted average number of shares outstanding was computed for purposes of disclosing net income (loss) per weighted average share. The weighted average shares are equal to the number of shares outstanding at the end of the period, adjusted proportionately for shares added and redeemed based on the amount of time the shares were outstanding during such period. There were no shares held by USCF at December 31, 2014.
Offering Costs
Offering costs incurred in connection with the registration of additional shares after the initial registration of shares are borne by UGA. These costs include registration fees paid to regulatory agencies and all legal, accounting, printing and other expenses associated with such offerings. These costs are accounted for as a deferred charge and thereafter amortized to expense over twelve months on a straight-line basis or a shorter period if warranted.
Cash Equivalents
Cash equivalents include money market funds and overnight deposits or time deposits with original maturity dates of six months or less.
Reclassification
Certain amounts in the accompanying financial statements were reclassified to conform to the current presentation.
Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires USCF to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of the revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results may differ from those estimates and assumptions.
NOTE 3 - FEES PAID BY THE FUND AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
USCF Management Fee
Under the LP Agreement, USCF is responsible for investing the assets of UGA in accordance with the objectives and policies of UGA. In addition, USCF has arranged for one or more third parties to provide administrative, custody, accounting, transfer agency and other necessary services to UGA. For these services, UGA is contractually obligated to pay USCF a fee, which is paid monthly, equal to 0.60% per annum of average daily total net assets.
Ongoing Registration Fees and Other Offering Expenses
UGA pays all costs and expenses associated with the ongoing registration of its shares subsequent to the initial offering. These costs include registration or other fees paid to regulatory agencies in connection with the offer and sale of shares, and all legal, accounting, printing and other expenses associated with such offer and sale. For the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, UGA incurred $46,454, $46,453 and $20,911, respectively, in registration fees and other offering expenses.
Directors’ Fees and Expenses
UGA is responsible for paying its portion of the directors’ and officers’ liability insurance for UGA and the Related Public Funds and the fees and expenses of the independent directors who also serve as audit committee members of UGA and the Related Public Funds. UGA shares the fees and expenses on a pro rata basis with each Related Public Fund, as described above, based on the relative assets of each fund computed on a daily basis. These fees and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2014 were $567,863 for UGA and the Related Public Funds. UGA’s portion of such fees and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2014 was $12,396. For the year ended December 31, 2013, these fees and expenses were $555,465 for UGA and the Related Public Funds. UGA’s portion of such fees and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2013 was $13,365. For the year ended December 31, 2012, these fees and expenses were $540,586 for UGA and the Related Public Funds. UGA’s portion of such fees and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $18,888. UGA is responsible for paying its portion of any payments that may become due to the independent directors pursuant to the deferred compensation agreements entered into between the independent directors, USCF, UGA, and the Related Public Funds, except USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI.
Licensing Fees
UGA and the Related Public Funds, other than BNO, USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI, pay a licensing fee that is equal to 0.015% on all net assets. During the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, UGA incurred $7,357, $8,779 and $13,751, respectively, under this arrangement.
Investor Tax Reporting Cost
The fees and expenses associated with UGA’s audit expenses and tax accounting and reporting requirements are paid by UGA. These costs were approximately $164,000, $225,000 and $225,000, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012.
Other Expenses and Fees and Expense Waivers
In addition to the fees described above, UGA pays all brokerage fees and other expenses in connection with the operation of UGA, excluding costs and expenses paid by USCF as outlined in Note 4 below. USCF has voluntarily agreed to pay certain expenses typically borne by UGA, to the extent that such expenses exceeded 0.15% (15 basis points) of UGA’s NAV, on an annualized basis, through at least June 30, 2015. USCF has no obligation to continue such payments into subsequent periods. For the year ended December 31, 2014, USCF waived $182,226 of UGA’s expenses. This voluntary expense waiver is in addition to those amounts USCF is contractually obligated to pay as described in Note 4 - Contracts and Agreements below.
NOTE 4 - CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
UGA is party to a marketing agent agreement, dated as of February 15, 2008, as amended from time to time, with the Marketing Agent and USCF, whereby the Marketing Agent provides certain marketing services for UGA as outlined in the agreement. The fee of the Marketing Agent, which is borne by USCF, is equal to 0.06% on UGA’s assets up to $3 billion; and 0.04% on UGA’s assets in excess of $3 billion. In no event may the aggregate compensation paid to the Marketing Agent and any affiliate of USCF for distribution related services exceed ten percent (10%) of the gross proceeds of UGA’s offering.
The above fee does not include website construction and development, which are also borne by USCF.
UGA is also party to a custodian agreement, dated January 16, 2008, as amended from time to time, with Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“BBH&Co.”) and USCF, whereby BBH&Co. holds investments on behalf of UGA. USCF pays the fees of the custodian, which are determined by the parties from time to time. In addition, UGA is party to an administrative agency agreement, dated February 7, 2008, as amended from time to time, with USCF and BBH&Co., whereby BBH&Co. acts as the administrative agent, transfer agent and registrar for UGA. USCF also pays the fees of BBH&Co. for its services under such agreement and such fees are determined by the parties from time to time.
Currently, USCF pays BBH&Co. for its services, in the foregoing capacities, a minimum amount of $75,000 annually for its custody, fund accounting and fund administration services rendered to UGA and each of the Related Public Funds, as well as a $20,000 annual fee for its transfer agency services. In addition, USCF pays BBH&Co. an asset-based charge of (a) 0.06% for the first $500 million of the Related Public Funds’ combined net assets, (b) 0.0465% for the Related Public Funds’ combined net assets greater than $500 million but less than $1 billion, and (c) 0.035% once the Related Public Funds’ combined net assets exceed $1 billion. The annual minimum amount will not apply if the asset-based charge for all accounts in the aggregate exceeds $75,000. USCF also pays transaction fees ranging from $7 to $15 per transaction.
On October 8, 2013, UGA entered into a brokerage agreement with RBC Capital Markets, LLC (“RBC Capital” or “RBC”) to serve as UGA’s futures commission merchant (“FCM”), effective October 10, 2013. Prior to October 10, 2013, the FCM was UBS Securities LLC (“UBS Securities”). The agreements require RBC Capital and UBS Securities to provide services to UGA in connection with the purchase and sale of Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments that may be purchased and sold by or through RBC Capital and/or UBS Securities for UGA’s account. In accordance with each agreement, RBC Capital and UBS Securities charge UGA commissions of approximately $7 to $15 per round-turn trade, including applicable exchange and NFA fees for Futures Contracts and options on Futures Contracts. Such fees include those incurred when purchasing Futures Contracts and options on Futures Contracts when UGA issues shares as a result of a Creation Basket, as well as fees incurred when selling Futures Contracts and options on Futures Contracts when UGA redeems shares as a result of a Redemption Basket. Such fees are also incurred when Futures Contracts and options on Futures Contracts are purchased or redeemed for the purpose of rebalancing the portfolio. UGA also incurs commissions to brokers for the purchase and sale of Futures Contracts, Other Gasoline-Related Investments or short-term obligations of the United States of two years or less (“Treasuries”).
UGA’s total commissions accrued to brokers for December 31, 2014, compared to the year ended December 31, 2013, were similar; and were also similar for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to December 31, 2012, as measured by total net assets. Total commissions as an annualized percentage of average total net assets for the year ended December 31, 2014, compared to the year ended December 31, 2013, was similar; and was similar for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to December 31, 2012, as measured by total net assets. However, there can be no assurance that commission costs and portfolio turnover will not cause commission expenses to rise in future quarters.
UGA and the NYMEX entered into a licensing agreement on April 10, 2006, as amended on October 20, 2011, whereby UGA was granted a non-exclusive license to use certain of the NYMEX’s settlement prices and service marks. Under the licensing agreement, UGA and the Related Public Funds, other than BNO, USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI, pay the NYMEX an asset-based fee for the license, the terms of which are described in Note 3. UGA expressly disclaims any association with the NYMEX or endorsement of UGA by the NYMEX and acknowledges that “NYMEX” and “New York Mercantile Exchange” are registered trademarks of the NYMEX.
NOTE 5 - FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS, OFF-BALANCE SHEET RISKS AND CONTINGENCIES
UGA engages in the trading of futures contracts, options on futures contracts and cleared swaps (collectively, “derivatives”). UGA is exposed to both market risk, which is the risk arising from changes in the market value of the contracts, and credit risk, which is the risk of failure by another party to perform according to the terms of a contract.
UGA may enter into futures contracts, options on futures contracts and cleared swaps to gain exposure to changes in the value of an underlying commodity. A futures contract obligates the seller to deliver (and the purchaser to accept) the future delivery of a specified quantity and type of a commodity at a specified time and place. Some futures contracts may call for physical delivery of the asset, while others are settled in cash. The contractual obligations of a buyer or seller may generally be satisfied by taking or making physical delivery of the underlying commodity or by making an offsetting sale or purchase of an identical futures contract on the same or linked exchange before the designated date of delivery.
Cleared swaps are over-the-counter agreements that are eligible to be cleared by a clearinghouse, but are not traded on an exchange. A cleared swap is created when the parties to an off-exchange over-the-counter swap transaction agree to extinguish their OTC contract and replace with a cleared swap. Cleared swaps are intended to provide the efficiencies and benefits that centralized clearing or an exchange offers to traders of futures contracts, including credit risk intermediation and the ability to offset positions initiated with different counterparties.
The purchase and sale of futures contracts, options on futures contracts and cleared swaps require margin deposits with a FCM. Additional deposits may be necessary for any loss on contract value. The Commodity Exchange Act requires a FCM to segregate all customer transactions and assets from the FCM’s proprietary activities.
Futures contracts and cleared swaps involve, to varying degrees, elements of market risk (specifically commodity price risk) and exposure to loss in excess of the amount of variation margin. The face or contract amounts reflect the extent of the total exposure UGA has in the particular classes of instruments. Additional risks associated with the use of futures contracts are an imperfect correlation between movements in the price of the futures contracts and the market value of the underlying securities and the possibility of an illiquid market for a futures contract. Buying and selling options on futures contracts exposes investors to the risks of purchasing or selling futures contracts.
All of the futures contracts held by UGA were exchange-traded through December 31, 2014. The risks associated with exchange-traded contracts are generally perceived to be less than those associated with over-the-counter transactions since, in over-the-counter transactions, a party must rely solely on the credit of its respective individual counterparties. When UGA enters into non-exchange traded contracts (including Exchange for Risk or EFR transactions), it is subject to the credit risk associated with counterparty non-performance. The credit risk from counterparty non-performance associated with such instruments is the net unrealized gain, if any, on the transaction. UGA has credit risk under its futures contracts since the sole counterparty to all domestic and foreign futures contracts is the clearinghouse for the exchange on which the relevant contracts are traded. In addition, UGA bears the risk of financial failure by the clearing broker.
UGA’s cash and other property, such as Treasuries, deposited with a FCM are considered commingled with all other customer funds, subject to the FCM’s segregation requirements. In the event of a FCM’s insolvency, recovery may be limited to a pro rata share of segregated funds available. It is possible that the recovered amount could be less than the total of cash and other property deposited. The insolvency of a FCM could result in the complete loss of UGA’s assets posted with that FCM; however, the majority of UGA’s assets are held in investments in Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents with UGA’s custodian and would not be impacted by the insolvency of a FCM. The failure or insolvency of UGA’s custodian, however, could result in a substantial loss of UGA’s assets.
USCF invests a portion of UGA’s cash in money market funds that seek to maintain a stable per share NAV. UGA is exposed to any risk of loss associated with an investment in such money market funds. As of December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, UGA held investments in money market funds in the amounts of $28,024,349 and $38,494,983, respectively. UGA also holds cash deposits with its custodian. Pursuant to a written agreement with BBH&Co., uninvested overnight cash balances are swept to offshore branches of U.S. regulated and domiciled banks located in Toronto, Canada, London, United Kingdom, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands and Nassau, Bahamas, which are subject to U.S. regulation and regulatory oversight. As of December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, UGA held cash deposits and investments in Treasuries in the amounts of $13,694,522 and $15,751,658, respectively, with the custodian and FCM. Some or all of these amounts may be subject to loss should UGA’s custodian and/or FCM cease operations.
For derivatives, risks arise from changes in the market value of the contracts. Theoretically, UGA is exposed to market risk equal to the value of futures contracts purchased and unlimited liability on such contracts sold short. As both a buyer and a seller of options, UGA pays or receives a premium at the outset and then bears the risk of unfavorable changes in the price of the contract underlying the option.
UGA’s policy is to continuously monitor its exposure to market and counterparty risk through the use of a variety of financial, position and credit exposure reporting controls and procedures. In addition, UGA has a policy of requiring review of the credit standing of each broker or counterparty with which it conducts business.
The financial instruments held by UGA are reported in its statements of financial condition at market or fair value, or at carrying amounts that approximate fair value, because of their highly liquid nature and short-term maturity.
NOTE 6 - FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
The following table presents per share performance data and other supplemental financial data for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012. This information has been derived from information presented in the financial statements.
Total returns are calculated based on the change in value during the period. An individual shareholder’s total return and ratio may vary from the above total returns and ratios based on the timing of contributions to and withdrawals from UGA.
NOTE 7 - QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA (Unaudited)
The following summarized (unaudited) quarterly financial information presents the results of operations and other data for three-month periods ended March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31, 2014 and 2013.
NOTE 8 - FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
UGA values its investments in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 820 - Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (“ASC 820”). ASC 820 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles, and expands disclosures about fair value measurement. The changes to past practice resulting from the application of ASC 820 relate to the definition of fair value, the methods used to measure fair value, and the expanded disclosures about fair value measurement. ASC 820 establishes a fair value hierarchy that distinguishes between: (1) market participant assumptions developed based on market data obtained from sources independent of UGA (observable inputs) and (2) UGA’s own assumptions about market participant assumptions developed based on the best information available under the circumstances (unobservable inputs). The three levels defined by the ASC 820 hierarchy are as follows:
Level I - Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the reporting entity has the ability to access at the measurement date.
Level II - Inputs other than quoted prices included within Level I that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. Level II assets include the following: quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability, and inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data by correlation or other means (market-corroborated inputs).
Level III - Unobservable pricing input at the measurement date for the asset or liability. Unobservable inputs shall be used to measure fair value to the extent that observable inputs are not available.
In some instances, the inputs used to measure fair value might fall within different levels of the fair value hierarchy. The level in the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement in its entirety falls shall be determined based on the lowest input level that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety.
The following table summarizes the valuation of UGA’s securities at December 31, 2014 using the fair value hierarchy:
During the year ended December 31, 2014, there were no transfers between Level I and Level II.
The following table summarizes the valuation of UGA’s securities at December 31, 2013 using the fair value hierarchy:
During the year ended December 31, 2013, there were no transfers between Level I and Level II.
Effective January 1, 2009, UGA adopted the provisions of Accounting Standards Codification 815 - Derivatives and Hedging, which require presentation of qualitative disclosures about objectives and strategies for using derivatives, quantitative disclosures about fair value amounts and gains and losses on derivatives.
Fair Value of Derivative Instruments
The Effect of Derivative Instruments on the Statements of Operations
NOTE 9 - RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
In December 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2011-11, “Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” The amendments in ASU No. 2011-11 require an entity to disclose information about offsetting and related arrangements to enable users of its financial statements to understand the effect of those arrangements on its financial position. ASU No. 2011-11 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods.
NOTE 10 - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
UGA has performed an evaluation of subsequent events through the date the financial statements were issued. This evaluation did not result in any subsequent events that necessitated disclosures and/or adjustments, other than noted below:
On January 14, 2015, Mr. Howard Mah, Management Director, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer), Secretary and Treasurer of USCF, general partner of United States Gasoline Fund, LP, tendered his resignation effective as soon as the Board of Directors of USCF accepts and appoints a suitable replacement, but no later than the close of business July 15, 2015. In order to ensure an orderly transition, Mr. Mah will remain as the Management Director and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer) of USCF until such time.
On January 26, 2015, Mr. Nicholas D. Gerber was appointed Chief Executive Officer, President and Secretary of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (“Concierge”), a supplier of mobile video recording devices through its wholly owned subsidiary Janus Cam. Concierge is not affiliated with USCF and the Related Public Funds, other than through ownership by common control. Concierge is a publicly traded company under the ticker symbol “CNCG.”
united states commodity funds llc AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONTENTS
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Member of
United States Commodity Funds LLC
We have audited the accompanying statements of financial condition of United States Commodity Funds LLC (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2014 and 2013. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the statements of financial condition are free of material misstatement. An audit includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the statements of financial condition, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall statement of financial condition presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of United States Commodity Funds LLC as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
/s/ Spicer Jeffries LLP
Greenwood Village, Colorado
March 25, 2015
united states commodity funds llc AND SUBSIDIARIES
statementS of financial condition
DECEMBER 31, 2014 AND 2013
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
united states commodity funds LLc
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 1 -Organization and Operation
United States Commodity Funds LLC (the “Company”) was formed as a single-member limited liability company in the State of Delaware on May 10, 2005. The Company is the General Partner (the “General Partner”) of United States Oil Fund, LP (“USO”), United States Natural Gas Fund, LP (“UNG”), United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP (“USL”), United States Gasoline Fund, LP (“UGA”), United States Diesel-Heating Oil Fund, LP (“UHN”), United States Short Oil Fund, LP (“DNO”), United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund, LP (“UNL”), United States Brent Oil Fund, LP (“BNO”), and is the Sponsor (“Sponsor”) of United States Commodity Index Fund (“USCI”), United States Copper Index Fund (“CPER”), the United States Agriculture Index Fund (“USAG”) and the United States Metals Index Fund (“USMI”), each of which is a series of the United States Commodity Index Funds Trust (“Trust”). The Company is registered as a commodity pool operator with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and is a member of the National Futures Association (“NFA”). USO, UNG, USL, UGA, UHN, DNO, UNL, BNO, USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI (collectively, the “Funds”) are commodity pools registered with the CFTC and members of the NFA that issue shares that may be purchased and sold on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) under the ticker symbols “USO,” “UNG,” “USL,” “UGA,” “UHN,” “DNO,” “UNL,” “BNO,” “USCI,” “CPER”, “USAG” and “USMI”. The Company previously filed registration statements to register shares of the United States Sugar Fund (“USSF”), the United States Natural Gas Double Inverse Fund (“UNGD”), the United States Gasoil Fund (“USGO”) and the United States Asian Commodities Basket Fud (“UAC”), each of which is a series of the United States Commodity Funds Trust I, and the US Golden Currency Fund (“HARD”), a series of the United States Currency Funds Trust. On December 30, 2013, the Company withdrew the registration statements for USSF, UNGD, USGO, and UAC effective December 31, 2013. On January 27, 2014, the Company withdrew the registration statement for HARD. HARD was never available to the public and at the time of withdrawal, HARD was still in the process of review by various regulatory agencies which have regulatory authority over the Company and HARD.
USO commenced investment operations on April 10, 2006 and has a fiscal year ending on December 31. The investment objective of USO is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share net asset value (“NAV”) to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma, as measured by the daily changes in the price of the futures contract for light, sweet crude oil traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the “NYMEX”) that is the near month contract to expire, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case the futures contract will be the next month contract to expire (the “Benchmark Oil Futures Contract”), less USO’s expenses. USO accomplishes its objective through investments in futures contracts for light, sweet crude oil, and other types of crude oil, diesel-heating oil, gasoline, natural gas and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the NYMEX, ICE Futures or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Oil Futures Contracts”) and other oil related investments such as cash-settled options on Oil Futures Contracts, forward contracts for oil, cleared swap contracts and over-the-counter transactions that are based on the price of crude oil, diesel-heating oil, gasoline, natural gas and other petroleum-based fuels, Oil Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Oil-Related Investments”).
UNG commenced investment operations on April 18, 2007 and has a fiscal year ending on December 31. The investment objective of UNG is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share net asset value (“NAV”) to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of natural gas delivered at the Henry Hub, Louisiana as measured by the daily changes in the price of the futures contract on natural gas traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the “NYMEX”) that is the near month contract to expire, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case the futures contract will be the next month contract to expire (the “Benchmark Futures Contract”), less UNG’s expenses. UNG accomplishes its objective through investments in futures contracts for natural gas, crude oil, diesel-heating oil, gasoline and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the NYMEX, ICE Futures or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Futures Contracts”) and other natural gas-related investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for natural gas, cleared swap contracts and over-the-counter transactions that are based on the price of natural gas, crude oil and other petroleum-based fuels, Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Natural Gas-Related Investments”).
united states commodity funds LLc
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 1 -Organization and Operation (continued)
USL commenced investment operations on December 6, 2007 and has a fiscal year ending on December 31. The investment objective of USL is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share net asset value (“NAV”) to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma, as measured by the daily changes in the average of the prices of the 12 futures contracts for light, sweet crude oil traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the “NYMEX”), consisting of the near month contract to expire and the contracts for the following 11 months for a total of 12 consecutive months’ contracts, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case it will be measured by the futures contract that is the next month contract to expire and the contracts for the following 11 consecutive months (the “Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts”), less USL’s expenses. When calculating the daily movement of the average price of the 12 contracts, each contract month will be equally weighted. USL accomplishes its objective through investments in futures contracts for light, sweet crude oil, and other types of crude oil, diesel-heating oil, gasoline, natural gas and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the NYMEX, ICE Futures or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Oil Futures Contracts”) and other oil-related investments such as cash-settled options on Oil Futures Contracts, forward contracts for oil, cleared swap contracts and over-the-counter transactions that are based on the price of crude oil, diesel-heating oil, gasoline, natural gas and other petroleum-based fuels, Oil Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Oil-Related Investments”).
UGA commenced investment operations on February 26, 2008 and has a fiscal year ending on December 31. The investment objective of UGA is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share net asset value (“NAV”) to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of gasoline (also known as reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygen blending, or “RBOB”, for delivery to the New York harbor), as measured by the daily changes in the price of the futures contract for gasoline traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the “NYMEX”) that is the near month contract to expire, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case the futures contract will be the next month contract to expire (the “Benchmark Futures Contract”), less UGA’s expenses. UGA accomplishes its objective through investments in futures contracts for gasoline, crude oil, natural gas, diesel-heating oil and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the NYMEX, ICE Futures or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Futures Contracts”) and other gasoline-related investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for gasoline, cleared swap contracts and over-the-counter transactions that are based on the price of gasoline, crude oil and other petroleum-based fuels, Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Gasoline-Related Investments”).
UHN commenced investment operations on April 9, 2008 and has a fiscal year ending on December 31. The investment objective of UHN is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share net asset value (“NAV”) to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of diesel-heating oil (also known as No. 2 fuel oil) for delivery to the New York harbor, as measured by the daily changes in the price of the futures contract for diesel-heating oil traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the “NYMEX”) that is the near month contract to expire, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case the futures contract will be the next month contract to expire (the “Benchmark Futures Contract”), less UHN’s expenses. UHN accomplishes its objective through investments in futures contracts for diesel-heating oil, crude oil, gasoline, natural gas and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the NYMEX, ICE Futures or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Futures Contracts”) and Other Diesel-Heating Oil-Related Investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for diesel-heating oil and over-the-counter transactions that are based on the price of diesel-heating oil, crude oil and other petroleum-based fuels, Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Diesel-Heating Oil-Related Investments”).
united states commodity funds LLc
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 1 -Organization and Operation (continued)
DNO commenced investment operations on September 24, 2009 and has a fiscal year ending on December 31. The investment objective of DNO is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ net asset value (“NAV”) to inversely reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”) light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma, as measured by the daily changes in the price of the futures contract for light, sweet crude oil traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the “NYMEX”) that is the near month contract to expire, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case the futures contract will be the next month contract to expire (the “Benchmark Futures Contract”), less DNO’s expenses. DNO accomplishes its objective through investments in short positions in futures contracts for WTI light, sweet crude oil and other types of crude oil, diesel-heating oil, gasoline, natural gas and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the NYMEX, ICE Futures or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Futures Contracts”) and other crude oil-related investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for oil, cleared swap contracts and over-the-counter transactions that are based on the price of crude oil, diesel-heating oil, gasoline, natural gas and other petroleum-based fuels, Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Crude Oil-Related Investments”).
UNL commenced investment operations on November 18, 2009 and has a fiscal year ending on December 31. The investment objective of UNL is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share net asset value (“NAV”) to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of natural gas delivered at the Henry Hub, Louisiana, as measured by the daily changes in the average of the prices of 12 futures contracts on natural gas traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the “NYMEX”), consisting of the near month contract to expire and the contracts for the following 11 months for a total of 12 consecutive months’ contracts, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case it will be measured by the futures contracts that are the next month contract to expire and the contracts for the following 11 consecutive months (the “Benchmark Futures Contracts”), less UNL’s expenses. When calculating the daily movement of the average price of the 12 contracts, each contract month will be equally weighted. UNL accomplishes its objective through investments in futures contracts for natural gas, crude oil, diesel-heating oil, gasoline and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the NYMEX, ICE Futures or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Futures Contracts”) and other natural gas-related investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for natural gas, cleared swap contracts and over-the-counter transactions that are based on the price of natural gas, crude oil and other petroleum-based fuels, Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Natural Gas-Related Investments”).
BNO commenced investment operations on June 2, 2010 and has a fiscal year ending on December 31. The investment objective of BNO is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share net asset value (“NAV”) to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of Brent crude oil as measured by the daily changes in the price of the futures contract for Brent crude oil traded on the ICE Futures Exchange (the “ICE Futures”) that is the near month contract to expire, except when the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case the futures contract will be the next month contract to expire (the “Benchmark Futures Contract”), less BNO’s expenses. BNO accomplishes its objective through investments in futures contracts for crude oil, diesel-heating oil, gasoline, natural gas and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the ICE Futures, the New York Mercantile Exchange (the “NYMEX”), or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Futures Contracts”), and other crude oil-related investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for crude oil, cleared swap contracts and over-the-counter transactions that are based on the price of crude oil and other petroleum-based fuels, Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Crude Oil-Related Investments”).
united states commodity funds LLc
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 1 -Organization and Operation (continued)
USCI commenced investment operations on August 10, 2010 and has a fiscal year ending on December 31. The investment objective of USCI is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share Net Asset Value (“NAV”) to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the SummerHaven Dynamic Commodity Index Total ReturnSM (the “SDCI”), less USCI’s expenses. The SDCI is comprised of 14 Futures Contracts that are selected on a monthly basis from a list of 27 possible Futures Contracts. The Futures Contracts that at any given time make up the SDCI are referred to herein as “Benchmark Component Futures Contracts. USCI invests first in the current Benchmark Component Futures Contracts and other Futures Contracts intended to replicate the return on the current Benchmark Component Futures Contracts and, thereafter may hold Futures Contracts in a particular commodity other than one specified as the Benchmark Component Futures Contract, or may hold Other Commodity-Related Investments that are intended to replicate the return on the Benchmark Futures Contracts, but may fail to closely track the SDCI’s total return movements. If USCI increases in size, and due to its obligations to comply with regulatory limits or due to other market pricing or liquidity factors, USCI may invest in Futures Contract months other than the designated month specified as the Benchmark Component Futures Contract, or in Other Commodity-Related Investments, which may have the effect of increasing transaction related expenses and may result in increased tracking error.
CPER commenced investment operations on November 11, 2011 and has a fiscal year ending on December 31. The investment objective of CPER is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share NAV to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the SummerHaven Copper Index Total ReturnSM (the “SCI”), less CPER’s expenses. The SCI is comprised of either two or three Eligible Copper Futures Contracts that are selected on a monthly basis based on quantitative formulas relating to the prices of the Eligible Copper Futures Contracts developed by SHIM. The Eligible Copper Futures Contracts that at any given time make up the SCI are referred to herein as “Benchmark Component Copper Futures Contracts.” CPER seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing to the fullest extent possible in the Benchmark Component Copper Futures Contracts. Then, if constrained by regulatory requirements or in view of market conditions, CPER will invest next in other Eligible Copper Futures Contracts, and finally to a lesser extent, in other exchange traded futures contracts that are economically identical or substantially similar to the Benchmark Component Copper Futures Contracts if one or more other Eligible Copper Futures Contracts is not available. When CPER has invested to the fullest extent possible in exchange-traded futures contracts, CPER may then invest in other contracts and instruments based on the Benchmark Component Copper Futures Contracts, other Eligible Copper Futures Contracts or copper, such as cash-settled options, forward contracts, cleared swap contracts and swap contracts other than cleared swap contracts.
USAG commenced investment operations on April 13, 2012 and has a fiscal year ending on December 31. The investment objective of USAG is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share NAV to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the SummerHaven Dynamic Agriculture Index Total ReturnSM (the “SDAI”), less USAG’s expenses. The SDAI is designed to reflect the performance of a diversified group of agricultural commodities. The SDAI is owned and maintained by SHIM and calculated and published by the NYSE Arca. Futures contracts for the agricultural commodities comprising the SDAI are traded on ICE Future US, ICE Futures Canada, the CBOT, the Kansas City Board of Trade (“KCBT”) and the CME and are collectively referred to herein as “Eligible Agriculture Futures Contracts.” The SDAI is comprised of 14 Eligible Agriculture Futures Contracts that are selected on a monthly basis based on quantitative formulas developed by SHIM. USAG seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing to the fullest extent possible in the Benchmark Component Agriculture Futures Contracts. Then, if constrained by regulatory requirements or in view of market conditions, USAG will invest next in other Eligible Agriculture Futures Contracts based on the same agricultural commodity as the futures contracts subject to such regulatory constraints or market conditions, and finally, to a lesser extent, in other exchange traded futures contracts that are economically identical or substantially similar to the Benchmark Component Agriculture Futures Contracts if one or more other Eligible Agriculture Futures Contracts is not available. When USAG has invested to the fullest extent possible in exchange-traded futures contracts, USAG may then invest in other contracts and instruments based on the Benchmark Component Agriculture Futures Contracts, other Eligible Agriculture Futures Contracts or the agricultural commodities included in the SDAI, such as cash-settled options, forward contracts, cleared swap contracts and swap contracts other than cleared swap contracts.
united states commodity funds LLc
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 1 -Organization and Operation (concluded)
USMI commenced investment operations on June 19, 2012 and has a fiscal year ending on December 31. On January 30, 2015, USCF as the sponsor of the “Trust and its series USMI announced that its officers and members had authorized a plan to (i) liquidate USMI, (ii) terminate the continuous offering of USMI, and (iii) deregister USMI under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and therefore, terminate the Trust’s obligation to include USMI on its periodic and current reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). USCF has submitted written notice to the NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) of its decision to liquidate USMI, terminate the offering and to terminate USMI’s obligations under the Exchange Act. Prior to USMI’s cessation of trading, scheduled for March 18, 2015, the investment objective of USMI is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share NAV to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the SummerHaven Metals Index Total ReturnSM (the “SDMI”), less USMI’s expenses. The SDMI is comprised of 10 Eligible Metals Futures Contracts that are selected on a monthly basis based on quantitative formulas developed by SHIM. The Eligible Metals Futures Contracts that at any given time make up the SDMI are referred to herein as “Benchmark Component Metals Futures Contracts.”
The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wainwright Holdings, Inc. (“Wainwright”), a Delaware corporation. Wainwright is a holding company that is controlled by the president of the Company and served as the initial limited partner of the Funds, except for USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI which it serves as the Sponsor.
As the General Partner or Sponsor of the Funds, the Company is required to evaluate the credit risk of the Funds to their futures commission merchant, oversee the purchases and sales of the Funds’ units by certain “authorized purchasers,” review the daily positions and margin requirements of the Funds, and manage the Funds’ investments. The Company also pays continuing service fees to the marketing agent for communicating with the authorized purchasers.
united states commodity funds LLc
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 2 -Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Revenue recognition
The Company recognizes revenue in the period earned under the terms of the Funds’ respective Limited Partnership Agreements, as amended from time to time (the “Limited Partnership Agreements”) and the Trust Agreement, as amended from time to time (the “Trust Agreement”). These Agreements provide for fees based upon a percentage of the daily average net asset value of the Funds. In connection with the Funds’ trading activities, commodity futures contracts, cleared swap contracts, forward contracts, physical commodities, and related options are recorded on the trade-date basis. All such transactions are recorded on the identified cost basis and marked to market daily. Unrealized gains and losses on open contracts are reflected in the statement of financial condition and represent the difference between original contract amount and market value (as determined by exchange settlement prices for futures contracts and related options and cash dealer prices at a predetermined time for forward contracts, physical commodities, and their related options) as of the last business day of the year or as of the last date of the financial statements. Changes in the unrealized gains or losses between periods are reflected in the statement of operations.
The Company earns interest on its assets on deposit at the broker at the 90-day Treasury bill rate for deposits denominated in U.S. dollars. In addition, the Funds earn interest on funds held with their custodian at prevailing market rates earned on such investments.
Management fee
Under the Funds’ respective Agreements, the Company is responsible for investing the assets of the Funds in accordance with the objectives and policies of the Funds. In addition, the Company has arranged for one or more third parties to provide administrative, custody, accounting, transfer agency and other necessary services to the Funds. For these services, the Funds are contractually obligated to pay the Company a management fee, which is paid monthly, based on the average daily net assets of the Funds. USO pays a management fee of 0.45% per annum on its average daily net assets. UNG pays a fee equal to 0.60% per annum on average daily net assets of $1,000,000,000 or less and 0.50% of average daily net assets that are greater than $1,000,000,000. USL, UGA, UHN, and DNO each pay a fee of 0.60% per annum on their average daily net assets. Since inception through April 30, 2010 the Company has been charging UNL a management fee at a reduced rate of 0.60% per annum of average daily net assets. Effective May 1, 2010, the Company resumed charging UNL its standard rate of 0.75% per annum of average daily net assets. The difference of 0.15% per annum of average daily net assets since inception through April 30, 2010 has been waived by the Company and will not be recouped from UNL. BNO pays a management fee of 0.75% per annum on its average daily net assets. Effective May 1, 2014 and continuing through December 31, 2015, the Company has contractually agreed to lower the management fee for USCI to 0.80%, 0.65% for CPER, 0.65% for USAG and 0.65% for USMI, per annum on its average daily net assets.
The Funds pay for all brokerage fees, taxes and other expenses, including registration or other fees paid to the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) formerly the National Association of Securities Dealers, or any other regulatory agency in connection with the offer and sale of subsequent shares after their initial registration and all legal, accounting, printing and other expenses associated therewith. The Funds, except for BNO, USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI also pay licensing fees for the use of intellectual property. The Funds also pay the fees and expenses of the independent directors.
united states commodity funds LLc
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 2 -Summary of Significant Accounting PolicieS (continued)
Investments and Valuation of Investments
The Company’s investments in common stock are classified as available-for-sale-securities and are considered to be held for an indefinite period. Securities investments not classified as either held-to-maturity or trading securities are classified as available-for-sale securities. Available-for-sale-securities are recorded at fair value on the statement of financial condition, with the change in fair value excluded from earnings and recorded as a component of other comprehensive income (loss) included in member’s equity. Unrealized holding gains or losses on such securities, which were added to or subtracted from member’s equity was $552,571 and $6,820, for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 (see Note 7).
Realized gains or losses are recorded upon disposition of investments calculated based upon the difference between the proceeds and the cost basis determined using the specific identification method.
The Company values its investments in accordance with FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (“FASB ASC Topic 820”). FASB ASC Topic 820 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles, and expands disclosures about fair value measurement. The changes to past practice resulting from the application of FASB ASC Topic 820 relate to the definition of fair value, the methods used to measure fair value, and the expanded disclosures about fair value measurement. FASB ASC Topic 820 establishes a fair value hierarchy that distinguishes between (1) market participant assumptions developed based on market data obtained from sources independent of the Company (observable inputs) and (2) the Company’s own assumptions about market participant assumptions developed based on the best information available under the circumstances (unobservable inputs). The three levels defined by the FASB ASC Topic 820 hierarchy are as follows:
Level I - Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the reporting entity has the ability to access at the measurement date.
Level II - Inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. Level II assets include the following: quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability, and inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data by correlation or other means (market-corroborated inputs).
Level III - Unobservable pricing input at the measurement date for the asset or liability. Unobservable inputs shall be used to measure fair value to the extent that observable inputs are not available. In some instances, the inputs used to measure fair value might fall in different levels of the fair value hierarchy. The level in the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement in its entirety falls shall be determined based on the lowest input level that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. The Company’s adoption of FASB ASC Topic 820 did not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
In March 2008, the FASB released FASB ASC Topic 815-10, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. FASB ASC Topic 815-10 requires qualitative disclosures about objectives and strategies for using derivatives, quantitative disclosures about fair value amounts of and gains and losses on derivative instruments, and disclosures about credit-risk-related contingent features in derivative agreements.
united states commodity funds LLc
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 2 -Summary of Significant Accounting PolicieS (continued)
Brokerage commissions
Brokerage commissions on all open commodity futures contracts are accrued on a full-turn basis.
Additions and redemptions
Authorized purchasers may purchase creation baskets of the Funds only in blocks of 100,000 shares at a price equal to the net asset value of the shares calculated shortly after the close of the core trading sessions on the NYSE Arca on the day the order is placed. Authorized purchasers may redeem shares from the Funds only in blocks of 100,000 shares called “Redemption Baskets.” Effective as of February 29, 2012, the size of the Creation Basket and Redemption Basket was reduced from 100,000 shares to 50,000 shares for USL, UGA, UHN, DNO, UNL and BNO. The amount of the redemption proceeds for a Redemption Basket will be equal to the net asset value of the Funds’ shares in the Redemption Basket as of the end of each business day.
The Funds receive or pay the proceeds from shares sold or redeemed within three business days after the trade-date of the purchase or redemption. The amounts due from authorized purchasers are reflected in the Funds’ statement of financial condition as receivables for shares sold, and amounts payable to authorized purchasers upon redemption are reflected as payable for shares redeemed.
Capital and allocation of income and losses
Profit or loss shall be allocated among the shareholders of the Funds in proportion to the number of shares each shareholder holds as of the close of each month. The Company, when it serves in a capacity as a General Partner or Sponsor, may revise, alter or otherwise modify this method of allocation as described in the Limited Partnership Agreements or Trust Agreement.
Calculation of net asset value
The Funds calculate their net asset value on each NYSE Arca trading day by taking the current market value of their total assets, subtracting any liabilities and dividing the amount by the total number of shares issued and outstanding. The Funds use the closing price for the contracts on the relevant exchange on that day to determine the value of contracts held on such exchange.
Cash equivalents
Cash equivalents are highly liquid investments with original maturity dates of three months or less.
Accounting estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
united states commodity funds LLc
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 2 -Summary of Significant Accounting PolicieS (continued)
Income taxes
The Company has filed an election with the Internal Revenue Service to be treated as an association taxable as a corporation. The Company files a consolidated federal income tax return with Wainwright and provides for income taxes as if the Company filed separately. The Company, however, does not file on a consolidated basis for state income tax purposes. The Company accounts for income taxes in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Classification (“ASC”) Topic 740-10, Accounting for Income Taxes (“FASB ASC Topic 740-10”). Under the asset and liability method of FASB ASC Topic 740-10, deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the estimated future tax consequences or benefits attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax basis. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using the enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled.
Effective January 1, 2008, the Company adopted FASB ASC Topic 740-10, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes (“FASB ASC Topic 740-10”), which establishes that a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return is to be recognized in the consolidated financial statements when it is more likely than not, based on the technical merits, that the position will be sustained upon examination. FASB ASC Topic 740-10 is effective for private companies for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008. The Company’s adoption of FASB ASC Topic 740-10 did not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
Fund startup expenses
The Company expenses all startup expenses associated with the registration of each fund. Fund startup expenses include offering costs relating to the initial registration of sharesand include, but are not limited to, legal fees pertaining to the initial registration of shares, SEC and FINRA registration fees, initial fees paid to be listed on an exchange and other similar costs.
Recent accounting pronouncements
In December 2009, the FASB issued ASU 2009-17, Consolidations (Topic 810) - Improvements to Financial Reporting by Enterprises Involved with Variable Interest Entities. This ASU changes how a reporting entity determines when an entity that is insufficiently capitalized or is not controlled through voting (or similar rights) should be consolidated. ASU 2009-17 also requires a reporting entity to provide additional disclosures about its involvement with variable interest entities and any significant changes in risk exposure due to that involvement. ASU 2009-17 is effective at the start of a reporting entity’s first fiscal year beginning after November 15, 2009.
In February 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-10, Consolidation (Topic 810) - Amendments for Certain Investment Funds. This ASU amends certain provisions of ASC 810 pertaining to investments in variable interest entities to defer the effective date of ASU 2009-17 for certain investment entities and changes how decision makers and service providers determine whether their fees are variable interests. The amendments in ASU 2010-10 are effective as of the beginning of a reporting entity’s first annual period that begins after November 15, 2009, and for interim periods within that first annual reporting period. The adoption of ASU 2010-10 did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position.
united states commodity funds LLc
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 2 -Summary of Significant Accounting PolicieS (concluded)
In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-06, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820) - Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements. This ASU requires new disclosures and clarifies certain existing disclosure requirements about fair value measurements. ASU 2010-06 requires a reporting entity to disclose significant transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements, to describe the reasons for the transfers, and to present separately information about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements for fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs. ASU 2010-05 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2009, except for the disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements in the roll forward of activity in Level 3 fair value measurements, which is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2010; early adoption is permitted.
NOTE 3 -Capitalization and related party transactions
During the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company paid approximately $2,130,000 and $1,000,000 in distributions to its member.
In addition, the Company, as General Partner or Sponsor, through no obligation to do so, has agreed to pay certain expenses, including those relating to audit expenses and tax accounting and reporting requirements normally borne by UGA, UHN, DNO, UNL, BNO, USCI, CPER, USAG, and USMI to the extent that such expenses exceed 0.15% (15 basis points) of their NAV, on an annualized basis. The Company, as General Partner or Sponsor, has no obligation to continue such payments in subsequent years.
On March 8, 2012, a principle of the Company loaned $1,000,000 to the Company. The loan is due on on the earlier of March 11, 2014 or within 60 days of the launch of the United States Asian Basket Fund and bears interest at a rate of 3%. The loan was subsequently repaid, including interest of approximately $9,900, on May 1, 2013.
On January 14, 2015, Wainwright entered into a stock repurchase agreement as part of an employment separation agreement with one of its shareholders. The agreement calls for Wainwright to purchase the shareholder’s stock for $4,389,066. The agreement calls for payments to be made from funds from the Company. The total repurchase amount is due to be paid by July 15, 2015.
On January 4, 2015, the Company and one of its employees entered into an accelerated severance agreement. The severance agreement calls for the Company to pay approximately $570,000 to the former employee. Under the agreement, the former employee will continue to work until April 30, 2015.
NOTE 4 -FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
The following table summarizes the valuation of the Company’s investments at December 31, 2014 and 2013 using the fair value hierarchy:
united states commodity funds LLc
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 5 -INCOME TAXES
The Company has filed an election with the Internal Revenue Service to be treated as an association taxable as a corporation. The Company files a consolidated federal income tax return with Wainwright and provides for income taxes as if the Company filed separately. The Company, however, does not file on a consolidated basis for state income tax purposes. In connection with filing a consolidated federal income tax return, the Company has recorded federal income tax expense (benefit) and has recorded a corresponding due from parent and due to parent for its federal tax liability (benefit).
Deferred tax assets and liabilities reflect the net tax effects of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes. Significant components of the Company’s deferred tax liabilities and assets as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 are as follows:
The valuation allowance decreased by $187,000 for the year ended December 31, 2014 and increased by $34,000 for the year ended December 31, 2013. The portion of the deferred tax asset shown relating to the Company’s unrealized losses on investments reported above relates to the unrealized losses on investments and is accounted for as other comprehensive loss (see Note 7).
united states commodity funds LLc
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 6 -CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
The Company, together with each of the Funds, is a party to marketing agent agreements with ALPS Distributors, Inc. (“ALPS”), a Colorado corporation, whereby ALPS provides certain marketing services for the Funds as outlined in their respective marketing agent agreements. Under the agreement dated as of March 13, 2006, as amended, whereby ALPS provides certain marketing services for USO, the Company pays ALPS a marketing fee of $425,000 per annum plus the following incentive fee: 0.00% on USO’s assets from $0 - $500 million; 0.04% on USO’s assets from $500 million - $4 billion; and 0.03% on USO’s assets in excess of $4 billion. Under the agreement dated as of April 17, 2007, whereby ALPS provides certain marketing services for USNG, and the agreement dated as of November 13, 2007, whereby ALPS provides certain marketing services for USL, the Company pays ALPS fees equal to 0.06% on each of UNG’s and USL’s assets up to $3 billion and 0.04% on each of UNG’s and USL’s assets in excess of $3 billion. Under the agreement dated as of February 15, 2008, whereby ALPS provides certain marketing services for UGA, and the agreement dated March 10, 2008 whereby ALPS provides certain marketing services for UHN, the Company pays ALPS fees equal to 0.06% on each of UGA’s and UHN’s assets up to $3 billion and 0.04% on each of UGA’s and UHN’s assets in excess of $3 billion. Under the agreement dated as of June 8, 2009, whereby ALPS provides certain marketing services for DNO and the agreement dated October 30, 2009, whereby ALPS provides certain marketing services for UNL, the Company pays ALPS fees equal to 0.06% on each of DNO’s and UNL’s assets up to $3 billion; and 0.04% on each of DNO’s and UNL’s assets in excess of $3 billion. Under the agreement dated as of March 31, 2010, whereby ALPS provides certain marketing services for BNO and the agreement dated July 22, 2010, whereby ALPS provides certain marketing services for USCI and the agreement dated January 3, 2011 whereby ALPS provides certain marketing services for CPER, USAG and USMI, the Company pays ALPS fees equal to 0.06% on each of BNO’s, USCI’s, CPER’s, USAG’s and USMI’s assets up to $3 billion; and 0.04% on each of BNO’s, USCI’s, CPER’s, USAG’s and USMI’s assets in excess of $3 billion.
The above fees do not include the following expenses, which are also borne by the Company: the cost of placing advertisements in various periodicals, web construction and development, and the printing and production of various marketing materials.
The Company, each of the Funds and Trust are parties to custodian agreements with Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“Brown Brothers”), whereby Brown Brothers holds investments on behalf of the Funds. The Company pays the fees of the custodian, which shall be determined by the parties from time to time. In addition, the Company, with each of the Funds and the Trust, are parties to administrative agency agreements with Brown Brothers, whereby Brown Brothers acts as the administrative agent, transfer agent and registrar for each of the Funds. The Company also pays the fees of Brown Brothers for its services under these agreements and such fees will be determined by the parties from time to time.
Currently, the Company pays Brown Brothers for its services, in the foregoing capacities, the greater of a minimum amount of $75,000 annually or an asset-based charge of (a) 0.06% for the first $500 million of combined net assets, (b) 0.0465% for combined net assets greater than $500 million but less than $1 billion, and (c) 0.035% of combined net assets in excess of $1 billion. The Company also pays a $20,000 annual fee for transfer agency services and transaction fees ranging from $7.00 to $15.00 per transaction.
united states commodity funds LLc
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 6 -CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS (concluded)
The Company, as Sponsor to the Trust, has entered into an agreement with SummerHaven Asset Management, LLC (“SummerHaven”) for their services as a commodity trading advisor to each of USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI. For their services, the Company pays SummerHaven an advisory fee for USCI equal to a percentage of the average daily assets of USCI that is equal to the percentage paid to USCF by USCI minus 0.14% with that result multiplied by 0.5 minus 0.06%. The Company also pays an advisory fee for CPER, USAG and USMI equal to a percentage of the average daily assets of CPER, USAG and USMI that is equal to the percentage paid to the Company by CPER, USAG and USMI minus 0.18% with that result multiplied by 0.5 minus 0.06%. The Company also pays SummerHaven a sublicense fee for the use of the SDCI, SCITR, SDAI and SDMI. For each of USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI the Company paid $15,000 for the calendar year 2014, plus an annual fee of 0.06% of the average daily assets of each of USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI.
Each of the Funds, with the exception of USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI, has entered into brokerage agreements pursuant to which RBC Capital Markets, LLC act as the futures commission merchants (the “FCM”); Wells Fargo Securities, LLC acts as the FCM for USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI. The agreements provide that the FCM will charge commissions of approximately $7 to $8 per round-turn trade plus applicable exchange and NFA fees for futures contracts and options on futures contracts.
Each of the Funds, other than BNO, USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI, has invested primarily in futures contracts traded on the Exchange since the commencement of its operations. The Funds, other than BNO, USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI, have entered into a license agreement with the Exchange whereby the Funds were granted a non-exclusive license to use certain of the Exchange’s settlement prices and service marks. Up to October 19, 2011, the Funds, other than BNO, USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI, paid a licensing fee that was equal to 0.04% for the first $1,000,000,000 of combined assets of the Funds and 0.02% for combined assets above $1,000,000,000. On and after October 20, 2011, the Funds, other than BNO, USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI, pay a licensing fee that is equal to 0.015% on all assets.
The Funds expressly disclaim any association with the Exchange or endorsement of the Funds by the Exchange and acknowledge that “NYMEX” and “New York Mercantile Exchange” are registered trademarks of such Exchange.
The Company has contracted an accounting firm to prepare each of the Funds and the Trust’s yearly income tax filings with the Internal Revenue Service and various states. The cost associated with any registered new fund is expected to be comparable.
united states commodity funds LLc
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 7 -ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE LOSS
Changes in accumulated other comprehensive loss for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 are as follows:
The Company records its other comprehensive loss net of income tax expense (benefit). As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company has not recorded an income tax expense or benefit associated with its accumulated other comprehensive loss (see Note 5).
NOTE 8 -OFF-BALANCE SHEET RISKS AND CONTINGENCIES
The Funds engage in the trading of U.S. futures contracts, options on U.S. contracts, cleared swap contracts and over-the-counter derivative transactions (collectively “derivatives”). The Funds are exposed to both market risk, the risk arising from changes in the market value of the contracts; and credit risk, the risk of failure by another party to perform according to the terms of a contract.
All of the contracts currently traded by the Funds, with the exception of USNG, are exchange-traded. The risks associated with exchange-traded contracts are generally perceived to be less than those associated with over-the-counter transactions since, in over-the-counter transactions, the Funds must rely solely on the credit of their respective individual counterparties. To the extent the Funds enter into non-exchange traded contracts, they are subject to the credit risk associated with counterparty non-performance. The credit risk from counterparty non-performance associated with such instruments is the net unrealized gain, if any. The Funds also have credit risk since the sole counterparty to all domestic futures contracts is the exchange clearing corporation. In addition, the Funds bear the risk of financial failure by the clearing broker.
The purchase and sale of futures and options on futures contracts require margin deposits with an FCM. Additional deposits may be necessary for any loss on contract value. The Commodity Exchange Act requires an FCM to segregate all customer transactions and assets from the FCM’s proprietary activities.
united states commodity funds LLc
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 8 -OFF-BALANCE SHEET RISKS AND CONTINGENCIES (concluded)
A customer’s cash and other property, such as U.S. Treasury Bills, deposited with an FCM are considered commingled with all other customer funds subject to the FCM’s segregation requirements. In the event of an FCM’s insolvency, recovery may be limited to a pro rata share of segregated funds available. It is possible that the recovered amount could be less than the total of cash and other property deposited.
For derivatives, risks arise from changes in the market value of the contracts. Theoretically, the Funds are exposed to market risk equal to the value of futures and forward contracts purchased and unlimited liability on such contracts sold short. As both buyers and sellers of options, the Funds pay or receive a premium at the outset and then bear the risk of unfavorable changes in the price of the contract underlying the option.
The Company’s policy is to continuously monitor its exposure to market and counterparty risk through the use of a variety of financial, position and credit exposure reporting and control procedures. In addition, the Company has a policy of reviewing the credit standing of each clearing broker or counter-party with which it conducts business.
The financial instruments held by the Company are reported in the statement of financial condition at market or fair value, or at carrying amounts that approximate fair value, because of their highly liquid nature and short-term maturities.
The Company has securities for its own account and may incur losses if the market value of the securities decreases subsequent to December 31, 2014.
The Company has a substantial portion of its assets on deposit with banks. Assets deposited with banks are subject to credit risk. In the event of a bank's insolvency, recovery of the Company's assets on deposit may be limited to account insurance or other protection afforded such deposits. As of December 31, 2014, the Company had cash of $870,123 in excess of the federally insured amount of $250,000.
NOTE 9 -SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 855-10-05, the Company has performed an evaluation of subsequent events through March 13, 2015 which is the date the financial statements were available to be issued. The evaluation did not result in any items to disclose except as disclosed below.
As of March 13, 2015, the Company has paid $2,500,000 in connection with Wainwright’s stock repurchase agreement as discussed in Note 3. In addition, the Company has paid $717,357 in connection with the accelerated severance agreement discussed in Note 3.
Item 9.
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.
Not applicable.
Item 9A.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
UGA maintains disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that material information required to be disclosed in UGA’s periodic reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time period specified in the SEC’s rules and forms.
The duly appointed officers of USCF, including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, who perform functions equivalent to those of a principal executive officer and principal financial officer of UGA if UGA had any officers, have evaluated the effectiveness of UGA’s disclosure controls and procedures and have concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures of UGA have been effective as of the end of the period covered by this annual report on Form 10-K.
Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
UGA is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. UGA’s internal control system is designed to provide reasonable assurance to USCF and the Board of USCF regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation. USCF’s report on internal control over financial reporting is set forth above under the heading, “Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting” in Item 8 of this annual report on Form 10-K.
Change in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There were no changes in UGA’s internal control over financial reporting during UGA’s last fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, UGA’s internal control over financial reporting.
Item 9B.
Item 9B. Other Information.
Monthly Account Statements
Pursuant to the requirement under Rule 4.22 under the CEA, each month UGA publishes an account statement for its shareholders, which includes a Statement of Income (Loss) and a Statement of Changes in Net Asset Value. The account statement is furnished to the SEC on a current report on Form 8-K pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and posted each month on UGA’s website at www.unitedstatescommodityfunds.com.
Part III
Item 10.
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
Principals and Key Personnel of USCF. UGA has no executive officers. Pursuant to the terms of the LP Agreement, UGA’s affairs are managed by USCF. The following principals of USCF serve in the below mentioned capacities:
Name
Capacity
Nicholas D. Gerber
President, Chief Executive Officer and Management Director of USCF
Howard Mah
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Management Director of USCF
Andrew F. Ngim
Management Director of USCF and Portfolio Manager
John T. Hyland
Chief Investment Officer of USCF
Carolyn M. Yu
Chief Compliance Officer of USCF
John P. Love
Senior Portfolio Manager
Ray W. Allen
Portfolio Manager
Christopher P. Mullen
Assistant Portfolio Manager
Gordon L. Ellis
Independent Director of USCF
Malcolm R. Fobes
Independent Director of USCF
Peter M. Robinson
Independent Director of USCF
Nicholas D. Gerber, 52, President and Chief Executive Officer since June 2005. Mr. Gerber co-founded USCF in 2005 and prior to that, he co-founded Ameristock Corporation in March 1995, a California-based investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 from March 1995 until January 2013. From January 26, 2015 to the present, Mr. Gerber is also the Chief Executive Officer, President and Secretary of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (“Concierge”), a supplier of mobile video recording devices thru its wholly owned subsidiary Janus Cam. Concierge is not affiliated with USCF and the Related Public Funds, other than through ownership by common control. Concierge is a publicly traded company under the ticker symbol “CNCG.” From August 1995 to January 2013, Mr. Gerber served as Portfolio Manager of Ameristock Mutual Fund, Inc. On January 11, 2013, the Ameristock Mutual Fund, Inc. merged with and into the Drexel Hamilton Centre American Equity Fund, a series of Drexel Hamilton Mutual Funds. Drexel Hamilton Mutual Funds is not affiliated with Ameristock Corporation, the Ameristock Mutual Fund, Inc. or USCF. From the period August 2014 to the present, Mr. Gerber also serves as President (Principal Executive Officer) and Management Trustee of the USCF ETF Trust, an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, as well as President of USCF Advisers LLC, an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended. In these roles, Mr. Gerber has gained extensive experience in evaluating and retaining third-party service providers, including custodians, accountants, transfer agents, and distributors. He has served as a Management Director of USCF since May 2005 and has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since November 2005, an NFA associate member and associated person of USCF since December 2005 and a Branch Manager of USCF since May 2009. Mr. Gerber earned an MBA degree in finance from the University of San Francisco, a BA from Skidmore College and holds an NFA Series 3 registration.
Howard Mah, 50, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of USCF since June 2005, May 2006 and February 2012, respectively. Mr. Mah co-founded USCF and has served as a Management Director since May 2005. He has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since November 2005 and its Chief Compliance Officer from May 2006 to February 2013. From the period August 2014 to the present, Mr. Mah also serves as Chief Compliance Officer, Treasurer (Principal Accounting Officer) and Management Trustee of the USCF ETF Trust, as well as Chief Financial Officer of USCF Advisers LLC. Mr. Mah has served as Chief Compliance Officer for Ameristock Corporation which he co-founded in March 1995; Secretary of Ameristock Mutual Fund, Inc. from June 1995 to January 2013 and its Chief Compliance Officer from August 2004 to January 2013. Mr. Mah also served as a tax and finance consultant in private practice from January 1995 to December 2013. Mr. Mah earned his MBA degree in finance from the University of San Francisco and a BEd from the University of Alberta.
Andrew F. Ngim, 54, co-founded USCF in 2005 and has served as a Management Director since May 2005. Mr. Ngim has served as the portfolio manager for USCI, CPER, USAG and USMI since January 2013. Mr. Ngim also served as USCF’s Treasurer from June 2005 to February 2012. Prior to and concurrent with his services to USCF, from January 1999 to January 2013 Mr. Ngim served as a Managing Director for Ameristock Corporation which he co-founded in March 1995 and was Co-Portfolio Manager of Ameristock Mutual Fund, Inc. from January 2000 to January 2013. From the period September 2014 to the present, Mr. Ngim also serves as portfolio manager of the Stock Split Index Fund, a series of the USCF ETF Trust, as well as a Management Trustee of the USCF ETF Trust from the period of August 2014 to the present. Mr. Ngim has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since November 2005. Mr. Ngim earned his BA from the University of California at Berkeley.
John T. Hyland, 55, Chief Investment Officer since January 2008. Mr. Hyland has also served as a portfolio manager for USCF from April 2006 until June 2012. He has been listed with the CFTC and NFA as an associate member and associated person of USCF since December 2005, principal and swap associated person since January 2006 and August 2013, respectively. Mr. Hyland graduated from the University of California at Berkeley, holds an NFA Series 3 registration and is a CFA Charterholder.
Carolyn M. Yu, 56, Chief Compliance Officer and Associate Counsel since February 2013 and August 2011, respectively. From the period August 2014 to the present, Ms. Yu also serves as Assistant Chief Compliance Officer and AML Officer of the USCF ETF Trust, as well as Chief Compliance Officer of USCF Advisers LLC. Previously, Ms. Yu served as Branch Chief with the Securities Enforcement Branch for the State of Hawaii, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs from February 2008 to August 2011. She has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since August 2013. Ms. Yu earned her JD from Golden Gate University School of Law and a BS in business administration from San Francisco State University.
John P. Love, 43, Senior Portfolio Manager of USCF since March 2010. Prior to that, while still at USCF, he was a Portfolio Manager beginning with the launch of USO in April 2006. Mr. Love was the portfolio manager of USO from April 2006 until March 2010 and the portfolio manager for USL from December 2007 until March 2010. Mr. Love has been the portfolio manager of UNG since April 2007, and the portfolio manager of UGA, UHN, and UNL since March 2010. Mr. Love also serves as a portfolio manager of the Stock Split Index Fund, a series of the USCF ETF Trust from the period of September 2014 to the present. Mr. Love has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since January 17, 2006. He has been listed with the CFTC and NFA as an associate member, associated person and swap associated person of USCF since February 25, 2015. Mr. Love was previously an associated person of USCF registered from December 1, 2005 to April 16, 2009. Mr. Love earned a BA from the University of Southern California, holds NFA Series 3 and FINRA Series 7 registrations and is a CFA Charterholder.
Ray W. Allen, 58, Portfolio Manager of USCF since January 2008. Mr. Allen was the portfolio manager of UGA from February 2008 until March 2010, the portfolio manager of UHN from April 2008 until March 2010 and the portfolio manager of UNL from November 2009 until March 2010. Mr. Allen has been the portfolio manager of DNO since September 2009, and the portfolio manager of USO and USL since March 2010 and the manager of BNO since June 2010. Mr. Allen has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since March 2009 and was an associated person of USCF from March 2008 to November 2012. Mr. Allen earned a BA in economics from the University of California at Berkeley and holds an NFA Series 3 registration.
Christopher P. Mullen, 24, Assistant Portfolio Manager of USCF since September 2014. Prior to working at USCF, Mr. Mullen was an undergraduate student at Marquette University from May 2008 until May of 2012. From 2008 until July 2011, he was a full time student. While a student, Mr. Mullen also worked as a Media Relations Intern with the Milwaukee Brewers, from July 2011 until June 2012. From June 2012 until October 2012, Mr. Mullen was unemployed. Starting in October 2012 until February 2013, Mr. Mullen was employed as a Public Relations Intern for the Public Affairs Company. From February 2013 through August 2014, Mr. Mullen served as a Financial Analyst for USCF. In September 2014, Mr. Mullen was promoted to Assistant Portfolio Manager. Mr. Mullen earned his BA from Marquette University in May of 2012.
Gordon L. Ellis, 68, Independent Director of USCF since September 2005. Previously, Mr. Ellis was a founder of International Absorbents, Inc., its Director and Chairman since July 1985 and July 1988, respectively, and Chief Executive Officer and President since November 1996. He also served as Chairman and director of Absorption Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of International Absorbents, Inc. International Absorbents, Inc. and Absorption Corp. were sold to a private investment banking firm in May 2010. Mr. Ellis served as a director of the privatized firm through July 2014. Concurrent with that, he founded and has served as Chairman and director of Polymer Solutions Inc and its wholly owned subsidiary, AMT Environmental Products until it was sold to a multinational industry leader in 2003. More recently, Mr. Ellis founded Lupaka Gold Corp. which has been active since 2010. He continues to serve as Chairman of Lupaka Gold Corp. Mr. Ellis has his Chartered Directors designation from The Director’s College (a joint venture of McMaster University and The Conference Board of Canada). He has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since November 2005. Mr. Ellis is an engineer and earned his MBA in international finance.
Malcolm R. Fobes III, 50, Independent Director of USCF and Chairman of USCF’s audit committee since September 2005. He founded and is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Berkshire Capital Holdings, Inc., a California-based investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 that has been sponsoring and providing portfolio management services to mutual funds since June 1997. Mr. Fobes serves as Chairman and President of The Berkshire Funds, a mutual fund investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Since 1997, Mr. Fobes has also served as portfolio manager of the Berkshire Focus Fund, a mutual fund registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, which concentrates its investments in the electronic technology industry. He was also contributing editor of Start a Successful Mutual Fund: The Step-by-Step Reference Guide to Make It Happen (JV Books, 1995). Mr. Fobes has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since November 2005. He earned a BS in finance with a minor in economics from San Jose State University in California.
Peter M. Robinson, 57, Independent Director of USCF since September 2005. Mr. Robinson has been a Research Fellow since 1993 with the Hoover Institution, a public policy think tank located on the campus of Stanford University. He authored three books and has been published in the New York Times, Red Herring, and Forbes ASAP and is the editor of Can Congress Be Fixed?: Five Essays on Congressional Reform (Hoover Institution Press, 1995). Mr. Robinson has been a principal of USCF listed with the CFTC and NFA since December 2005. He earned an MBA from the Stanford University Graduate School of Business, graduated from Oxford University in 1982 after studying politics, philosophy, and economics and graduated summa cum laude from Dartmouth College in 1979.
The following are individual Principals, as that term is defined in CFTC Rule 3.1, for USCF: Nicholas Gerber, Melinda Gerber, the Nicholas and Melinda Gerber Living Trust, Howard Mah, Andrew Ngim, Peter Robinson, Gordon Ellis, Malcolm Fobes, John Love, John Hyland, Ray Allen, Carolyn Yu, Wainwright Holdings Inc. and Margaret Johnson. These individuals are Principals due to their positions, however, Nicholas Gerber and Melinda Gerber are also Principals due to their controlling stake in Wainwright. None of the Principals owns or has any other beneficial interest in UGA. Ray Allen and John Hyland make trading and investment decisions for UGA. John Love and Ray Allen execute trades on behalf of UGA. In addition, Nicholas Gerber and John Hyland are registered with the CFTC as Associated Persons of USCF and are NFA Associate Members.
Audit Committee
The Board of USCF has an audit committee which is made up of the three independent directors (Gordon L. Ellis, Malcolm R. Fobes III, and Peter M. Robinson). Mr. Forbes currently serves as chair of the Audit Committee. The audit committee is governed by an audit committee charter that is posted on UGA’s website at www.unitedstatescommodityfunds.com. Any shareholder of UGA may also obtain a printed copy of the audit committee charter, free of charge, by calling 1-800-920-0259. The Board has determined that each member of the audit committee meets the financial literacy requirements of the NYSE Arca and the audit committee charter. The Board has further determined that each of Messrs. Ellis and Fobes have accounting or related financial management expertise, as required by the NYSE Arca, such that each of them is considered an “Audit Committee Financial Expert” as such term is defined in Item 407(d)(5) of Regulation S-K.
Other Committees
Since the individuals who perform work on behalf of UGA are not compensated by UGA, but instead by USCF, UGA does not have a compensation committee. Similarly, since the directors noted above serve on the Board of USCF, there is no nominating committee of the Board that acts on behalf of UGA. USCF believes that it is necessary for each member of the Board to possess many qualities and skills. USCF further believes that all directors should possess a considerable amount of business management and educational experience. There have not been any vacancies on USCF’s Board since the commencement of operations of UGA in April 2007; however, if such a vacancy were to occur, the members of the Board would consider a candidate’s management experience as well as his/her background, stature, conflicts of interest, integrity and ethics. In connection with this, the Board would also consider issues of diversity, such as diversity of gender, race and national origin, education, professional experience and differences in viewpoints and skills. The Board does not have a formal policy with respect to diversity; however, the Board believes that it is essential that the Board members represent diverse viewpoints.
Corporate Governance Policy
The Board of USCF has adopted a Corporate Governance Policy that applies to UGA and the Related Public Funds. UGA has posted the text of the Corporate Governance Policy on its website at www.unitedstatescommodityfunds.com. Any shareholder of UGA may also obtain a printed copy of the Corporate Governance Policy, free of charge, by calling 1-800-920-0259.
Code of Ethics
USCF has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (the “Code of Ethics”) that applies to its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions, and also to UGA. UGA has posted the text of the Code of Ethics on its website at www.unitedstatescommodityfunds.com. Any shareholder of UGA may also obtain a printed copy of the Code of Ethics, free of charge, by calling 1-800-920-0259. UGA intends to disclose any amendments or waivers to the Code of Ethics applicable to USCF’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions, on its website.
Executive Sessions of the Non-Management Directors
In accordance with the Corporate Governance Policy of USCF, the non-management directors of the Board (who are the same as the independent directors of the Board) meet separately from the other directors in regularly scheduled executive sessions, without the presence of Management Directors or executive officers of USCF. The non-management directors have designated Gordon L. Ellis to preside over each such executive session. Interested parties who wish to make their concerns known to the non-management directors may communicate directly with Mr. Ellis by writing to 475 Milan Drive, No. 103, San Jose, CA 95134-2453 or by e-mail at uscf.director@gmail.com.
Board Leadership Structure and Role in Risk Oversight
The Board of USCF is led by a Chairman, Nicholas Gerber, who is also the President and CEO of USCF. The Board’s responsibilities include: (i) the selection, evaluation, retention and succession of the Chief Executive Officer and the oversight of the selection and performance of other executive officers, (ii) understanding, reviewing and monitoring the implementation of strategic plans, annual operating plans and budgets, (iii) the selection and oversight of UGA’s independent auditors and the oversight of UGA’s financial statements, (iv) advising management on significant issues, (v) the review and approval of significant company actions and certain other matters, (vi) nominating directors and committee members and overseeing effective corporate governance and (vii) the consideration of other constituencies, such as USCF’s and UGA’s customers, employees, suppliers and the communities impacted by UGA. The non-management directors have designated Gordon L. Ellis as the presiding independent director. Mr. Ellis’ role as the presiding independent director includes presiding over each executive session of the non-management directors, facilitating communications by shareholders and employees with the non-management directors and may also include representing the non-management directors with respect to certain matters as to which the views of the non-management directors are sought pursuant to UGA’s Corporate Governance Policy.
The Board believes that Mr. Gerber is best situated to serve as Chairman of USCF because he is the director most familiar with the business of USCF, including investing in the futures contracts and other commodity interests in order to track the benchmark futures contracts of UGA and the Related Public Funds. Because of his background, he is most capable of effectively leading the discussion and execution of new strategic objectives. The independent directors of USCF are actively involved in the oversight of USCF and, because of their varied backgrounds, provide different perspectives in connection with the oversight of USCF, UGA and the Related Public Funds. USCF’s independent directors bring expertise from outside USCF and the commodities industry, while Mr. Gerber brings company-specific and industry-specific experience and expertise. The Board believes that the combined role of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer facilitates information flow between USCF and the Board, including the independent directors, which is essential to effective governance.
Risk Management
The full Board is actively involved in overseeing the management and operation of USCF, including oversight of the risks that face UGA and the Related Public Funds. For example, the Board has adopted an Investment Policy and a Policy for Use of Derivatives. The policies are intended to ensure that USCF takes prudent and careful action while entering into and managing investments taken by UGA, including Futures Contracts or Other Gasoline-Related Investments such as over-the-counter swap contracts. Additionally, the policies are intended to provide assurance that there is sufficient flexibility in controlling risks and returns associated with the use of investments by UGA. The policies, among other things, limit UGA’s ability to have too high of a concentration of its assets in non-exchange traded futures contracts or cleared swap contracts or concentrating its investments in too few counterparties, absent prior approval from the Board. Existing counterparties are reviewed periodically by the Board to ensure that they continue to meet the criteria outlined in the policies. The Board tasks USCF with assessing risks, including market risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, cash flow risk, basis risk, legal and tax risk, settlement risk, and operational risk.
The Board also determines compensation payable to employees of USCF, including the portfolio managers of each of UGA and the Related Public Funds. The compensation of certain employees of USCF is, in part, based on the amount of assets under management by UGA and the Related Public Funds. The Board feels that compensating certain employees, in part, based on the amount of assets under management is appropriate since having more assets in a fund generally reflects that investors perceive the fund’s investment objective is being met. There are certain risks that may arise as a result of a growth in assets under management. For example, if position limits are imposed on UGA and the assets under management continue to increase, then UGA may not be able to invest solely in the Benchmark Futures Contract and may have to invest in over-the-counter swap contracts or Other Gasoline-Related Investments as it seeks to track its benchmark. Other Futures Contracts in which UGA may invest may not track changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. Other Gasoline-Related Investments, including over-the-counter swap contracts, may also expose UGA to increased counterparty credit risk and may be less liquid and more difficult to value than Futures Contracts. UGA and the Related Public Funds ameliorate the potential credit, liquidity and valuation risks by fully collateralizing any over-the-counter swap contracts or other investments. In making compensation decisions, the Board considers whether a compensation arrangement would expose UGA or the Related Public Funds to additional risks and whether the risks posed by such arrangement are consistent with the best interests of UGA’s investors.
Other Information
In addition to the certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of USCF filed or furnished with this annual report on Form 10-K regarding the quality of UGA’s public disclosure, UGA will submit, within 30 days after filing this annual report on Form 10-K, to the NYSE Arca a certification of the Chief Executive Officer of USCF certifying that he is not aware of any violation by UGA of NYSE Arca corporate governance listing standards.
Item 11.
Item 11. Executive Compensation.
Compensation to USCF and Other Compensation
UGA does not directly compensate any of the executive officers noted above. The executive officers noted above are compensated by USCF for the work they perform on behalf of UGA and other entities controlled by USCF. UGA does not reimburse USCF for, nor does it set the amount or form of any portion of, the compensation paid to the executive officers by USCF. UGA pays fees to USCF pursuant to the LP Agreement under which it is obligated to pay USCF an annualized fee of 0.60% of its average daily net assets. For 2014, UGA accrued aggregate management fees of $294,290.
Director Compensation
The following table sets forth compensation earned during the year ended December 31, 2014, by the directors of USCF. UGA’s portion of the aggregate fees paid to the directors for the year ended December 31, 2014 was $6,848.
(1) Mr. Fobes serves as chairman of the audit committee of USCF and receives additional compensation in recognition of the additional responsibilities he has undertaken in this role.
Item 12.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
None of the directors or executive officers of USCF, nor the employees of UGA own any shares of UGA. In addition, UGA is not aware of any 5% holder of its shares.
Item 13.
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions
UGA has and will continue to have certain relationships with USCF and its affiliates. However, there have been no direct financial transactions between UGA and the directors or officers of USCF that have not been disclosed herein. See “Item 11. Executive Compensation” and “Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.” Any transaction with a related person that must be disclosed in accordance with SEC Regulation S-K item 404(a), including financial transactions by UGA with directors or executive officers of USCF or holders of beneficial interests in USCF or UGA of more than 5%, will be subject to the provisions regarding “Resolutions of Conflicts of Interest; Standard of Care” as set forth in Section 7.7 of the LP Agreement and will be reviewed and approved by the audit committee of the Board of USCF.
Director Independence
In February 2015, the Board undertook a review of the independence of the directors of USCF and considered whether any director has a material relationship or other arrangement with USCF, UGA or the Related Public Funds that could compromise his ability to exercise independent judgment in carrying out his responsibilities. As a result of this review, the Board determined that each of Messrs. Fobes, Ellis and Robinson is an “independent director,” as defined under the rules of NYSE Arca.
Item 14.
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.
The fees for services billed to UGA by its independent auditors for the last two fiscal years are as follows:
Audit fees consist of fees paid to Spicer Jeffries LLP for (i) the audit of UGA’s annual financial statements included in the annual report on Form 10-K, and review of financial statements included in the quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and certain of UGA’s current reports on Form 8-K; and (ii) services that are normally provided by the Independent Registered Public Accountants in connection with statutory and regulatory filings of registration statements.
Tax fees consist of fees paid to Spicer Jeffries LLP for professional services rendered in connection with tax compliance and partnership income tax return filings.
The audit committee has established policies and procedures which are intended to control the services provided by UGA’s independent auditors and to monitor their continuing independence. Under these policies and procedures, no audit or permitted non-audit services (including fees and terms thereof), except for the de minimis exceptions for non-audit services described in Section 10A(i)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act, may be undertaken by UGA’s independent auditors unless the engagement is specifically pre-approved by the audit committee. The audit committee may form and delegate authority to subcommittees consisting of one or more members when appropriate, including the authority to grant pre-approvals of audit and permitted non-audit services, provided that decisions of such subcommittee to grant pre-approvals must be presented to the full audit committee at its next scheduled meeting.
Part IV
Item 15.
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.
1. See Index to Financial Statements on page 56.
2. No financial statement schedules are filed herewith because (i) such schedules are not required or (ii) the information required has been presented in the aforementioned financial statements.
3. Exhibits required to be filed by Item 601 of Regulation S-K.
Exhibit Index
Listed below are the exhibits which are filed or furnished as part of this annual report on Form 10-K (according to the number assigned to them in Item 601 of Regulation S-K):
Exhibit Number Description of Document
3.1(1) Certificate of Limited Partnership of the Registrant.
3.2(2) Second Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership.
3.3(3) Fifth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of USCF.
10.1(4) Form of Initial Authorized Participant Agreement.
10.2(5) License Agreement between United States Commodity Funds LLC and New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc.
10.3(6) Third Amendment to License Agreement between United States Commodity Funds LLC and New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc.
10.4(7) Custodian Agreement.
10.5(8) Amendment Agreement to the Custodian Agreement.
10.6(9) Second Amendment Agreement to the Custodian Agreement.
10.7(7) Administrative Agency Agreement.
10.8(8) Amendment Agreement to the Administrative Agency Agreement.
10.9(9) Second Amendment Agreement to the Administrative Agency Agreement.
10.10(10) Marketing Agent Agreement.
10.11(7) Amendment Agreement to the Marketing Agent Agreement.
10.12(9) Second Amendment Agreement to the Marketing Agent Agreement.
10.13(2) Third Amendment Agreement to the Marketing Agent Agreement.
10.14(11) Form of United States Commodity Funds LLC Director Deferred Compensation Agreement.
14.1(12) Code of Ethics.
31.1(12) Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
31.2(12) Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
32.1(12) Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U. S. C. 1350).
32.2(12) Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U. S. C. 1350).
99.1(7) Customer Agreement for Futures Contracts.
101.INS XBRL Instance Document.
101.SCH XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema.
101.CAL XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase.
101.DEF XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase.
101.LAB XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase.
101.PRE XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase.
(1) Incorporated by reference to Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-142206) filed on April 18, 2007.
(2) Incorporated by reference to Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2012, filed on March 13, 2013.
(3) Incorporated by reference to Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2011, filed on March 8, 2012.
(4) Incorporated by reference to Registrant’s Pre-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-142206) filed on January 11, 2008.
(5) Incorporated by reference to United States Natural Gas Fund, LP’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended March 31, 2007, filed on June 1, 2007.
(6) Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed on October 24, 2011.
(7) Incorporated by reference to Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended September 30, 2009, filed on November 16, 2009.
(8) Incorporated by reference to Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, filed on March 31, 2009.
(9) Incorporated by reference to Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended June 30, 2012, filed on August 9, 2012.
(10) Incorporated by reference to Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333- 162717) filed on October 28, 2009.
(11) Incorporated by reference to Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed on April 1, 2010.
(12) Filed herewith.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
United States Gasoline Fund, LP (Registrant)
By: United States Commodity Funds LLC, its general partner
By: /s/ Nicholas D. Gerber
Nicholas D. Gerber
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal executive officer)
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this Report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
Signature Title (Capacity) Date
/s/ Nicholas D. Gerber Management Director March 26, 2015
Nicholas D. Gerber
/s/ Howard Mah Management Director March 26, 2015
Howard Mah
/s/ Andrew Ngim Management Director March 26, 2015
Andrew Ngim
/s/ Peter M. Robinson Independent Director March 26, 2015
Peter M. Robinson
/s/ Gordon L. Ellis Independent Director March 26, 2015
Gordon L. Ellis
/s/ Malcolm R. Fobes III Independent Director March 26, 2015
Malcolm R. Fobes III