UNITED STATES OIL FUND, LP
10-Ks and 10-Qs
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington,
D.C. 20549
FORM
10-K
|
x
|
Annual
report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2009.
|
or
|
¨
|
Transition
report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 for the transition period
from to .
|
Commission
file number: 001-32834
United
States Oil Fund, LP
(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
Delaware
|
20-2830691
|
|
(State
or other jurisdiction of
|
(I.R.S.
Employer
|
|
incorporation
or organization)
|
Identification
No.)
|
1320
Harbor Bay Parkway, Suite 145
Alameda,
California 94502
(Address
of principal executive offices) (Zip code)
(510)
522-9600
(Registrant’s
telephone number, including area code)
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
Units
|
NYSE
Arca, Inc.
|
|
(Title
of each class)
|
(Name
of exchange on which
registered)
|
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in
Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
¨
Yes
x
No
Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to
Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
¨
Yes
x
No
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to
be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.
x
Yes
¨
No
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on
its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be
submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this
chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to submit and post such files).
¨
Yes
¨
No
Indicate
by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not
be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K
or any amendment to this Form 10-K.
¨
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting
company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,”
“accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act.
|
Large
accelerated filer
x
|
Accelerated
filer
¨
|
|
Non-accelerated
filer
¨
|
Smaller
reporting company
¨
|
|
(Do
not check if a smaller reporting company)
|
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule
12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
¨
Yes
x
No
The
aggregate market value of the registrant’s units held by non-affiliates of the
registrant as of June 30, 2009 was: $2,309,937,000.
The
registrant had 47,800,000 outstanding units as of February 26,
2010.
DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:
None.
UNITED
STATES OIL FUND, LP
Table
of Contents
|
|
Page
|
|
Part
I.
|
|
|
Item
1. Business.
|
1
|
|
Item
1A. Risk Factors.
|
50
|
|
Item
1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
|
66
|
|
Item
2. Properties.
|
66
|
|
Item
3. Legal Proceedings.
|
66
|
|
Item
4. Reserved.
|
66
|
|
Part
II.
|
|
|
Item
5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
|
67
|
|
Item
6. Selected Financial Data.
|
67
|
|
Item
7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results
of Operations.
|
68
|
|
Item
7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market
Risk.
|
87
|
|
Item
8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
|
88
|
|
Item
9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure.
|
105
|
|
Item
9A. Controls and Procedures.
|
105
|
|
Item
9B. Other Information.
|
106
|
|
Part
III.
|
|
|
Item
10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate
Governance.
|
106
|
|
Item
11. Executive Compensation.
|
111
|
|
Item
12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and
Related Stockholder Matters.
|
112
|
|
Item
13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director
Independence.
|
112
|
|
Item
14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.
|
113
|
|
Part
IV.
|
|
|
Item
15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.
|
113
|
|
Exhibit
Index.
|
114
|
|
Signatures
|
115
|
What
is USOF?
The
United States Oil Fund, LP (“USOF”) is a Delaware limited partnership
organized on May 12, 2005. USOF maintains its main business office at 1320
Harbor Bay Parkway, Suite 145, Alameda, California 94502. USOF is a commodity
pool that issues limited partnership interests (“units”) traded on the NYSE
Arca, Inc. (the “NYSE Arca”). It operates pursuant to the terms of the Fifth
Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of October
13, 2008 (the “LP Agreement”), which grants full management control to United
States Commodity Funds LLC (the “General Partner”).
The
investment objective of USOF is for the changes in percentage terms of its
units’ net asset value (“NAV”) to reflect the changes in percentage terms of the
spot price of light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma, as measured
by the changes in the price of the futures contract on light, sweet crude oil
traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the “NYMEX”), less USOF’s
expenses. USOF’s units began trading on April 10, 2006. The General Partner is
the general partner of USOF and is responsible for the management of
USOF.
Who
is the General Partner?
The
General Partner is a single member limited liability company that was formed in
the state of Delaware on May 10, 2005. Prior to June 13, 2008, the General
Partner was known as Victoria Bay Asset Management, LLC. It maintains its main
business office at 1320 Harbor Bay Parkway, Suite 145, Alameda, California
94502. The General Partner 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. Wainwright previously owned an insurance
company organized under Bermuda law, which has been liquidated, and a registered
investment adviser firm named Ameristock Corporation, which has been distributed
to the Wainwright shareholders. The General Partner 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.
On
September 11, 2006, the General Partner formed the United States Natural Gas
Fund, LP (“USNG”), another limited partnership that is a commodity pool
and issues units traded on the NYSE Arca. The investment
objective of USNG is for the changes in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to
reflect the changes in percentage terms of the price of natural gas delivered at
the Henry Hub, Louisiana, as measured by the changes in the price of the futures
contract on natural gas traded on the NYMEX, less USNG’s expenses. USNG’s units
began trading on April 18, 2007. The General Partner is the general partner of
USNG and is responsible for the management of USNG.
On June
27, 2007, the General Partner formed the United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP
(“US12OF”), also a limited partnership that is a commodity pool and issues units
traded on the NYSE Arca. The investment objective of US12OF is for the changes
in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to reflect the changes in percentage terms
of the price of light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma, as
measured by the changes in the average of the prices of 12 futures contracts on
light, sweet crude oil traded on 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, less US12OF’s expenses. US12OF’s units began
trading on December 6, 2007. The General Partner is the general partner of
US12OF and is responsible for the management of US12OF.
On April
12, 2007, the General Partner formed the United States Gasoline Fund, LP
(“UGA”), also a limited partnership that is a commodity pool and issues units
traded on the NYSE Arca. The investment objective of UGA is for the changes
in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to reflect the changes in spot percentage
terms of the price of unleaded gasoline delivered to the New York harbor, as
measured by the changes in the price of the futures contract on gasoline traded
on the NYMEX, less UGA’s expenses. UGA’s units began trading on February 26,
2008. The General Partner is the general partner of UGA and is responsible for
the management of UGA.
1
On April
13, 2007, the General Partner formed the United States Heating Oil Fund, LP
(“USHO”), also a limited partnership that is a commodity pool and issues units
traded on the NYSE Arca. The investment objective of USHO is for the
changes in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to reflect the changes in
percentage terms of the spot price of heating oil (also known as No. 2 fuel oil)
delivered to the New York harbor, as measured by the changes in the price of the
futures contract on heating oil traded on the NYMEX, less USHO’s expenses.
USHO’s units began trading on April 9, 2008. The General Partner is the
general partner of USHO and is responsible for the management of
USHO.
On June
30, 2008, the General Partner formed the United States Short Oil Fund, LP
(“USSO”), also a limited partnership that is a commodity pool and issues units
traded on the NYSE Arca. The investment objective of USSO is for the
changes in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to inversely reflect the changes
in percentage terms of the spot price of light, sweet crude oil delivered to
Cushing, Oklahoma, as measured by the changes in the price of the futures
contract on light, sweet crude oil as traded on the NYMEX, less USSO’s
expenses. USSO’s units began trading on September 24, 2009. The
General Partner is the general partner of USSO and is responsible for the
management of USSO.
On June
27, 2007, the General Partner formed the United States 12 Month Natural Gas
Fund, LP (“US12NG”), also a limited partnership that is a commodity pool and
issues units traded on the NYSE Arca. The investment objective of US12NG is for
the changes in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to reflect the changes in
percentage terms of the spot price of natural gas delivered at the Henry
Hub, Louisiana, as measured by the changes in the average of the prices of 12
futures contracts on natural gas traded on 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, less US12NG’s
expenses. US12NG’s units began trading on November 18, 2009. The
General Partner is the general partner of US12NG and is responsible for the
management of US12NG.
USNG,
US12OF, UGA, USHO, USSO and US12NG are collectively referred to herein as the
“Related Public Funds”. For more information about each of the
Related Public Funds, investors in USOF may call 1-800-920-0259 or go online to
www.unitedstatescommodityfunds.com.
The
General Partner has filed a registration statement for two other exchange traded
security funds, the United States Brent Oil Fund, LP (“USBO”) and the United
States Commodity Index Funds Trust (“USCI”). The investment objective of USBO
will be for the daily changes in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to reflect
the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of Brent crude oil, as
measured by the changes in the price of the futures contract on Brent crude oil
traded on the ICE Futures, less USBO’s expenses. The investment
objective of USCI will be for the daily changes in percentage terms of its
units’ NAV to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the SummerHaven
Dynamic Commodity Index (“SDCI”) Total Return, less USCI’s
expenses.
The
General Partner is required to evaluate the credit risk of USOF to the futures
commission merchant, oversee the purchase and sale of USOF’s units by certain
authorized purchasers (“Authorized Purchasers”), review daily positions and
margin requirements of USOF and manage USOF’s investments. The General Partner
also pays the fees of ALPS Distributors, Inc., which acts as the marketing agent
for USOF (the “Marketing Agent”), and Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.
(“BBH&Co.”), which acts as the administrator (the “Administrator”)
and the custodian (the “Custodian”) for USOF.
Limited
partners have no right to elect the General Partner on an annual or any other
continuing basis. If the General Partner voluntarily withdraws, however, the
holders of a majority of USOF’s outstanding units (excluding for purposes of
such determination units owned, if any, by the withdrawing General Partner
and its affiliates) may elect its successor. The General Partner 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 USOF’s outstanding units (excluding
units owned, if any, by the General Partner and its affiliates), subject to
the satisfaction of certain conditions set forth in the LP
Agreement.
The
business and affairs of the General Partner are managed by a board of directors
(the “Board”), which is comprised of four management directors, some of whom are
also its executive officers (the “Management Directors”), and three independent
directors who meet the independent director requirements established by the NYSE
Arca and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Management Directors have the authority to
manage the General Partner pursuant to its limited liability company agreement.
Through its Management Directors, the General Partner manages the day-to-day
operations of USOF. The Board has an audit committee which is made up of the
three independent directors (Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis and Malcolm R.
Fobes III). 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.
2
How
Does USOF Operate?
The net
assets of USOF consist primarily of investments in futures contracts
for light, sweet crude oil, but may also consist of investment contracts
for other types of crude oil, 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
interests such as cash-settled options on Oil Futures Contracts, forward
contracts for oil, and over-the-counter transactions that are based on the price
of oil, other petroleum-based fuels, Oil Futures Contracts and indices based on
the foregoing (collectively, “Other Oil Interests”). For convenience and unless
otherwise specified, Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests collectively
are referred to as “oil interests” in this annual report on Form
10-K.
USOF
invests in oil 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 Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil
Interests. In pursuing this objective, the primary focus of the General Partner
is the investment in Oil Futures Contracts and the management of USOF’s
investments in short-term obligations of the United States of two years or less
(“Treasuries”), cash and/or cash equivalents for margining purposes and as
collateral.
The
investment objective of USOF is for the changes in percentage terms of its
units’ NAV to reflect the changes in percentage terms of the spot price of
light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma, as measured by the
changes in the price of the futures contract on light, sweet crude oil as 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 the futures
contract will be the next month contract to expire, less USOF’s expenses. It is
not the intent of USOF to be operated in a fashion such that its NAV will equal,
in dollar terms, the spot price of light, sweet crude oil or any particular
futures contract based on light, sweet crude oil.
USOF
seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing in a mix of Oil Futures
Contracts and Other Oil Interests such that the changes in its NAV will closely
track the changes in the price of the NYMEX futures contract for light, sweet
crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma (the “Benchmark Oil Futures Contract”).
The General Partner believes changes in the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures
Contract have historically exhibited a close correlation with the changes in the
spot price of light, sweet crude oil. On any valuation day (a valuation day
is any NYSE Arca trading day as of which USOF calculates its NAV as described
herein), the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract is the near month contract
for light, sweet crude oil traded on the NYMEX unless the near month
contract will expire within two weeks of the valuation day, in which case the
Benchmark Oil Futures Contract is the next month contract for light, sweet crude
oil traded on the NYMEX.
As a
specific benchmark, the General Partner endeavors to place USOF’s trades in Oil
Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests and otherwise manage USOF’s
investments so that A will be within plus/minus 10 percent of B,
where:
|
|
·
|
A
is the average daily change in USOF’s NAV for any period of 30 successive
valuation days;
i.e
., any NYSE Arca
trading day as of which USOF calculates its NAV,
and
|
|
|
·
|
B
is the average daily change in the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures
Contract over the same period.
|
The
General Partner believes that market arbitrage opportunities cause daily changes
in USOF’s unit price on the NYSE Arca to closely track daily changes in USOF’s
NAV per unit. The General Partner further believes that the daily changes in
prices of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract have historically closely tracked
the daily changes in the spot price of light, sweet crude oil. The General
Partner believes that the net effect of these two relationships and the expected
relationship described above between USOF’s NAV and the Benchmark Oil Futures
Contract will be that the daily changes in the price of USOF’s units on the NYSE
Arca will continue to closely track the daily changes in the spot price of a
barrel of light, sweet crude oil, less USOF’s expenses. The following two
graphs demonstrate the correlation between the daily changes in the NAV of USOF
and the daily changes in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract both since the
initial public offering of USOF’s units on April 10, 2006 through December 31,
2009 and during the last thirty valuation days ended December 31,
2009.
3
*PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
*PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
An
investment in the units provides a means for diversifying an investor’s
portfolio or hedging exposure to changes in oil prices. An investment
in the units allows both retail and institutional investors to easily gain this
exposure to the crude oil market in a transparent, cost-effective
manner.
4
The expected correlation of the price
of USOF’s units, USOF’s NAV and the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract
and the spot price of light, sweet crude oil is illustrated in the following
diagram:
The
General Partner employs a “neutral” investment strategy intended to track
changes in the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract regardless of whether
the price goes up or goes down. USOF’s “neutral” investment strategy is designed
to permit investors generally to purchase and sell USOF’s units for the purpose
of investing indirectly in crude oil in a cost-effective manner, and/or to
permit participants in the oil or other industries to hedge the risk of losses
in their crude oil-related transactions. Accordingly, depending on the
investment objective of an individual investor, the risks generally associated
with investing in crude oil and/or the risks involved in hedging may exist. In
addition, an investment in USOF involves the risk that the changes in the price
of USOF’s units will not accurately track the changes in the Benchmark Oil
Futures Contract.
From
inception to March 2009, the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract of USOF was changed
from the near month contract to expire to the next month contract to expire,
starting on the date two weeks prior to the expiration of the near month
contract. The change in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract occurred in its
entirety from one day until the next day.
5
Since
March 2009, the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract has changed each month from the
near month contract to the next month contract over a four-day period. The
Benchmark Oil Futures Contract changes starting at the end of the day on the
date two weeks prior to expiration of the near month contract for that month.
During the first three days of the period, the applicable value of the Benchmark
Oil Futures Contract is based on a combination of the near month contract and
the next month contract as follows: (1) day 1 consists of 75% of the
then near month contract’s price plus 25% of the price of the next month
contract, divided by 75% of the near month contract’s prior day’s price plus 25%
of the price of the next month contract, (2) day 2 consists of 50% of
the then near month contract’s price plus 50% of the price of the next month
contract, divided by 50% of the near month contract’s prior day’s price plus 50%
of the price of the next month contract, and (3) day 3 consists of
25% of the then near month contract’s price plus 75% of the price of the next
month contract, divided by 25% of the near month contract’s prior day’s price
plus 75% of the price of the next month contract. On day 4, the
Benchmark Futures Contract is the next month contract to expire at that time and
that contract remains the Benchmark Futures Contract until the beginning of the
following month’s change in the Benchmark Futures Contract over a four-day
period.
On each
day during the four-day period, the General Partner “rolls” USOF’s positions in
oil interests by closing, or selling, a percentage
of USOF’s positions in
oil interests and reinvesting the proceeds from closing those positions in new
oil interests that reflect the change in the Benchmark Oil Futures
Contract.
The
anticipated dates that the monthly four-day roll period will commence for 2010
will be posted on USOF’s website at www.unitedstatesoilfund.com, and are subject
to change without notice.
USOF’s
total portfolio composition is disclosed on its website each 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 oil interest, the
specific types of Other Oil Interests and characteristics of such Other Oil
Interests, Treasuries, and amount of the cash and/or cash equivalents held in
USOF’s portfolio. USOF’s website is publicly accessible at no charge. USOF’s
assets are held in segregated accounts pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act
(the “CEA”) and CFTC regulations.
The units
issued by USOF may only be purchased by Authorized Purchasers and only in blocks
of 100,000 units called Creation Baskets. The amount of the purchase payment for
a Creation Basket is equal to the aggregate NAV of units in the Creation Basket.
Similarly, only Authorized Purchasers may redeem units and only in blocks of
100,000 units called Redemption Baskets. The purchase price for Creation
Baskets, and the redemption price for Redemption Baskets is the actual NAV of
the units purchased or redeemed calculated at the end of the business day when
notice for a purchase or redemption is received by USOF. In addition, Authorized
Purchasers pay USOF a $1,000 fee for each order placed to create one or
more Creation Baskets or redeem one or more Redemption Baskets. The NYSE Arca
publishes an approximate NAV intra-day based on the prior day’s NAV and the
current price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract, but the basket price is
determined based on the actual NAV at the end of the day.
While
USOF issues units only in Creation Baskets, units may also be
purchased and sold in much smaller increments on the NYSE Arca. These
transactions, however, are effected at the bid and ask prices established
by specialist firm(s). Like any listed security, units can be purchased and sold
at any time a secondary market is open.
What
is USOF’s Investment Strategy?
In
managing USOF’s assets, the General Partner does not use a technical trading
system that issues buy and sell orders. The General Partner instead employs a
quantitative methodology whereby each time a Creation Basket is sold, the
General Partner purchases oil interests, such as the Benchmark Oil 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.
6
As an
example, assume that a Creation Basket is sold by USOF, and that USOF’s closing
NAV per unit is $50.00. In that case, USOF would receive $5,000,000 in proceeds
from the sale of the Creation Basket ($50.00 NAV per unit multiplied by 100,000
units, and excluding the Creation Basket fee of $1,000). If one were to assume
further that the General Partner wants to invest the entire proceeds from the
Creation Basket in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract and that the market value
of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract is $59,950, USOF would be unable to buy
the exact number of Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts with an aggregate market
value equal to $5,000,000. Instead, USOF would be able to purchase 83 Benchmark
Oil Futures Contracts with an aggregate market value of $4,975,850. Assuming a
margin requirement equal to 10% of the value of the Benchmark Oil Futures
Contract, USOF would be required to deposit $497,585 in Treasuries and cash with
the futures commission merchant through which the Benchmark Oil Futures
Contracts were purchased. The remainder of the proceeds from the sale of the
Creation Basket, $4,502,415, would remain invested in cash, cash equivalents,
and Treasuries as determined by the General Partner from time to time based on
factors such as potential calls for margin or anticipated
redemptions.
The
specific Oil Futures Contracts purchased depends on various factors, including a
judgment by the General Partner as to the appropriate diversification of USOF’s
investments in futures contracts with respect to the month of expiration, and
the prevailing price volatility of particular contracts. While the General
Partner has made significant investments in NYMEX Oil Futures Contracts, as USOF
reaches certain accountability levels or position limits on the NYMEX, or for
other reasons, it may invest in Oil Futures Contracts traded on other exchanges
or may invest in Other Oil Interests such as contracts in the “over-the-counter”
market.
The
General Partner does not anticipate letting USOF’s Oil Futures Contracts expire
and taking delivery of the underlying commodity. Instead, the General Partner
closes existing positions,
e.g.
, when it changes the
Benchmark Oil Futures Contract or it otherwise determines it would be
appropriate to do so and reinvests the proceeds in new Oil Futures Contracts or
Other Oil Interests. Positions may also be closed out to meet orders for
Redemption Baskets and in such case proceeds for such baskets will not be
reinvested.
By
remaining invested as fully as possible in Oil Futures Contracts or Other Oil
Interests, the General Partner believes that the changes in percentage terms in
USOF’s NAV will continue to closely track the changes in percentage terms
in the prices of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract. The General Partner
believes that certain arbitrage opportunities result in the price of the units
traded on the NYSE Arca closely tracking the NAV of USOF. Additionally, oil
futures contracts traded on the NYMEX have closely tracked the spot price of
light, sweet crude oil. Based on these expected interrelationships, the General
Partner believes that the changes in the price of USOF’s units as traded on the
NYSE Arca have closely tracked and will continue to closely track the changes in
the spot price of light, sweet crude oil. For performance data relating to
USOF’s ability to track its benchmark, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Tracking USOF’s
Benchmark”.
What
are Oil Futures Contracts?
Oil
Futures Contracts are agreements between two parties. One party agrees to buy
crude oil from the other party at a later date at a price and quantity
agreed-upon when the contract is made. Oil Futures Contracts are traded on
futures exchanges, including the NYMEX. For example, the Benchmark Oil Futures
Contract is traded on the NYMEX in units of 1,000 barrels. The price of crude
oil futures contracts 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.
Certain
typical and significant characteristics of Oil Futures Contracts are discussed
below. Additional risks of investing in Oil Futures Contracts are included in
“What are the Risk Factors Involved with an Investment in USOF?”
Impact of Accountability Levels,
Position Limits and Price Fluctuation Limits
. Oil Futures Contracts
include typical and significant characteristics. Most significantly, the CFTC
and U.S. designated contract markets such as the NYMEX 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 USOF is not) may hold, own or control. The net position is the difference
between an individual or firm’s open long contracts and open short contracts in
any one commodity. In addition, most U.S. futures exchanges, such as the NYMEX,
limit the daily price fluctuation for Oil Futures Contracts. Currently, the ICE
Futures imposes position and accountability limits that are similar to those
imposed by the NYMEX but does not limit the maximum daily price
fluctuation.
7
The
accountability levels for the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract and other Oil
Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX are not a fixed ceiling, but rather a
threshold above which the NYMEX may exercise greater scrutiny and control over
an investor’s positions. The current accountability level for any one month in
the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract is 10,000 net contracts. In addition, the
NYMEX imposes an accountability level for all months of 20,000 net futures
contracts for investments in futures contracts for light, sweet crude oil. If
USOF and the Related Public Funds exceed these accountability levels for
investments in the futures contract for light, sweet crude oil, the NYMEX will
monitor USOF’s and the Related Public Funds’ exposure and ask for further
information on their activities including the total size of all positions,
investment and trading strategy, and the extent of liquidity resources of USOF
and the Related Public Funds. If deemed necessary by the NYMEX, it could also
order USOF and the Related Public Funds to reduce their aggregate net position
back to the accountability level. In addition, the ICE Futures maintains the
same accountability levels, position limits and monitoring authority for its
light, sweet crude oil contract as the NYMEX. As of December 31, 2009, USOF and
the Related Public Funds held a net of 13,409 NYMEX Crude Oil Futures CL
contracts, 2,000 NYMEX Crude Oil Financial Futures WS contracts, 17,747 ICE WTI
Crude Oil Futures contracts and short positions in 166 NYMEX Crude Oil Futures
CL contracts.
If the
NYMEX or the ICE Futures orders USOF to reduce its position back to the
accountability level, or to an accountability level that the NYMEX or the ICE
Futures deems appropriate for USOF, such an accountability level may impact the
mix of investments in oil interests made by USOF. To illustrate, assume that the
price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract and the unit price of USOF are each
$10, and that the NYMEX has determined that USOF may not own more than 10,000
Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts. In such case, USOF could invest up to $1
billion of its daily net assets in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract (
i.e
., $10 per contract
multiplied by 1,000 (a Benchmark Oil Futures Contract is a contract for 1,000
barrels of oil multiplied by 10,000 contracts)) before reaching the
accountability level imposed by the NYMEX. Once the daily net assets of the
portfolio exceed $1 billion in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract, the portfolio
may not be able to make any further investments in the Benchmark Oil Futures
Contract. If the NYMEX were to impose limits at the $1 billion level (or another
level), USOF anticipates that it would invest the majority of its assets above
that level in a mix of other Oil Futures Contracts or Other Oil Interests in
order to meet its investment objective.
See
“Risk Factors—Risks Associated With Investing Directly or Indirectly in Crude
Oil—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 USOF.”
In
addition to accountability levels, the NYMEX and the ICE Futures impose position
limits on contracts held in the last few days of trading in the near month
contract to expire. It is unlikely that USOF will run up against such position
limits because USOF’s investment strategy is to close out its positions and
“roll” from the near month contract to expire to the next month contract during
a four-day period beginning two weeks from expiration of the
contract.
U.S.
futures exchanges, including the NYMEX, also limit the amount of price
fluctuation for Oil Futures Contracts. For example, the NYMEX imposes a $10.00
per barrel ($10,000 per contract) price fluctuation limit for Oil Futures
Contracts. This limit is initially based off the previous trading day’s
settlement price. If any Oil Futures Contract is traded, bid, or offered at the
limit for five minutes, trading is halted for five minutes. When trading resumes
it begins at the point where the limit was imposed and the limit is reset to be
$10.00 per barrel in either direction of that point. If another halt were
triggered, the market would continue to be expanded by $10.00 per barrel in
either direction after each successive five-minute trading halt. There is no
maximum price fluctuation limit during any one trading session.
U.S.
futures exchanges, including the NYMEX, currently do not implement fixed
position limits for Futures Contracts held outside of the last few days of
trading in the near month contract to expire. However, on January 26,
2010, the CFTC published a proposed rule that, if implemented, would set fixed
position limits on energy Futures Contracts, including the NYMEX Light Sweet
crude oil futures contract, NYMEX Henry Hub natural gas futures contract, NYMEX
New York Harbor No. 2 heating oil futures contract, and NYMEX New York Harbor
gasoline blendstock (“RBOB”) gasoline futures contract, along with any contract
based upon these contracts. The proposed position limits would be set
as a percentage of the open interest in these contracts for the spot month, any
single month, and all months combined. Additionally, the proposed
rule would aggregate positions in the enumerated contracts and those based upon
such contracts, including contracts listed on separate
exchanges. This proposal is currently undergoing a 90-day public
comment period.
8
USOF
anticipates that to the extent it invests in Futures Contracts other
than light, sweet crude oil contracts (such as futures contracts for Brent
crude oil, natural gas, heating oil, and gasoline) and Other Oil Interests, it
will enter into various non-exchange-traded derivative contracts to hedge the
short-term price movements of such Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests
against the current Benchmark Oil Futures Contract.
Examples
of the position and price limits imposed are as follows:
|
Futures Contract
|
Position Accountability
Levels and Limits
|
Maximum Daily
Price Fluctuation
|
||
|
NYMEX
Light, Sweet Crude Oil
(physically
settled)
|
Any
one month: 10,000 net futures / all months: 20,000 net futures, but not to
exceed 3,000 contracts in the last three days of trading in the spot
month.
|
$10.00
per barrel ($10,000 per contract) for all months. If any contract is
traded, bid, or offered at the limit for five minutes, trading is halted
for five minutes. When trading resumes, the limit is expanded by $10.00
per barrel in either direction. If another halt were triggered, the market
would continue to be expanded by $10.00 per barrel in either direction
after each successive five-minute trading halt. There will be no maximum
price fluctuation limits during any one trading session.
|
||
|
NYMEX
Light, Sweet Crude Oil
(financially
settled)
|
Any
one month: 20,000 net futures / all months: 20,000 net futures, but not to
exceed 2,000 contracts in the last three days of trading in the spot
month.
|
There
is no maximum daily price fluctuation limit.
|
||
|
ICE
West Texas Intermediate
(“WTI”)
Crude Futures
(financially
settled)
|
Any
one month: 10,000 net futures / all months: 20,000 net futures, but not to
exceed 3,000 contracts in the last three days of trading in the spot
month.
|
There
is no maximum daily price fluctuation limit.
|
||
|
ICE
Brent Crude Futures
(physically
settled)
|
There
are no position limits.
|
There
is no maximum daily price fluctuation limit.
|
||
|
NYMEX
Heating Oil
(physically
settled)
|
Any
one month: 5,000 net futures / all months: 7,000 net futures, but not to
exceed 1,000 contracts in the last three days of trading in the spot
month.
|
$0.25
per gallon ($10,500 per contract) for all months. If any contract is
traded, bid, or offered at the limit for five minutes, trading is halted
for five minutes. When trading resumes, the limit is expanded by $0.25 per
gallon in either direction. If another halt were triggered, the market
would continue to be expanded by $0.25 per gallon in either direction
after each successive five-minute trading halt. There will be no maximum
price fluctuation limits during any one trading session.
|
9
|
NYMEX
Gasoline
(physically
settled)
|
Any
one month: 5,000 net futures / all months: 7,000 net futures, but not to
exceed 1,000 contracts in the last three days of trading in the spot
month.
|
$0.25
per gallon ($10,500 per contract) for all months. If any contract is
traded, bid, or offered at the limit for five minutes, trading is halted
for five minutes. When trading resumes, the limit is expanded by $0.25 per
gallon in either direction. If another halt were triggered, the market
would continue to be expanded by $0.25 per gallon in either direction
after each successive five-minute trading halt. There will be no maximum
price fluctuation limits during any one trading session.
|
||
|
NYMEX
Natural Gas
(physically
settled)
|
Any
one month: 6,000 net futures / all months: 12,000 net futures, but not to
exceed 1,000 contracts in the last three days of trading in the spot
month.
|
$3.00
per million British thermal units (“mmBtu”) ($30,000 per contract) for all
months. If any contract is traded, bid, or offered at the limit for five
minutes, trading is halted for five minutes. When trading resumes, the
limit is expanded by $3.00 per mmBtu in either direction. If another halt
were triggered, the market would continue to be expanded by $3.00 per
mmBtu in either direction after each successive five-minute trading halt.
There will be no maximum price fluctuation limits during any one trading
session.
|
Price
Volatility
. Despite daily price limits, the price volatility
of Oil Futures Contracts generally has been historically greater than that for
traditional securities such as stocks and bonds. Price volatility often is
greater day-to-day as opposed to intra-day. Oil Futures Contracts tend to be
more volatile than stocks and bonds because price movements for crude oil are
more currently and directly influenced by economic factors for which current
data is available and are traded by crude oil futures traders throughout the
day. These economic factors include changes in interest rates; governmental,
agricultural, trade, fiscal, monetary and exchange control programs and
policies; weather and climate conditions; changing supply and demand
relationships; changes in balances of payments and trade; U.S. and international
rates of inflation; currency devaluations and revaluations; U.S. and
international political and economic events; and changes in philosophies and
emotions of market participants. Because USOF invests a significant portion of
its assets in Oil Futures Contracts, the assets of USOF, and therefore the
prices of USOF units, may be subject to greater volatility than traditional
securities.
Marking-to-Market Futures
Positions
. Oil Futures Contracts are marked to market at the
end of each trading day and the margin required with respect to such contracts
is adjusted accordingly. This process of marking-to-market is designed to
prevent losses from accumulating in any futures account. Therefore, if USOF’s
futures positions have declined in value, USOF may be required to post
additional variation margin to cover this decline. Alternatively, if USOF’s
futures positions have increased in value, this increase will be credited to
USOF’s account.
What
is the Crude Oil Market and the Petroleum-Based Fuel Market?
USOF may
purchase Oil Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX that are based on light,
sweet crude oil. It may also purchase contracts on other exchanges, including
the ICE Futures and the Singapore Exchange. The NYMEX contract provides for
delivery of several grades of domestic and internationally traded foreign
crudes, and, among other things, serves the diverse needs of the physical
market. In Europe, Brent crude oil is the standard for futures contracts and is
primarily traded on the ICE Futures. Brent crude oil is the price reference for
two-thirds of the world’s traded oil. The ICE Brent Futures is a deliverable
contract with an option to cash settle which trades in units of 1,000 barrels
(42,000 U.S. gallons). The ICE Futures also offers a WTI Futures contract which
trades in units of 1,000 barrels. The WTI Contract is cash settled against the
prevailing market price for U.S. light sweet crude oil.
10
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, 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
conflict in Iraq 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.
Heating Oil.
Heating oil,
also known as No. 2 fuel oil, accounts for about 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 trading center. The price of heating oil has historically
been volatile.
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.
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
mmBtu 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.
Why
Does USOF Purchase and Sell Oil Futures Contracts?
USOF’s
investment objective is for the changes in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to
reflect the changes in percentage terms of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract,
less USOF’s expenses. USOF invests primarily in Oil Futures Contracts. USOF
seeks to have its aggregate NAV approximate at all times the aggregate market
value of the Oil Futures Contracts (or Other Oil Interests) it
holds.
Other
than investing in Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests, USOF only
invests in assets to support these investments in oil interests. At any given
time, most of USOF’s investments are in Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents
that serve as segregated assets supporting USOF’s positions in Oil Futures
Contracts and Other Oil Interests. For example, the purchase of an Oil Futures
Contract with a stated value of $10 million would not require USOF to pay $10
million upon entering into the contract; rather, only a margin deposit,
generally of 10% to 30% of the stated value of the Oil Futures Contract, would
be required. To secure its Oil Futures Contract obligations, USOF would deposit
the required margin with the futures commission merchant and would separately
hold, through its Custodian, Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents in an
amount equal to the balance of the current market value of the contract, which
at the contract’s inception would be $10 million minus the amount of the margin
deposit, or $9 million (assuming a 10% margin).
As a
result of the foregoing, typically 10% to 30% of USOF’s assets are held as
margin in segregated accounts with a futures commission merchant. In addition to
the Treasuries or cash it posts with the futures commission merchant for the Oil
Futures Contracts it owns, USOF holds, through the Custodian, Treasuries, cash
and/or cash equivalents that can be posted as margin or as collateral to support
its over-the-counter contracts. USOF earns interest income from the Treasuries
and/or cash equivalents that it purchases, and on the cash it holds through the
Custodian. USOF anticipates that the earned interest income will increase the
NAV and limited partners’ capital contribution accounts. USOF reinvests the
earned interest income, holds it in cash, or uses it to pay its expenses. If
USOF reinvests the earned interest income, it makes investments that are
consistent with its investment objectives.
11
What
is the Flow of Units?
What
are the Trading Policies of USOF?
Liquidity
USOF
invests only in Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests that are traded in
sufficient volume to permit, in the opinion of the General Partner, ease of
taking and liquidating positions in these financial interests.
12
Spot
Commodities
While the
Oil Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX can be physically settled, USOF does
not intend to take or make physical delivery. USOF may from time to time trade
in Other Oil Interests, including contracts based on the spot price of
crude oil.
Leverage
While
USOF’s historical ratio of initial margin to total assets has generally ranged
from 10% to 30%, the General Partner endeavors to have the value of USOF’s
Treasuries, cash and cash equivalents, whether held by USOF or posted as margin
or collateral, at all times approximate the aggregate market value of its
obligations under USOF’s Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests. While
the General Partner does not intend to leverage USOF’s assets, it is not
prohibited from doing so under the LP Agreement.
Borrowings
Borrowings
are not used by USOF unless USOF is required to borrow money in the event of
physical delivery, USOF trades in cash commodities, or for short-term needs
created by unexpected redemptions. USOF maintains the value of its Treasuries,
cash and/or cash equivalents, whether held by USOF or posted as margin or
collateral, to at all times approximate the aggregate market value of its
obligations under its Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests. USOF has
not established and does not plan to establish credit lines.
Over-the-Counter
Derivatives (Including Spreads and Straddles)
In
addition to Oil Futures Contracts, there are also a number of listed options on
the Oil Futures Contracts on the principal futures exchanges. These contracts
offer investors and hedgers another set of financial vehicles to use in managing
exposure to the crude oil market. Consequently, USOF may purchase options on
crude oil futures contracts on these exchanges in pursuing its investment
objective.
In
addition to the Oil Futures Contracts and options on the Oil Futures Contracts,
there also exists an active non-exchange-traded market in derivatives tied to
crude oil. These derivatives transactions (also known as over-the-counter
contracts) are usually entered into between two parties. Unlike most of the
exchange-traded Oil Futures Contracts or exchange-traded options on the Oil
Futures Contracts, each party to such contract bears the credit risk that the
other party may not be able to perform its obligations under its
contract.
Some
crude oil-based derivatives transactions contain fairly generic terms and
conditions and are available from a wide range of participants. Other crude
oil-based derivatives have highly customized terms and conditions and are not as
widely available. Many of these over-the-counter contracts are cash-settled
forwards for the future delivery of crude oil- or petroleum-based fuels that
have terms similar to the Oil Futures Contracts. Others take the form of “swaps”
in which the two parties exchange cash flows based on pre-determined formulas
tied to the crude oil spot price, forward crude oil price, the Benchmark Oil
Futures Contract price, or other crude oil futures contract price. For example,
USOF may enter into over-the-counter derivative contracts whose value will be
tied to changes in the difference between the crude oil spot price, the
Benchmark Oil Futures Contract price, or some other futures contract price
traded on the NYMEX or ICE Futures and the price of other Oil Futures Contracts
that may be invested in by USOF.
To
protect itself from the credit risk that arises in connection with such
contracts, USOF may enter into agreements with each counterparty that provide
for the netting of its overall exposure to its counterparty, such as the
agreements published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association,
Inc. USOF also may require that the counterparty be highly rated and/or provide
collateral or other credit support to address USOF’s exposure to the
counterparty.
The
General Partner assesses or reviews, as appropriate, the creditworthiness of
each potential or existing counterparty to an over-the-counter contract pursuant
to guidelines approved by the General Partner's Board of Directors. Furthermore,
the General Partner, on behalf of USOF, only enters into over-the-counter
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
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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 General Partner’s Board of Directors after consultation with its
legal counsel. Existing counterparties are also reviewed periodically by the
General Partner.
13
USOF may
employ spreads or straddles in its trading to mitigate the differences in its
investment portfolio and its goal of tracking the price of the Benchmark Oil
Futures Contract. USOF would use a spread when it chooses to take simultaneous
long and short positions in futures written on the same underlying asset, but
with different delivery months. The effect of holding such combined positions is
to adjust the sensitivity of USOF to changes in the price relationship between
futures contracts which will expire sooner and those that will expire later.
USOF would use such a spread if the General Partner felt that taking such long
and short positions, when combined with the rest of its holdings, would more
closely track the investment goals of USOF, or if the General Partner felt it
would lead to an overall lower cost of trading to achieve a given level of
economic exposure to movements in crude oil prices. USOF would enter into a
straddle when it chooses to take an option position consisting of a long (or
short) position in both a call option and put option. The economic effect of
holding certain combinations of put options and call options can be very similar
to that of owning the underlying futures contracts. USOF would make use of such
a straddle approach if, in the opinion of the General Partner, the resulting
combination would more closely track the investment goals of USOF or if it would
lead to an overall lower cost of trading to achieve a given level of economic
exposure to movements in crude oil prices.
USOF has
not employed any hedging methods since all of its investments have been made
over an exchange. Therefore, USOF has not been exposed to counterparty
risk.
Pyramiding
USOF has
not and will not employ the technique, commonly known as pyramiding, in which
the speculator uses unrealized profits on existing positions as variation margin
for the purchase or sale of additional positions in the same or another
commodity interest.
Who
are the Service Providers?
BBH&Co.
is the registrar and transfer agent for the units. BBH&Co. is also the
Custodian for USOF. In this capacity, BBH&Co. holds USOF’s Treasuries,
cash and/or cash equivalents pursuant to a custodial agreement. In
addition, in its capacity as Administrator for USOF, BBH&Co. performs
certain administrative and accounting services for USOF and prepares certain SEC
and CFTC reports on behalf of USOF. The General Partner pays BBH&Co.’s fees
for these services.
BBH&Co.’s
principal business address is 50 Milk Street, Boston, MA
02109-3661. BBH&Co., a private bank founded in 1818, is not a publicly
held company nor is it insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
BBH&Co. is authorized to conduct a commercial banking business in accordance
with the provisions of Article IV of the New York State Banking Law, New York
Banking Law §§160–181, and is subject to regulation, supervision, and
examination by the New York State Banking Department. BBH&Co. is also
licensed to conduct a commercial banking business by the Commonwealths of
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania and is subject to supervision and examination by
the banking supervisors of those states.
USOF also
employs ALPS Distributors, Inc. as a Marketing Agent. The General Partner
pays the Marketing Agent an annual fee plus an incentive fee. In no event
may the aggregate compensation paid to the Marketing Agent and any affiliate of
the General Partner for distribution-related services in connection with the
offering of units exceed ten percent (10%) of the gross proceeds of the
offering.
ALPS’s
principal business address is 1290 Broadway, Suite 1100, Denver, CO
80203. ALPS is the marketing agent for USOF. ALPS is a broker-dealer
registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and a
member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation.
UBS
Securities LLC (“UBS Securities”) is USOF’s futures commission merchant. USOF
and UBS Securities have entered into an Institutional Futures Client Account
Agreement. This Agreement requires UBS Securities to provide services to USOF in
connection with the purchase and sale of oil interests that may be purchased or
sold by or through UBS Securities for USOF’s account. USOF pays the fees of UBS
Securities.
14
UBS
Securities’s principal business address is 677 Washington Blvd, Stamford, CT
06901. UBS Securities is a futures clearing broker for USOF. UBS Securities is
registered in the U.S. with FINRA as a broker-dealer and with the CFTC as a
futures commission merchant. UBS Securities is a member of the NFA and of
various U.S. futures and securities exchanges.
UBS
Securities is the defendant in two purported securities class actions pending in
District Court of the Northern District of Alabama, brought by holders of stocks
and bonds of HealthSouth, captioned
In re HealthSouth
Corporation Stockholder
, No. CV-03-BE-1501-S and
In re HealthSouth
Corporation Bondholder Litigation
, No. CV-03-BE-1502-S. Both complaints
assert liability under the Exchange Act.
On June
27, 2007, the Securities Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (“Massachusetts Securities Division”) filed an administrative
complaint (the “Complaint”) and notice of adjudicatory proceeding against UBS
Securities LLC, captioned In The Matter of UBS Securities, LLC, Docket No.
E-2007-0049, which alleges, in sum and substance, that UBS Securities has been
violating the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act (the “Act”) and related
regulations by providing the advisers for certain hedge funds with gifts and
gratuities in the form of below market office rents, personal loans with below
market interest rates, event tickets, and other perks, in order to induce those
hedge fund advisers to increase or retain their level of prime brokerage fees
paid to UBS Securities. The Complaint seeks a cease and desist order from
conduct that violates the Act and regulations, to censure UBS Securities, to
require UBS Securities to pay an administrative fine of an unspecified amount,
and to find as fact the allegations of the Complaint.
On June
26, 2008, the Massachusetts Securities Division filed an administrative
complaint and notice of adjudicatory proceeding against UBS Securities and UBS
Financial Services, Inc. (“UBS Financial”), captioned In the Matter of UBS
Securities, LLC and UBS Financial Services, Inc., Docket No. 2008-0045, which
alleged that UBS Securities and UBS Financial violated the Act in connection
with the marketing and sale of auction rate securities.
On July
22, 2008, the Texas State Securities board filed an administrative proceeding
against UBS Securities and UBS Financial captioned the Matter of the Dealer
Registrations of UBS Financial Services, Inc. and UBS Securities LLC, SOAH
Docket No. ###-##-####, SSB Docket No. 08-IC04, alleging violations of the
anti-fraud provision of the Texas Securities Act in connection with the
marketing and sale of auction rate securities.
On July
24, 2008 the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) filed a complaint in Supreme
Court of the State of New York against UBS Securities and UBS Financial
captioned State of New York v. UBS Securities LLC and UBS Financial Services,
Inc., No. 650262/2008, in connection with UBS’s marketing and sale of auction
rate securities. The complaint alleges violations of the anti-fraud provisions
of New York state statutes and seeks a judgment ordering that the firm buy back
auction rate securities from investors at par, disgorgement, restitution and
other remedies.
On August
8, 2008, UBS Securities and UBS Financial reached agreements in principle with
the SEC, the NYAG, the Massachusetts Securities Division and other state
regulatory agencies represented by the North American Securities Administrators
Association (“NASAA”) to restore liquidity to all remaining client’s holdings of
auction rate securities by June 30, 2012. OnDocket No. 312-08-3918, SSB Docket No. 08-IC04, alleging violations of the
er 2, 2008, UBS Securities and
UBS Financial entered into a final consent agreement with the Massachusetts
Securities Division settling all allegations in the Massachusetts Securities
Division’s administrative proceeding against UBS Securities and UBS Financial
with regards to the auction rate securities matter. On December 11, 2008, UBS
Securities and UBS Financial executed an Assurance of Discontinuance in the
auction rate securities settlement with the NYAG. On the same day, UBS
Securities and UBS Financial finalized settlements with the SEC.
On August
14, 2008, the New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation filed an
administrative action against UBS Securities relating to a student loan issuer,
the New Hampshire Higher Education Loan Corp. (“NHHELCO”). The complaint alleges
fraudulent and unethical conduct in violation of New Hampshire state statues.
The complaint seeks an administrative fine, a cease and desist order, and
restitution to NHHELCO. The claim does not impact the global settlement with the
SEC, NYAG and NASAA relating to the marketing and sale of auction rate
securities to investors.
15
Further,
UBS Securities, like most full service investment banks and broker-dealers,
receives inquiries and is sometimes involved in investigations by the SEC,
FINRA, the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) and various other regulatory
organizations, exchanges and government agencies. UBS Securities fully
cooperates with the authorities in all such requests. UBS Securities regularly
discloses to the FINRA arbitration awards, disciplinary action and regulatory
events. These disclosures are publicly available on the FINRA’s website at
www.finra.org
. Actions with
respect to UBS Securities’ futures commission merchant business are publicly
available on the website of the National Futures Association (
http://www.nfa.futures.org/
).
UBS
Securities will act only as clearing broker for USOF and as such will be paid
commissions for executing and clearing trades on behalf of USOF. UBS Securities
has not passed upon the adequacy or accuracy of this annual report on Form 10-K.
UBS Securities neither will act in any supervisory capacity with respect to the
General Partner nor participate in the management of USOF.
UBS
Securities is not affiliated with USOF or the General Partner. Therefore, USOF
does not believe that USOF has any conflicts of interest with UBS Securities or
their trading principals arising from their acting as USOF’s futures commission
merchant.
Currently,
the General Partner does not employ commodity trading advisors. If, in the
future, the General Partner does employ commodity trading advisors, it will
choose each advisor based on arm’s-length negotiations and will consider the
advisor’s experience, fees and reputation.
Fees
of USOF
Fees
and Compensation Arrangements with the General Partner and Non-Affiliated
Service Providers*
|
Service Provider
|
Compensation Paid by the
General
Partner
|
|
|
Brown
Brothers Harriman & Co.,
Custodian
and Administrator
|
Minimum
amount of $75,000 annually* for its custody, fund accounting and fund
administration services rendered to all funds, as well as a $20,000 annual
fee for its transfer agency services. In addition, an asset-based charge
of (a) 0.06% for the first $500 million of USOF’s and the Related Public
Funds’ combined net assets, (b) 0.0465% for USOF’s and the Related Public
Funds’ combined net assets greater than $500 million but less than $1
billion, and (c) 0.035% once USOF’s and the Related Public Funds’ combined
net assets exceed $1 billion.**
|
|
|
ALPS
Distributors, Inc., Marketing Agent
|
$425,000
per annum plus an incentive fee as follows: 0.0% on USOF’s assets from
$0-500 million; 0.04% on USOF’s assets from $500 million-$4 billion; 0.03%
on USOF’s assets in excess of $4
billion.
|
* The
General Partner pays this compensation.
|
**
|
The
annual minimum amount will not apply if the asset-based charge for all
accounts in the aggregate exceeds $75,000. The General Partner also will
pay transaction charge fees to BBH&Co., ranging from $7.00 to $15.00
per transaction for the funds.
|
16
Compensation
to the General Partner
|
Assets
|
Management Fee
|
|
|
All
assets
|
0.45%
of
NAV
|
Fees are
calculated on a daily basis (accrued at 1/365 of the applicable percentage of
NAV on that day) and paid on a monthly basis. NAV is calculated by taking the
current market value of USOF’s total assets and subtracting any
liabilities.
Fees
and Compensation Arrangements between USOF and Non-Affiliated Service
Providers***
|
Service Provider
|
Compensation Paid by
USOF
|
|
|
UBS
Securities LLC, Futures Commission Merchant
|
Approximately
$3.50 per buy or sell;
charges
may vary
|
|
|
Non-Affiliated
Brokers
|
Approximately
0.16% of
assets
|
|
***
|
USOF
pays this compensation.
|
New
York Mercantile Exchange Licensing Fee****
|
Assets
|
Licensing Fee
|
|
|
First
$1,000,000,000
|
0.04%
of NAV
|
|
|
After
the first $1,000,000,000
|
0.02%
of NAV
|
|
****
|
Fees
are calculated on a daily basis (accrued at 1/365 of the applicable
percentage of NAV on that day) and paid on a monthly basis. USOF is
responsible for its pro rata share of the assets held by USOF and the
Related Public Funds.
|
Expenses
Paid by USOF through December 31, 2009 in dollar terms:
|
Expenses:
|
Amount in Dollar Terms
|
|||
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
$ | 20,842,027 | ||
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage Commissions:
|
$ | 7,159,498 | ||
|
Other
Amounts Paid*****:
|
$ | 8,770,873 | ||
|
Total
Expenses Paid:
|
$ | 36,772,398 | ||
|
*****
|
Includes
expenses relating to the registration of additional units, legal fees,
auditing fees, printing expenses, licensing fees and tax reporting fees
and fees paid to the independent directors of the General
Partner.
|
Expenses
Paid by USOF through December 31, 2009 as a Percentage of Average Daily Net
Assets:
|
Expenses:
|
Amount as a Percentage
of Average
Daily Net Assets
|
|
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
0.46%
annualized
|
|
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage Commissions:
|
0.16%
annualized
|
|
|
Other
Amounts Paid:
|
0.19%
annualized
|
|
|
Total
Expenses Paid:
|
0.81%
annualized
|
Other
Fees.
USOF also pays the fees and expenses associated with its
tax accounting and reporting requirements with the exception of certain initial
implementation service fees and base service fees which are paid by the General
Partner. These fees are estimated to be $1.8 million for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2009. In addition, USOF is responsible for
the fees and expenses, which may include director and officers’ liability
insurance, of the independent directors of the General Partner in connection
with their activities with respect to USOF. These director fees and
expenses may be shared with other funds managed by the General
Partner. These fees and expenses for 2009 were $433,046, and USOF’s
portion of such fees was $254,952.
17
Form
of Units
Registered
Form
. Units are issued in registered form in accordance with the LP
Agreement. The Administrator has been appointed registrar and transfer agent for
the purpose of transferring units in certificated form. The Administrator keeps
a record of all limited partners and holders of the units in certificated form
in the registry (the “Register”). The General Partner recognizes transfers of
units in certificated form only if done in accordance with the LP Agreement. The
beneficial interests in such units are held in book-entry form through
participants and/or accountholders in the Depository Trust Company
(“DTC”).
Book
Entry
. Individual certificates are not issued for the units. Instead,
units are represented by one or more global certificates, which are deposited by
the Administrator with DTC and registered in the name of Cede & Co., as
nominee for DTC. The global certificates evidence all of the units outstanding
at any time. Unitholders are limited to (1) participants in DTC such as
banks, brokers, dealers and trust companies (“DTC Participants”), (2) those
who maintain, either directly or indirectly, a custodial relationship with a DTC
Participant (“Indirect Participants”), and (3) those banks, brokers,
dealers, trust companies and others who hold interests in the units through DTC
Participants or Indirect Participants, in each case who satisfy the requirements
for transfers of units. DTC Participants acting on behalf of investors holding
units through such participants’ accounts in DTC will follow the delivery
practice applicable to securities eligible for DTC’s Same-Day Funds Settlement
System. Units are credited to DTC Participants’ securities accounts following
confirmation of receipt of payment.
DTC
. DTC
is a limited purpose trust company organized under the laws of the State of New
York and is a member of the Federal Reserve System, a “clearing corporation”
within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code and a “clearing
agency” registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the Exchange
Act. DTC holds securities for DTC Participants and facilitates the
clearance and settlement of transactions between DTC Participants through
electronic book-entry changes in accounts of DTC Participants.
Transfer
of Units
Transfers of
Units Only Through DTC
. The units are only transferable through the
book-entry system of DTC. Limited partners who are not DTC Participants may
transfer their units through DTC by instructing the DTC Participant holding
their units (or by instructing the Indirect Participant or other entity through
which their units are held) to transfer the units. Transfers are made in
accordance with standard securities industry practice.
Transfers
of interests in units with DTC are made in accordance with the usual rules and
operating procedures of DTC and the nature of the transfer. DTC has established
procedures to facilitate transfers among the participants and/or accountholders
of DTC. Because DTC can only act on behalf of DTC Participants, who in turn act
on behalf of Indirect Participants, the ability of a person or entity having an
interest in a global certificate to pledge such interest to persons or entities
that do not participate in DTC, or otherwise take actions in respect of such
interest, may be affected by the lack of a definitive security in respect of
such interest.
DTC has
advised USOF that it will take any action permitted to be taken by a unitholder
(including, without limitation, the presentation of a global certificate for
exchange) only at the direction of one or more DTC Participants in whose account
with DTC interests in global certificates are credited and only in respect of
such portion of the aggregate principal amount of the global certificate as to
which such DTC Participant or Participants has or have given such
direction.
18
Transfer/Application
Requirements
.
All
purchasers of USOF’s units, and potentially any purchasers of units in the
future, who wish to become limited partners or other record holders and receive
cash distributions, if any, or have certain other rights, must deliver an
executed transfer application in which the purchaser or transferee must certify
that, among other things, he, she or it agrees to be bound by USOF’s LP
Agreement and is eligible to purchase USOF’s securities. Each purchaser of units
must execute a transfer application and certification. The obligation to provide
the form of transfer application is imposed on the seller of units or, if a
purchase of units is made through an exchange, the form may be obtained directly
through USOF. Further, the General Partner may request each record holder to
furnish certain information, including that holder’s nationality, citizenship or
other related status. A record holder is a unitholder that is, or has applied to
be, a limited partner. An investor who is not a U.S. resident may not be
eligible to become a record holder or one of USOF’s limited partners if that
investor’s ownership would subject USOF to the risk of cancellation or
forfeiture of any of USOF’s assets under any federal, state or local law or
regulation. If the record holder fails to furnish the information or if the
General Partner determines, on the basis of the information furnished by the
holder in response to the request, that such holder is not qualified to become
one of USOF’s limited partners, the General Partner may be substituted as a
holder for the record holder, who will then be treated as a non-citizen
assignee, and USOF will have the right to redeem those securities held by the
record holder.
A
transferee’s broker, agent or nominee may complete, execute and deliver a
transfer application and certification. USOF may, at its discretion, treat the
nominee holder of a unit as the absolute owner. In that case, the beneficial
holder’s rights are limited solely to those that it has against the nominee
holder as a result of any agreement between the beneficial owner and the nominee
holder.
A person
purchasing USOF’s existing units, who does not execute a transfer application
and certify that the purchaser is eligible to purchase those securities acquires
no rights in those securities other than the right to resell those securities.
Whether or not a transfer application is received or the consent of the General
Partner obtained, USOF’s units are securities and are transferable according to
the laws governing transfers of securities.
Any
transfer of units will not be recorded by the transfer agent or recognized by
the General Partner unless a completed transfer application is delivered to the
General Partner or the Administrator. When acquiring units, the transferee of
such units that completes a transfer application will:
|
·
|
be
an assignee until admitted as a substituted limited partner upon the
consent and sole discretion of the General Partner and the recording of
the assignment on the books and records of the
partnership;
|
|
·
|
automatically
request admission as a substituted limited
partner;
|
|
·
|
agree
to be bound by the terms and conditions of, and execute, USOF’s LP
Agreement;
|
|
·
|
represent
that such transferee has the capacity and authority to enter into USOF’s
LP Agreement;
|
|
·
|
grant
powers of attorney to USOF’s General Partner and any liquidator of USOF;
and
|
|
|
·
|
make
the consents and waivers contained in USOF’s LP
Agreement.
|
An
assignee will become a limited partner in respect of the transferred units upon
the consent of USOF’s General Partner and the recordation of the name of the
assignee on USOF’s books and records. Such consent may be withheld in the sole
discretion of USOF’s General Partner.
If
consent of the General Partner is withheld, such transferee shall be an
assignee. An assignee shall have an interest in the partnership equivalent to
that of a limited partner with respect to allocations and distributions,
including, without limitation, liquidating distributions, of the partnership.
With respect to voting rights attributable to units that are held by assignees,
the General Partner shall be deemed to be the limited partner with respect
thereto and shall, in exercising the voting rights in respect of such units on
any matter, vote such units at the written direction of the assignee who is the
record holder of such units. If no such written direction is received, such
units will not be voted. An assignee shall have no other rights of a limited
partner.
Until a
unit has been transferred on USOF’s books, USOF and the transfer agent may treat
the record holder of the unit as the absolute owner for all purposes, except as
otherwise required by law or stock exchange regulations.
19
Withdrawal
of Limited Partners
As
discussed in the LP Agreement, if the General Partner gives at least fifteen
(15) days’ written notice to a limited partner, then the General Partner may for
any reason, in its sole discretion, require any such limited partner to withdraw
entirely from the partnership or to withdraw a portion of its partner capital
account. If the General Partner does not give at least fifteen (15) days’
written notice to a limited partner, then it may only require withdrawal of all
or any portion of the capital account of any limited partner in the following
circumstances: (i) the unitholder made a misrepresentation to the General
Partner in connection with its purchase of units; or (ii) the limited
partner’s ownership of units would result in the violation of any law or
regulations applicable to the partnership or a partner. In these circumstances,
the General Partner without notice may require the withdrawal at any time, or
retroactively. The limited partner thus designated shall withdraw from the
partnership or withdraw that portion of its partner capital account specified,
as the case may be, as of the close of business on such date as determined by
the General Partner. The limited partner thus designated shall be deemed to have
withdrawn from the partnership or to have made a partial withdrawal from its
partner capital account, as the case may be, without further action on the part
of the limited partner and the provisions of the LP Agreement shall
apply.
Calculating
NAV
USOF’s
NAV is calculated by:
|
·
|
Taking
the current market value of its total assets;
and
|
|
·
|
Subtracting
any liabilities
|
BBH&Co.,
the Administrator, calculates the NAV of USOF once each NYSE Arca trading day.
The 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 traded on the NYMEX, but calculates or determines the value of
all other USOF investments as of the earlier of the close of the NYSE Arca or
4:00 p.m. New York time in accordance with the current Administrative Agency
Agreement among BBH&Co., USOF and the General Partner which is incorporated
by reference into this annual report on Form 10-K.
In
addition, in order to provide updated information relating to USOF for use by
investors and market professionals, the NYSE Arca calculates and disseminates
throughout the core trading session on each trading day an updated indicative
fund value. The indicative fund value is calculated by using the prior day’s
closing NAV per unit of USOF as a base and updating that value throughout the
trading day to reflect changes in the most recently reported trade price for the
active light, sweet Oil Futures Contracts on the NYMEX. The prices reported for
those Oil Futures Contract months are adjusted based on the prior day’s spread
differential between settlement values for the relevant contract and the spot
month contract. In the event that the spot month contract is also the Benchmark
Oil Futures Contract, the last sale price for that contract is not adjusted. The
indicative fund value unit basis disseminated during NYSE Arca core trading
session hours should not be viewed as an actual real time update of the NAV,
because the NAV is calculated only once at the end of each trading day based
upon the relevant end of day values of USOF’s investments.
The
indicative fund value is disseminated on a per unit basis every 15 seconds
during regular NYSE Arca core trading session hours of 9:30 a.m. New York time
to 4:00 p.m. New York time. The normal trading hours of the NYMEX are 10:00 a.m.
New York time to 2:30 p.m. New York time. This means that there is a gap in time
at the beginning and the end of each day during which USOF’s units are traded on
the NYSE Arca, but real-time NYMEX trading prices for oil futures contracts
traded on the NYMEX are not available. As a result, during those gaps there will
be no update to the indicative fund value.
The NYSE
Arca disseminates the indicative fund value through the facilities of CTA/CQ
High Speed Lines. In addition, the indicative fund value is published on the
NYSE Arca’s website and is available through on-line information services such
as Bloomberg and Reuters.
Dissemination
of the indicative fund value provides additional information that is not
otherwise available to the public and is useful to investors and market
professionals in connection with the trading of USOF units on the NYSE Arca.
Investors and market professionals are able throughout the trading day to
compare the market price of USOF and the indicative fund value. If the market
price of USOF units diverges significantly from the indicative fund value,
market professionals will have an incentive to execute arbitrage trades. For
example, if USOF appears to be trading at a discount compared to the indicative
fund value, a market professional could buy USOF units on the NYSE Arca and sell
short oil futures contracts. Such arbitrage trades can tighten the tracking
between the market price of USOF and the indicative fund value and thus can be
beneficial to all market participants.
20
In
addition, other Oil Futures Contracts, Other Oil Interests and Treasuries held
by USOF are valued by the Administrator, using rates and points received from
client-approved third party vendors (such as Reuters and WM Company) and advisor
quotes. These investments are not included in the indicative value. The
indicative fund value is based on the prior day’s NAV and moves up and down
solely according to changes in near month Oil Futures Contracts for light, sweet
oil crude traded on the NYMEX.
Creation
and Redemption of Units
USOF
creates and redeems units from time to time, but only in one or more Creation
Baskets or Redemption Baskets. The creation and redemption of baskets are only
made in exchange for delivery to USOF or the distribution by USOF of the amount
of Treasuries and any cash represented by the baskets being created or redeemed,
the amount of which is based on the combined NAV of the number of units included
in the baskets being created or redeemed determined after 4:00 p.m. New York
time on the day the order to create or redeem baskets is properly
received.
Authorized
Purchasers are the only persons that may place orders to create and redeem
baskets. Authorized Purchasers must be (1) registered broker-dealers or other
securities market participants, such as banks and other financial institutions,
that are not required to register as broker-dealers to engage in securities
transactions as described below, and (2) DTC Participants. To become an
Authorized Purchaser, a person must enter into an Authorized Purchaser Agreement
with the General Partner. The Authorized Purchaser Agreement provides the
procedures for the creation and redemption of baskets and for the delivery of
the Treasuries and any cash required for such creations and redemptions. The
Authorized Purchaser Agreement and the related procedures attached thereto may
be amended by USOF, without the consent of any limited partner or unitholder or
Authorized Purchaser. Authorized Purchasers pay a transaction fee of $1,000 to
USOF for each order they place to create or redeem one or more baskets.
Authorized Purchasers who make deposits with USOF in exchange for baskets
receive no fees, commissions or other form of compensation or inducement of any
kind from either USOF or the General Partner, and no such person will have any
obligation or responsibility to the General Partner or USOF to effect any sale
or resale of units. As of December 31, 2009, 17 Authorized Purchasers had
entered into agreements with USOF. During the year ended December 31,
2009, USOF issued 4,752 Creation Baskets and redeemed 4,121 Redemption
Baskets.
Certain
Authorized Purchasers are expected to have the facility to participate directly
in the physical crude oil market and the crude oil futures market. In some
cases, an Authorized Purchaser or its affiliates may from time to time acquire
crude oil or sell crude oil and may profit in these instances. The General
Partner believes that the size and operation of the crude oil market make it
unlikely that an Authorized Purchaser’s direct activities in the crude oil or
securities markets will impact the price of crude oil, Oil Futures Contracts, or
the price of the units.
Each
Authorized Purchaser is required to be registered as a broker-dealer under the
Exchange Act and is a member in good standing with FINRA, or exempt from being
or otherwise not required to be licensed as a broker-dealer or a member of
FINRA, and qualified to act as a broker or dealer in the states or other
jurisdictions where the nature of its business so requires. Certain Authorized
Purchasers may also be regulated under federal and state banking laws and
regulations. Each Authorized Purchaser has its own set of rules and procedures,
internal controls and information barriers as it determines is appropriate in
light of its own regulatory regime.
Under the
Authorized Purchaser Agreement, the General Partner has agreed to indemnify the
Authorized Purchasers against certain liabilities, including liabilities under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and to contribute to the payments the
Authorized Purchasers may be required to make in respect of those
liabilities.
The
following description of the procedures for the creation and redemption of
baskets is only a summary and an investor should refer to the relevant
provisions of the LP Agreement and the form of Authorized Purchaser Agreement
for more detail, each of which is incorporated by reference into this annual
report on Form 10-K.
21
Creation
Procedures
On any
business day, an Authorized Purchaser may place an order with the Marketing
Agent to create one or more baskets. For purposes of processing purchase and
redemption orders, a “business day” means any day other than a day when any of
the NYSE Arca, the NYMEX or the NYSE is closed for regular trading. Purchase
orders must be placed by 12:00 p.m. New York time or the close of regular
trading on the NYSE Arca, whichever is earlier. The day on which the Marketing
Agent receives a valid purchase order is the purchase order date.
By
placing a purchase order, an Authorized Purchaser agrees to deposit Treasuries,
cash, or a combination of Treasuries and cash with USOF, as described below.
Prior to the delivery of baskets for a purchase order, the Authorized Purchaser
must also have wired to the Custodian the non-refundable transaction fee due for
the purchase order. Authorized Purchasers may not withdraw a creation
request.
Determination
of Required Deposits
The total
deposit required to create each basket (“Creation Basket Deposit”) is the amount
of Treasuries and/or cash that is in the same proportion to the total assets of
USOF (net of estimated accrued but unpaid fees, expenses and other liabilities)
on the date the order to purchase is accepted as the number of units to be
created under the purchase order is in proportion to the total number of units
outstanding on the date the order is received. The General Partner determines,
directly in its sole discretion or in consultation with the Administrator, the
requirements for Treasuries and the amount of cash, including the maximum
permitted remaining maturity of a Treasury and proportions of Treasury and cash
that may be included in deposits to create baskets. The Marketing Agent will
publish such requirements at the beginning of each business day. The amount of
cash deposit required is the difference between the aggregate market value of
the Treasuries required to be included in a Creation Basket Deposit as of 4:00
p.m. New York time on the date the order to purchase is properly received and
the total required deposit.
Delivery
of Required Deposits
An
Authorized Purchaser who places a purchase order is responsible for transferring
to USOF’s account with the Custodian the required amount of Treasuries and cash
by the end of the third business day following the purchase order date. Upon
receipt of the deposit amount, the Administrator directs DTC to credit the
number of baskets ordered to the Authorized Purchaser’s DTC account on the third
business day following the purchase order date. The expense and risk of delivery
and ownership of Treasuries until such Treasuries have been received by the
Custodian on behalf of USOF is borne solely by the Authorized
Purchaser.
Because
orders to purchase baskets must be placed by 12:00 p.m., New York time, but the
total payment required to create a basket during the continuous offering period
will not be determined until after 4:00 p.m. New York time on the date the
purchase order is received, Authorized Purchasers will not know the total amount
of the payment required to create a basket at the time they submit an
irrevocable purchase order for the basket. USOF’s NAV and the total amount of
the payment required to create a basket could rise or fall substantially between
the time an irrevocable purchase order is submitted and the time the amount of
the purchase price in respect thereof is determined.
Rejection
of Purchase Orders
The
General Partner acting by itself or through the Marketing Agent may reject a
purchase order or a Creation Basket Deposit if:
|
|
·
|
it
determines that the investment alternative available to USOF at that time
will not enable it to meet its investment
objective;
|
|
·
|
it
determines that the purchase order or the Creation Basket Deposit is not
in proper form;
|
|
|
·
|
it
believes that the purchase order or the Creation Basket Deposit would have
adverse tax consequences to USOF or its
unitholders;
|
22
|
|
·
|
the
acceptance or receipt of the Creation Basket Deposit would, in the opinion
of counsel to the General Partner, be unlawful;
or
|
|
|
·
|
circumstances
outside the control of the General Partner, Marketing Agent or Custodian
make it, for all practical purposes, not feasible to process creations of
baskets.
|
None of
the General Partner, Marketing Agent or Custodian will be liable for the
rejection of any purchase order or Creation Basket Deposit.
Redemption
Procedures
The
procedures by which an Authorized Purchaser can redeem one or more baskets
mirror the procedures for the creation of baskets. On any business day, an
Authorized Purchaser may place an order with the Marketing Agent to redeem one
or more baskets. Redemption orders must be placed by 12:00 p.m. New York time or
the close of regular trading on the NYSE, whichever is earlier. A redemption
order so received will be effective on the date it is received in satisfactory
form by the Marketing Agent. The redemption procedures allow Authorized
Purchasers to redeem baskets and do not entitle an individual unitholder to
redeem any units in an amount less than a Redemption Basket, or to redeem
baskets other than through an Authorized Purchaser. By placing a redemption
order, an Authorized Purchaser agrees to deliver the baskets to be redeemed
through DTC’s book-entry system to USOF not later than 3:00 p.m. New York time
on the third business day following the effective date of the redemption order.
Prior to the delivery of the redemption distribution for a redemption order, the
Authorized Purchaser must also have wired to USOF’s account at the Custodian the
non-refundable transaction fee due for the redemption order. Authorized
Purchasers may not withdraw a redemption request.
Determination
of Redemption Distribution
The
redemption distribution from USOF consists of a transfer to the redeeming
Authorized Purchaser of an amount of Treasuries and cash that is in the same
proportion to the total assets of USOF (net of estimated accrued but unpaid
fees, expenses and other liabilities) on the date the order to redeem is
properly received as the number of units to be redeemed under the redemption
order is in proportion to the total number of units outstanding on the date the
order is received. The General Partner, directly or in consultation with the
Administrator, determines the requirements for Treasuries and the amounts of
cash, including the maximum permitted remaining maturity of a Treasury, and the
proportions of Treasuries and cash that may be included in distributions to
redeem baskets. The Marketing Agent will publish such requirements as of 4:00
p.m. New York time on the redemption order date.
Delivery
of Redemption Distribution
The
redemption distribution due from USOF will be delivered to the Authorized
Purchaser by 3:00 p.m. New York time on the third business day following the
redemption order date if, by 3:00 p.m. New York time on such third business day,
USOF’s DTC account has been credited with the baskets to be redeemed. If USOF’s
DTC account has not been credited with all of the baskets to be redeemed by such
time, the redemption distribution will be delivered to the extent of whole
baskets received. Any remainder of the redemption distribution will be delivered
on the next business day to the extent of remaining whole baskets received if
USOF receives the fee applicable to the extension of the redemption distribution
date which the General Partner may, from time to time, determine and the
remaining baskets to be redeemed are credited to USOF’s DTC account by 3:00 p.m.
New York time on such next business day. Any further outstanding amount of the
redemption order shall be cancelled. Pursuant to information from the General
Partner, the Custodian will also be authorized to deliver the redemption
distribution notwithstanding that the baskets to be redeemed are not credited to
USOF’s DTC account by 3:00 p.m. New York time on the third business day
following the redemption order date if the Authorized Purchaser has
collateralized its obligation to deliver the baskets through DTC’s book
entry-system on such terms as the General Partner may from time to time
determine.
23
Suspension
or Rejection of Redemption Orders
The
General Partner may, in its discretion, suspend the right of redemption, or
postpone the redemption settlement date, (1) for any period during which the
NYSE Arca or the NYMEX is closed other than customary weekend or holiday
closings, or trading on the NYSE Arca or the NYMEX is suspended or restricted,
(2) for any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which
delivery, disposal or evaluation of Treasuries is not reasonably practicable, or
(3) for such other period as the General Partner determines to be necessary for
the protection of the limited partners. For example, the General Partner may
determine that it is necessary to suspend redemptions to allow for the orderly
liquidation of USOF’s assets at an appropriate value to fund a redemption. If
the General Partner has difficulty liquidating its positions,
e.g.
, because of a market
disruption event in the futures markets, a suspension of trading by the exchange
where the futures contracts are listed or an unanticipated delay in the
liquidation of a position in an over the counter contract, it may be appropriate
to suspend redemptions until such time as such circumstances are rectified. None
of the General Partner, the Marketing Agent, the Administrator, or the Custodian
will be liable to any person or in any way for any loss or damages that may
result from any such suspension or postponement.
Redemption
orders must be made in whole baskets. The General Partner will reject a
redemption order if the order is not in proper form as described in the
Authorized Purchaser Agreement or if the fulfillment of the order, in the
opinion of its counsel, might be unlawful. The General Partner may also reject a
redemption order if the number of units being redeemed would reduce the
remaining outstanding units to 100,000 units (
i.e.
, one basket) or less,
unless the General Partner has reason to believe that the placer of the
redemption order does in fact possess all the outstanding units and can deliver
them.
Creation
and Redemption Transaction Fee
To
compensate USOF for its expenses in connection with the creation and redemption
of baskets, an Authorized Purchaser is required to pay a transaction fee to USOF
of $1,000 per order to create or redeem baskets. An order may include multiple
baskets. The transaction fee may be reduced, increased or otherwise changed by
the General Partner. The General Partner shall notify DTC of any change in the
transaction fee and will not implement any increase in the fee for the
redemption of baskets until 30 days after the date of the
notice.
Tax
Responsibility
Authorized
Purchasers are responsible for any transfer tax, sales or use tax, stamp tax,
recording tax, value added tax or similar tax or governmental charge applicable
to the creation or redemption of baskets, regardless of whether or not such tax
or charge is imposed directly on the Authorized Purchaser, and agree to
indemnify the General Partner and USOF if they are required by law to pay any
such tax, together with any applicable penalties, additions to tax or interest
thereon.
Secondary
Market Transactions
As noted,
USOF creates and redeems units from time to time, but only in one or more
Creation Baskets or Redemption Baskets. The creation and redemption of baskets
are only made in exchange for delivery to USOF or the distribution by USOF of
the amount of Treasuries and cash represented by the baskets being created or
redeemed, the amount of which will be based on the aggregate NAV of the number
of units included in the baskets being created or redeemed determined on the day
the order to create or redeem baskets is properly received.
As
discussed above, Authorized Purchasers are the only persons that may place
orders to create and redeem baskets. Authorized Purchasers must be registered
broker-dealers or other securities market participants, such as banks and other
financial institutions that are not required to register as broker-dealers to
engage in securities transactions. An Authorized Purchaser is under no
obligation to create or redeem baskets, and an Authorized Purchaser is under no
obligation to offer to the public units of any baskets it does create.
Authorized Purchasers that do offer to the public units from the baskets they
create will do so at per-unit offering prices that are expected to reflect,
among other factors, the trading price of the units on the NYSE Arca, the NAV of
USOF at the time the Authorized Purchaser purchased the Creation Baskets and the
NAV of the units at the time of the offer of the units to the public, the supply
of and demand for units at the time of sale, and the liquidity of the Oil
Futures Contract market and the market for Other Oil Interests. The prices of
units offered by Authorized Purchasers are expected to fall between USOF’s NAV
and the trading price of the units on the NYSE Arca at the time of sale. Units
initially comprising the same basket but offered by Authorized Purchasers to the
public at different times may have different offering prices. An order for one
or more baskets may be placed by an Authorized Purchaser on behalf of multiple
clients. Authorized Purchasers who make deposits with USOF in exchange for
baskets receive no fees, commissions or other form of compensation or inducement
of any kind from either USOF or the General Partner, and no such person has any
obligation or responsibility to the General Partner or USOF to effect any sale
or resale of units. Units trade in the secondary market on the NYSE Arca. Units
may trade in the secondary market at prices that are lower or higher relative to
their NAV per unit. The amount of the discount or premium in the trading price
relative to the NAV per unit may be influenced by various factors, including the
number of investors who seek to purchase or sell units in the secondary market
and the liquidity of the Oil Futures Contracts market and the market for Other
Oil Interests. While the units trade during the core trading session on the NYSE
Arca until 4:00 p.m. New York time, liquidity in the market for Oil Futures
Contracts and Other Oil Interests may be reduced after the close of the NYMEX at
2:30 p.m. New York time. As a result, during this time, trading spreads, and the
resulting premium or discount, on the units may widen.
24
Prior
Performance of USOF
USOF’s
units began trading on the American Stock Exchange (the “AMEX”) on April 10,
2006 and are offered on a continuous basis. As a result of the acquisition of
the AMEX by NYSE Euronext, USOF’s units commenced trading on the NYSE Arca on
November 25, 2008. As of December 31, 2009, the total amount of money raised by
USOF from Authorized Purchasers was $24,257,292,570; the total number of
Authorized Purchasers was 17; the number of baskets purchased by Authorized
Purchasers was 4,752; the number of baskets redeemed by Authorized Purchasers
was 4,121; and the aggregate amount of units purchased was 475,200,000. For more
information on the performance of USOF, see the Performance Tables
below.
Since its
initial offering of 17,000,000 units, USOF has made seven subsequent offerings
of its units: 30,000,000 units which were registered with the SEC on
October 18, 2006, 50,000,000 units which were registered with the SEC on
January 30, 2007, 30,000,000 units which were registered with the SEC
on December 4, 2007, 100,000,000 units which were registered with the SEC on
February 7, 2008, 100,000,000 units which were registered with the SEC on
September 29, 2008, 300,000,000 units which were registered with the SEC on
January 16, 2009 and 1,000,000,000 units which were registered with the SEC on
June 29, 2009. Units offered by USOF in subsequent offerings were sold by it for
cash at the units’ NAV as described in the applicable prospectus. As of December
31, 2009, USOF had issued 475,200,000 units, 63,100,000 of which were
outstanding. As of December 31, 2009, there were 1,151,800,000 units
registered but not yet issued.
Since the
offering of USOF units to the public on April 10, 2006 to December 31, 2009, the
simple average daily change in its Benchmark Oil Futures contract was -0.027%,
while the simple average daily change in the NAV of USOF over the same time
period was -0.022%. The average daily difference was 0.005% (or 0.5 basis
points, where 1 basis point equals 1/100 of 1%). As a percentage of the daily
movement of the benchmark oil futures contract, the average error in daily
tracking by the NAV was 1.56%, meaning that over this time period USOF’s
tracking error was within the plus or minus 10% range established as its
benchmark tracking goal.
Experience
in Raising and Investing in Funds through December 31, 2009
PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
|
Dollar
Amount Offered*:
|
$ | 71,257,630,000 | ||
|
Dollar
Amount Raised:
|
$ | 24,257,292,570 | ||
|
Organizational
and Offering Expenses**:
|
||||
|
SEC registration
fee:
|
$ | 2,480,174 | ||
|
FINRA registration
fee:
|
$ | 603,500 | ||
|
Listing fee:
|
$ | 5,000 | ||
|
Auditor’s fees and
expenses:
|
$ | 495,850 | ||
|
Legal fees and
expenses:
|
$ | 2,040,875 | ||
|
Printing
expenses:
|
$ | 285,230 | ||
|
Length
of USOF Offering:
|
Continuous
|
|||
|
*
|
Reflects
the offering price per unit set forth on the cover page of the
registration statement registering such units filed with the
SEC.
|
|
**
|
Through
December 31, 2006, these expenses were paid for by an affiliate of the
General Partner in connection with the initial public offering. Following
December 31, 2006, USOF has recorded these
expenses.
|
25
Compensation
to the General Partner and Other Compensation USOF:
Expenses
paid by USOF through December 31, 2009 in dollar terms:
|
Expense:
|
Amount in Dollar Terms
|
|||
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
$ | 20,842,027 | ||
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage
Commissions:
|
$ | 7,159,498 | ||
|
Other
Amounts Paid*:
|
$ | 8,770,873 | ||
|
Total
Expenses Paid:
|
$ | 36,772,398 | ||
|
*
|
Includes
expenses relating to the registration of additional units, legal fees,
auditing fees, printing expenses, licensing fees and tax reporting fees
and fees paid to the independent directors of the General
Partner.
|
Expenses
paid by USOF through December 31, 2009 as a Percentage of Average Daily Net
Assets:
|
Expenses:
|
Amount as a Percentage
of Average Daily Net Assets
|
||
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
0.46%
annualized
|
||
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage Commissions:
|
0.16%
annualized
|
||
|
Other
Amounts Paid:
|
0.19%
annualized
|
||
|
Total
Expenses Paid:
|
0.81%
annualized
|
|
USOF Performance:
|
|||
|
Name
of Commodity Pool:
|
USOF
|
||
|
Type
of Commodity Pool:
|
Exchange
traded security
|
||
|
Inception
of Trading:
|
April
10, 2006
|
||
|
Aggregate
Subscriptions (from inception through
December 31, 2009):
|
$24,257,292,570 | ||
|
Total
Net Assets as of December 31, 2009:
|
$2,471,252,817 | ||
|
Initial
NAV Per Unit as of Inception:
|
$67.39 | ||
|
NAV
per Unit as of December 31, 2009:
|
$39.16 | ||
|
Worst
Monthly Percentage Draw-down:
|
October
2008 (31.57)%
|
||
|
Worst
Peak-to-Valley Draw-down:
|
June
2008 – February 2009 (75.84)%
|
||
|
Number
of Unitholders (as of December 31, 2009)
|
84,835 |
26
COMPOSITE
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR USOF
PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
|
Rates of return*
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Month
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
||||||||||||
|
January
|
– | (6.55 | ) % | (4.00 | ) % | (14.60 | ) % | |||||||||
|
February
|
– | 5.63 | % | 11.03 | % | (6.55 | ) % | |||||||||
|
March
|
– | 4.61 | % | 0.63 | % | 7.23 | % | |||||||||
|
April
|
3.47 | %** | (4.26 | ) % | 12.38 | % | (2.38 | ) % | ||||||||
|
May
|
(2.91 | ) % | (4.91 | ) % | 12.80 | % | 26.69 | % | ||||||||
|
June
|
3.16 | % | 9.06 | % | 9.90 | % | 4.16 | % | ||||||||
|
July
|
(0.50 | ) % | 10.57 | % | (11.72 | ) % | (2.30 | ) % | ||||||||
|
August
|
(6.97 | ) % | (4.95 | ) % | (6.75 | ) % | (1.98 | ) % | ||||||||
|
September
|
(11.72 | ) % | 12.11 | % | (12.97 | ) % | 0.25 | % | ||||||||
|
October
|
(8.45 | ) % | 16.98 | % | (31.57 | ) % | 8.43 | % | ||||||||
|
November
|
4.73 | % | (4.82 | ) % | (20.65 | ) % | (0.51 | ) % | ||||||||
|
December
|
(5.21 | ) % | 8.67 | % | (22.16 | ) % | (0.03 | ) % | ||||||||
|
Annual
Rate of Return
|
(23.03 | ) %** | 46.17 | % | (54.75 | ) % | 14.14 | % | ||||||||
|
*
|
The
monthly rate of return is calculated by dividing the ending NAV of a given
month by the ending NAV of the previous month, subtracting 1 and
multiplying this number by 100 to arrive at a percentage increase or
decrease.
|
|
**
|
Partial
from April 10, 2006.
|
|
Terms
Used in Performance Tables
|
Draw-down
: Losses experienced
over a specified period. Draw-down is measured on the basis of monthly returns
only and does not reflect intra-month figures.
Worst Monthly Percentage
Draw-down
: The largest single month loss sustained since inception of
trading.
Worst Peak-to-Valley
Draw-down
: The largest percentage decline in the NAV per unit over the
history of the fund. This need not be a continuous decline, but can be a series
of positive and negative returns where the negative returns are larger than the
positive returns. Worst Peak-to-Valley Draw-down represents the
greatest percentage decline from any month-end NAV per unit that occurs without
such month-end NAV per unit being equaled or exceeded as of a subsequent
month-end. For example, if the NAV per unit declined by $1 in each of January
and February, increased by $1 in March and declined again by $2 in April, a
“peak-to-trough drawdown” analysis conducted as of the end of April would
consider that “drawdown” to be still continuing and to be $3 in amount, whereas
if the NAV per unit had increased by $2 in March, the January-February drawdown
would have ended as of the end of February at the $2 level.
Prior
Performance of the Related Public Funds
The
General Partner is also currently the general partner of the Related Public
Funds. Each of the General Partner and the Related Public Funds is located in
California.
USNG is a
commodity pool and issues units traded on the NYSE Arca. The investment
objective of USNG is for the changes in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to
reflect the changes in percentage terms of the price of natural gas delivered at
the Henry Hub, Louisiana as measured by the changes in the price of the futures
contract for natural gas traded on the NYMEX, less USNG’s expenses. USNG’s units
began trading on April 18, 2007 and are offered on a continuous basis. USNG may
invest in a mixture of listed natural gas futures contracts, other non-listed
natural gas related investments, Treasuries, cash and cash equivalents. As of
December 31, 2009, the total amount of money raised by USNG from its authorized
purchasers was $10,435,093,775; the total number of authorized purchasers of
USNG was 14; the number of baskets purchased by authorized purchasers of USNG
was 5,821; the number of baskets redeemed by authorized purchasers of USNG was
1,326; and the aggregate amount of units purchased was 582,100,000. USNG employs
an investment strategy in its operations that is similar to the investment
strategy of USOF, except its benchmark is the near month contract for natural
gas delivered at the Henry Hub, Louisiana.
Since the
offering of USNG units to the public on April 18, 2007 to December 31, 2009, the
simple average daily change in its benchmark futures contract was -0.181%, while
the simple average daily change in the NAV of USNG over the same time period was
-0.179%. The average daily difference was 0.002% (or 0.2 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 NAV was
0.392%, meaning that over this time period USNG’s tracking error was within the
plus or minus 10% range established as its benchmark tracking
goal.
27
US12OF is
a commodity pool and issues units traded on the NYSE Arca. The investment
objective of US12OF is for the changes in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to
reflect the changes in percentage terms of the spot price of light, sweet crude
oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma, as measured by the changes in the average of
the prices of 12 futures contracts on light, sweet crude oil traded on 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, less
US12OF’s expenses. US12OF’s units began trading on December 6, 2007 and are
offered on a continuous basis. US12OF invests in a mixture of listed crude oil
futures contracts, other non-listed oil related investments, Treasuries, cash
and cash equivalents. As of December 31, 2009, the total amount of money raised
by US12OF from its authorized purchasers was $224,069,815; the total number of
authorized purchasers of US12OF was 4; the number of baskets purchased by
authorized purchasers of US12OF was 75; the number of baskets redeemed by
authorized purchasers of US12OF was 34; and the aggregate amount of units
purchased was 7,500,000. US12OF employs an investment strategy in its operations
that is similar to the investment strategy of USOF, except that its benchmark is
the average of the prices of the near month contract to expire and the following
eleven months contracts for light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing,
Oklahoma.
Since the
offering of US12OF units to the public on December 6, 2007 to December 31, 2009,
the simple average daily change in its Benchmark Futures Contracts was -0.004%,
while the simple average daily change in the NAV of US12OF over the same time
period was -0.003%. The average daily difference was 0.001% (or 0.1 basis
points, where 1 basis point equals 1/100 of 1%). As a percentage of the daily
movement of the Benchmark Futures Contracts, the average error in daily tracking
by the NAV was -0.107%, meaning that over this time period US12OF’s tracking
error was within the plus or minus 10% range established as its benchmark
tracking goal.
UGA is a
commodity pool and issues units traded on the NYSE Arca. The investment
objective of UGA is for the changes in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to
reflect the changes in percentage terms in the spot price of unleaded
gasoline for delivery to the New York harbor, as measured by the changes in the
price of the futures contract on gasoline traded on the NYMEX, less UGA’s
expenses. UGA may invest in a mixture of listed gasoline futures contracts,
other non-listed gasoline related investments, Treasuries, cash and cash
equivalents. UGA’s units began trading on February 26, 2008 and are offered on a
continuous basis. As of December 31, 2009, the total amount of money raised
by UGA from its authorized purchasers was $126,264,653; the total number of
authorized purchasers of UGA was 6; the number of baskets purchased by
authorized purchasers of UGA was 42; the number of baskets redeemed by
authorized purchasers of UGA was 23; and the aggregate amount of units purchased
was 4,200,000. UGA employs an investment strategy in its operations that is
similar to the investment strategy of USOF, except that its benchmark is the
near month contract for unleaded gasoline delivered to the New York
harbor.
Since the
offering of UGA units to the public on February 26, 2008 to December 31, 2009,
the simple average daily change in its benchmark futures contract was -0.011%,
while the simple average daily change in the NAV of UGA over the same time
period was -0.012%. The average daily difference was -0.001% (or -0.1 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 NAV was -0.674%, meaning that over this time period UGA’s tracking error
was within the plus or minus 10% range established as its benchmark tracking
goal.
USHO is a
commodity pool and issues units traded on the NYSE Arca. The investment
objective of USHO is for the changes in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to
reflect the changes in percentage terms of the price of spot heating oil for
delivery to the New York harbor, as measured by the changes in the price of the
futures contract on heating oil traded on the NYMEX, less USHO’s expenses. USHO
may invest in a mixture of listed heating oil futures contracts, other
non-listed heating oil-related investments, Treasuries, cash and cash
equivalents. USHO’s units began trading on April 9, 2008 and are offered on a
continuous basis. As of December 31, 2009, the total amount of money raised by
USHO from its authorized purchasers was $27,750,399; the total number of
authorized purchasers of USHO was 6; the number of baskets purchased by
authorized purchasers of USHO was 8; the number of baskets redeemed by
authorized purchasers of USHO was 2; and the aggregate amount of units purchased
was 800,000. USHO employs an investment strategy in its operations that is
similar to the investment strategy of US12OF, except that its benchmark is the
near month contract for heating oil delivered to the New York
harbor.
Since the
offering of USHO units to the public on April 9, 2008 to December 31, 2009, the
simple average daily change in its benchmark futures contract was -0.093%, while
the simple average daily change in the NAV of USHO over the same time period was
-0.093%. The average daily difference was 0%. As a percentage of the daily
movement of the benchmark futures contract, the average error in daily tracking
by the NAV was -0.696%, meaning that over this time period USHO’s tracking error
was within the plus or minus 10% range established as its benchmark tracking
goal.
28
USSO is a
commodity pool and issues units traded on the NYSE Arca. The investment
objective of USSO is for the changes in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to
inversely reflect the changes in percentage terms of the price of light, sweet
crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma as measured by the changes in the price
of the futures contract for light, sweet crude oil traded on the NYMEX, less
USSO’s expenses. USSO’s units began trading on September 24, 2009 and
are offered on a continuous basis. USSO invests in short positions in listed
crude oil futures contracts, other non-listed oil related investments,
Treasuries, cash and cash equivalents. As of December 31, 2009, the total amount
of money raised by USSO from its authorized purchasers was $14,290,534; the
total number of authorized purchasers of USSO was 7; the number of baskets
purchased by authorized purchasers of USSO was 3; no baskets were redeemed by
authorized purchasers of USSO; and the aggregate amount of units purchased was
300,000. USSO employs an investment strategy in its operations that is similar
to the investment strategy of USOF, except that its benchmark is the inverse of
the near month contract for light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing,
Oklahoma.
Since the
offering of USSO units to the public on September 24, 2009 to December 31, 2009,
the inverse of the simple average daily change in its benchmark futures contract
was -0.164%, while the simple average daily change in the NAV of USSO over the
same time period was -0.167%. 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
inverse of the daily movement of the benchmark futures contract, the average
error in daily tracking by the NAV was -0.179%, meaning that over this time
period USSO’s tracking error was within the plus or minus 10% range established
as its benchmark tracking goal.
US12NG is
a commodity pool and issues units traded on the NYSE Arca. The investment
objective of US12NG is for the changes in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to
reflect the changes in percentage terms of the price of natural gas delivered at
the Henry Hub, Louisiana, as measured by the changes in the average of the
prices of 12 futures contracts on natural gas traded on 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, less US12NG’s expenses.
US12NG’s units began trading on November 18, 2009 and are offered on a
continuous basis. US12NG invests in a mixture of listed natural gas futures
contracts, other non-listed natural gas related investments, Treasuries, cash
and cash equivalents. As of December 31, 2009, the total amount of money raised
by US12NG from its authorized purchasers was $40,652,357; the total number of
authorized purchasers of US12NG was 8; the number of baskets purchased by
authorized purchasers of US12NG was 2; the number of baskets redeemed by
authorized purchasers of US12NG was 1; and the aggregate amount of units
purchased was 800,000. US12NG employs an investment strategy in its operations
that is similar to the investment strategy of USOF, except that its benchmark is
the average of the prices of the near month contract to expire and the following
eleven months contracts for natural gas delivered at the Henry Hub,
Louisiana.
Since the
offering of US12NG units to the public on November 18, 2009 to December 31,
2009, the simple average daily change in its benchmark futures contract was
0.291%, while the simple average daily change in the NAV of US12NG over the same
time period was 0.287%. The average daily difference was -0.004 % (or -0.4 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 NAV was 0.089%, meaning that over this time period US12NG’s tracking
error was within the plus or minus 10% range established as its benchmark
tracking goal.
The
General Partner has filed a registration statement for two other exchange traded
security funds, USBO and USCI. The investment objective of USBO would
be to have the daily changes in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to
reflect the changes in percentage terms of the spot price of Brent crude oil, as
measured by the changes in the price of the futures contract on Brent crude oil
traded on the ICE Futures, less USNG’s expenses. The investment
objective of USCI will be for the daily changes in percentage terms of its
units’ NAV to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the SDCI Total
Return, less USCI’s expenses.
There are
significant differences between investing in USOF and the Related Public Funds
and investing directly in the futures market. The General Partner’s results with
USOF and the Related Public Funds may not be representative of results that may
be experienced with a fund directly investing in futures contracts or other
managed funds investing in futures contracts. Moreover, given the different
investment objectives of USOF and the Related Public Funds, the performance of
USOF may not be representative of results that may be experienced by the other
Related Public Funds. For more information on the performance of the Related
Public Funds, see the Performance Tables below.
29
USNG
:
Experience
in Raising and Investing in Funds through December 31, 2009
PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
|
Dollar
Amount Offered*:
|
$ | 24,056,500,000 | ||
|
Dollar
Amount Raised:
|
$ | 10,435,093,775 | ||
|
Organizational
and Offering Expenses**:
|
||||
|
SEC registration
fee:
|
$ | 1,361,084 | ||
|
FINRA registration
fee:
|
$ | 377,500 | ||
|
Listing fee:
|
$ | 5000 | ||
|
Auditor’s fees and
expenses:
|
$ | 274,350 | ||
|
Legal fees and
expenses:
|
$ | 1,614,956 | ||
|
Printing
expenses:
|
$ | 73,270 | ||
|
Length
of USNG Offering:
|
Continuous
|
|||
|
*
|
Reflects
the offering price per unit set forth on the cover page of the
registration statement registering such units filed with the
SEC.
|
|
**
|
Through
April 18, 2007, these expenses were paid for by the General Partner.
Following April 18, 2007, USNG has recorded these
expenses.
|
Compensation
to the General Partner and Other Compensation USNG:
Expenses
paid by USNG through December 31, 2009 in dollar terms:
|
Expenses:
|
Amount in Dollar Terms
|
|||
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
$ | 19,802,761 | ||
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage Commissions:
|
$ | 12,603,078 | ||
|
Other
Amounts Paid *:
|
$ | 8,074,997 | ||
|
Total
Expenses Paid:
|
$ | 40,480,836 | ||
|
*
|
Includes
expenses relating to the registration of additional units, legal fees,
auditing fees, printing expenses, licensing fees and tax reporting fees
and fees paid to the independent directors of the General
Partner.
|
Expenses
paid by USNG through December 31, 2009 as a Percentage of Average Daily Net
Assets:
|
Expenses:
|
Amount
as a Percentage
of
Average Daily Net Assets
|
||
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
0.55%
annualized
|
||
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage
Commissions:
|
0.35%
annualized
|
||
|
Other
Amounts Paid:
|
0.23%
annualized
|
||
|
Total
Expenses Paid:
|
1.13%
annualized
|
30
|
USNG Performance:
|
|||
|
Name
of Commodity Pool:
|
USNG
|
||
|
Type
of Commodity Pool:
|
Exchange
traded security
|
||
|
Inception
of Trading:
|
April
18, 2007
|
||
|
Aggregate
Subscriptions (from inception through December 31, 2009):
|
$10,435,093,775
|
||
|
Total
Net Assets as of December 31, 2009:
|
$4,525,107,163
|
||
|
Initial
NAV per Unit as of Inception:
|
$50.00
|
||
|
NAV
per Unit as of December 31, 2009:
|
$10.07
|
||
|
Worst
Monthly Percentage Draw-down:
|
July
2008 (32.13)%
|
||
|
Worst
Peak-to-Valley Draw-down:
|
June 2008 – November 2009 (85.89)%
|
||
|
Number
of Unitholders (as of December 31, 2009)
|
203,277
|
COMPOSITE
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR USNG
PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
|
Rates of return*
|
||||||||||||
|
Month
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
|||||||||
|
January
|
– | 8.87 | % | (21.49 | ) % | |||||||
|
February
|
– | 15.87 | % | (5.47 | ) % | |||||||
|
March
|
– | 6.90 | % | (11.81 | ) % | |||||||
|
April
|
4.30 | %** | 6.42 | % | (13.92 | ) % | ||||||
|
May
|
(0.84 | ) % | 6.53 | % | 10.37 | % | ||||||
|
June
|
(15.90 | ) % | 13.29 | % | (4.63 | ) % | ||||||
|
July
|
(9.68 | ) % | (32.13 | ) % | (8.70 | ) % | ||||||
|
August
|
(13.37 | ) % | (13.92 | ) % | (27.14 | ) % | ||||||
|
September
|
12.28 | % | (9.67 | ) % | 26.03 | % | ||||||
|
October
|
12.09 | % | (12.34 | ) % | (13.31 | ) % | ||||||
|
November
|
(16.16 | ) % | (6.31 | ) % | (11.86 | ) % | ||||||
|
December
|
0.75 | % | (14.32 | ) % | 13.91 | % | ||||||
|
Annual
Rate of Return
|
(27.64 | ) %** | (35.68 | ) % | (56.73 | ) % | ||||||
|
*
|
The
monthly rate of return is calculated by dividing the ending NAV of a given
month by the ending NAV of the previous month, subtracting 1 and
multiplying this number by 100 to arrive at a percentage increase or
decrease.
|
|
**
|
Partial
from April 18, 2007.
|
For a
definition of draw-down, please see text below “Composite Performance Data for
USOF”.
US12OF
:
Experience
in Raising and Investing in Funds through December 31, 2009
PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
|
Dollar
Amount Offered*:
|
$ | 3,718,000,000 | ||
|
Dollar
Amount Raised:
|
$ | 224,069,815 | ||
|
Organizational
and Offering Expenses**:
|
||||
|
SEC registration
fee:
|
$ | 129,248 | ||
|
FINRA registration
fee:
|
$ | 151,000 | ||
|
Listing fee:
|
$ | 5,000 | ||
|
Auditor’s fees and
expenses:
|
$ | 60,700 | ||
|
Legal fees and
expenses:
|
$ | 301,279 | ||
|
Printing
expenses:
|
$ | 44,402 | ||
|
Length
of US12OF Offering:
|
Continuous
|
|||
31
|
*
|
Reflects
the offering price per unit set forth on the cover page of the
registration statement registering such units filed with the
SEC.
|
|
**
|
Through
March 31, 2009, a portion of these expenses were paid for by an affiliate
of the General Partner in connection with the initial public offering.
Following March 31, 2009, US12OF has recorded these
expenses.
|
Compensation
to the General Partner and Other Compensation US12OF:
Expenses paid by
US12OF
through December 31, 2009 in dollar
terms:
|
Expense:
|
Amount in Dollar Terms
|
|||
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
$ | 922,534 | ||
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage Commissions:
|
$ | 52,790 | ||
|
Other
Amounts Paid*:
|
$ | 798,777 | ||
| Total Expenses Paid or Accrued: | $ | 1,774,101 | ||
|
Expenses
Waived**:
|
$ | (108,246 | ) | |
|
Total
Expenses Paid or Accrued Including Expenses Waived:
|
$ | 1,665,855 | ||
|
*
|
Includes
expenses relating to the registration of additional units, legal fees,
auditing fees, printing expenses, licensing fees and tax reporting fees
and fees paid to the independent directors of the General
Partner.
|
|
**
|
The
General Partner, though under no obligation to do so, agreed to pay
certain expenses, to the extent that such expenses exceeded 0.15% (15
basis points) of US12OF’s NAV, on an annualized basis through March 31,
2009, after which date such payments were no longer necessary. The General
Partner has no obligation to pay such expenses in subsequent
periods.
|
Expenses paid by
US12OF
through December 31, 2009 as a
Percentage of Average Daily Net Assets:
|
Expenses:
|
Amount
as a Percentage of
Average
Daily Net Assets
|
||
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
0.60%
annualized
|
||
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage
Commissions:
|
0.03%
annualized
|
||
|
Other
Amounts Paid:
|
0.52%
annualized
|
||
|
Total
Expenses Paid or Accrued:
|
1.15%
annualized
|
||
|
Expenses
Waived:
|
(0.07)%
annualized
|
||
|
Total
Expenses Paid or Accrued Including
Expenses
Waived:
|
1.08%
annualized
|
|
US12OF Performance:
|
|||
|
Name
of Commodity Pool:
|
US12OF
|
||
|
Type
of Commodity Pool:
|
Exchange
traded security
|
||
|
Inception
of Trading:
|
December
6, 2007
|
||
|
Aggregate
Subscriptions (from inception through December 31, 2009):
|
$224,069,815
|
||
|
Total
Net Assets as of December 31, 2009:
|
$165,523,309
|
||
|
Initial
NAV per Unit as of Inception:
|
$50.00
|
||
|
NAV
per Unit as of December 31, 2009:
|
$40.37
|
||
|
Worst
Monthly Percentage Draw-down:
|
October
2008 (29.59)%
|
||
|
Worst
Peak-to-Valley Draw-down:
|
June
2008 –February 2009 (66.97)%
|
||
|
Number
of Unitholders (as of December 31, 2009)
|
6,875
|
32
COMPOSITE
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR US12OF
PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
|
Rates of return*
|
||||||||||||
|
Month
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
|||||||||
|
January
|
– | (2.03 | ) % | (7.11 | ) % | |||||||
|
February
|
– | 10.48 | % | (4.34 | ) % | |||||||
|
March
|
– | (0.66 | ) % | 9.22 | % | |||||||
|
April
|
– | 11.87 | % | (1.06 | ) % | |||||||
|
May
|
– | 15.47 | % | 20.40 | % | |||||||
|
June
|
– | 11.59 | % | 4.51 | % | |||||||
|
July
|
– | (11.39 | ) % | 1.22 | % | |||||||
|
August
|
– | (6.35 | ) % | (2.85 | ) % | |||||||
|
September
|
– | (13.12 | ) % | (0.92 | ) % | |||||||
|
October
|
– | (29.59 | ) % | 8.48 | % | |||||||
|
November
|
– | (16.17 | ) % | 2.31 | % | |||||||
|
December
|
8.46 | %** | (12.66 | ) % | (1.10 | ) % | ||||||
|
Annual
Rate of Return
|
8.46 | %** | (42.39 | ) % | 29.23 | % | ||||||
|
*
|
The
monthly rate of return is calculated by dividing the ending NAV of a given
month by the ending NAV of the previous month, subtracting 1 and
multiplying this number by 100 to arrive at a percentage increase or
decrease.
|
|
**
|
Partial
from December 6, 2007.
|
For a
definition of draw-down, please see text below “Composite Performance Data for
USOF”.
UGA
:
Experience
in Raising and Investing in Funds through December 31, 2009
PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
|
Dollar
Amount Offered*:
|
$ | 1,500,000,000 | ||
|
Dollar
Amount Raised:
|
$ | 126,264,653 | ||
|
Organizational
and Offering Expenses**:
|
||||
|
SEC registration
fee:
|
$ | 184,224 | ||
|
FINRA registration
fee:
|
$ | 151,000 | ||
|
Listing fee:
|
$ | 5,000 | ||
|
Auditor’s fees and
expenses:
|
$ | 27,500 | ||
|
Legal fees and
expenses:
|
$ | 217,078 | ||
|
Printing
expenses:
|
$ | 162,901 | ||
|
Length
of UGA Offering:
|
Continuous
|
|||
|
*
|
Reflects
the offering price per unit set forth on the cover page of the
registration statement registering such units filed with the
SEC.
|
|
**
|
Through
August 31, 2009, initial offering costs and a portion of ongoing expenses
were paid for by the General Partner. Following August 31, 2009, UGA has
recorded these expenses.
|
33
Compensation
to the General Partner and Other Compensation UGA:
Expenses paid by UGA
through December 31, 2009 in dollar
terms:
|
Expenses:
|
Amount in Dollar Terms
|
|||
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
$ | 474,543 | ||
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage Commissions:
|
$ | 90,757 | ||
|
Other
Amounts Paid*:
|
$ | 529,839 | ||
|
Total
Expenses Paid:
|
$ | 1,095,139 | ||
|
Expenses
Waived**:
|
$ | (382,703 | ) | |
|
Total
Expenses Paid or Accrued Including Expenses Waived:
|
$ | 712,436 | ||
|
*
|
Includes
expenses relating to the registration of additional units, legal fees,
auditing fees, printing expenses, licensing fees and tax reporting fees
and fees paid to the independent directors of the General
Partner.
|
|
**
|
The
General Partner, though under no obligation to do so, agreed to pay
certain expenses, to the extent that such expenses exceeded 0.15% (15
basis points) of UGA’s NAV, on an annualized basis. The General Partner
has no obligation to continue such payment into subsequent
periods.
|
Expenses paid by UGA
through December 31, 2009 as a
Percentage of Average Daily Net Assets:
|
Expenses:
|
Amount
as a Percentage
of Average Daily Net Assets
|
||
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
0.60%
annualized
|
||
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage Commissions:
|
0.11%
annualized
|
||
|
Other
Amounts Paid:
|
0.67%
annualized
|
||
|
Total
Expenses Paid:
|
1.38%
annualized
|
||
|
Expenses
Waived:
|
(0.48)%
annualized
|
||
|
Total
Expenses Paid or Accrued Including Expenses Waived:
|
0.90%
annualized
|
|
UGA Performance:
|
|||
|
Name
of Commodity Pool:
|
UGA
|
||
|
Type
of Commodity Pool:
|
Exchange
traded security
|
||
|
Inception
of Trading:
|
February
26, 2008
|
||
|
Aggregate
Subscriptions (from inception through December 31, 2009):
|
$126,263,653
|
||
|
Total
Net Assets as of December 31, 2009:
|
$69,185,740
|
||
|
Initial
NAV per Unit as of Inception:
|
$50.00
|
||
|
NAV
per Unit as of December 31, 2009:
|
$36.41
|
||
|
Worst
Monthly Percentage Draw-down:
|
October
2008 (38.48%)
|
||
|
Worst
Peak-to-Valley Draw-down:
|
June 2008 – December 2008 (69.02%)
|
||
|
Number
of Unitholders (as of December 31, 2009)
|
5,131
|
34
COMPOSITE
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR UGA
PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
|
Rates of return*
|
||||||||
|
Month
|
2008
|
2009
|
||||||
|
January
|
– | 16.23 | % | |||||
|
February
|
(0.56 | ) %** | 0.26 | % | ||||
|
March
|
(2.39 | ) % | 2.59 | % | ||||
|
April
|
10.94 | % | 2.07 | % | ||||
|
May
|
15.60 | % | 30.41 | % | ||||
|
June
|
4.80 | % | 1.65 | % | ||||
|
July
|
(12.79 | ) % | 6.24 | % | ||||
|
August
|
(3.88 | ) % | (3.71 | ) % | ||||
|
September
|
(9.36 | ) % | (3.38 | ) % | ||||
|
October
|
(38.48 | ) % | 10.96 | % | ||||
|
November
|
(21.35 | ) % | 1.00 | % | ||||
|
December
|
(15.72 | ) % | 0.55 | % | ||||
|
Annual
Rate of Return
|
(59.58 | ) %** | 80.16 | % | ||||
|
*
|
The
monthly rate of return is calculated by dividing the ending NAV of a given
month by the ending NAV of the previous month, subtracting 1 and
multiplying this number by 100 to arrive at a percentage increase or
decrease.
|
|
**
|
Partial
from February 26, 2008.
|
For a
definition of draw-down, please see text below “Composite Performance Data for
USOF”.
USHO
:
Experience
in Raising and Investing in Funds through December 31, 2009
PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
|
Dollar
Amount Offered*:
|
$ | 500,000,000 | ||
|
Dollar
Amount Raised:
|
$ | 27,750,399 | ||
|
Organizational
and Offering Expenses**:
|
||||
|
SEC registration
fee:
|
$ | 142,234 | ||
|
FINRA registration
fee:
|
$ | 151,000 | ||
|
Listing fee:
|
$ | 5,000 | ||
|
Auditor’s fees and
expenses:
|
$ | 27,500 | ||
|
Legal fees and
expenses:
|
$ | 121,321 | ||
|
Printing
expenses:
|
$ | 106,584 | ||
|
Length
of USHO Offering:
|
Continuous
|
|||
|
*
|
Reflects
the offering price per unit set forth on the cover page of the
registration statement registering such units filed with the
SEC.
|
|
**
|
Through
August 31, 2009, initial offering costs and a portion of ongoing expenses
were paid for by the General Partner. Following August 31, 2009, USHO has
recorded these expenses.
|
Compensation
to the General Partner and Other Compensation USHO:
Expenses
paid by USHO through December 31, 2009 in dollar terms:
|
Expenses:
|
Amount in Dollar Terms
|
|||
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
$ | 109,681 | ||
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage Commissions:
|
$ | 18,418 | ||
|
Other
Amounts Paid*:
|
$ | 333,904 | ||
|
Total
Expenses Paid:
|
$ | 462,003 | ||
|
Expenses
Waived**:
|
$ | (299,225 | ) | |
|
Total
Expenses Paid or Accrued Including Expenses Waived:
|
$ | 162,778 | ||
35
|
*
|
Includes
expenses relating to the registration of additional units, legal fees,
auditing fees, printing expenses, licensing fees and tax reporting fees
and fees paid to the independent directors of the General
Partner.
|
|
**
|
The
General Partner, though under no obligation to do so, agreed to pay
certain expenses, to the extent that such expenses exceeded 0.15% (15
basis points) of USHO’s NAV, on an annualized basis. The General Partner
has no obligation to continue such payment into subsequent
periods.
|
Expenses
paid by USHO through December 31, 2009 as a Percentage of Average Daily Net
Assets:
|
Expenses:
|
Amount
as a Percentage
of Average Daily Net Assets
|
||
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
0.60%
annualized
|
||
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage Commissions:
|
0.10%
annualized
|
||
|
Other
Amounts Paid:
|
1.83%
annualized
|
||
|
Total
Expenses Paid:
|
2.53%
annualized
|
||
|
Expenses
Waived:
|
(1.64)%
annualized
|
||
|
Total
Expenses Paid or Accrued Including Expenses Waived:
|
0.89%
annualized
|
|
USHO Performance:
|
|||
|
Name
of Commodity Pool:
|
USHO
|
||
|
Type
of Commodity Pool:
|
Exchange
traded security
|
||
|
Inception
of Trading:
|
April
9, 2008
|
||
|
Aggregate
Subscriptions (from inception through December 31, 2009):
|
$27,750,399
|
||
|
Total
Net Assets as of December 31, 2009:
|
$16,525,095
|
||
|
Initial
NAV per Unit as of Inception:
|
$50.00
|
||
|
NAV
per Unit as of December 31, 2009:
|
$27.54
|
||
|
Worst
Monthly Percentage Draw-down:
|
October
2008 (28.63)%
|
||
|
Worst
Peak-to-Valley Draw-down:
|
June 2008 – February 2009 (69.17)%
|
||
|
Number
of Unitholders (as of December 31, 2009)
|
1,154
|
COMPOSITE
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR USHO
PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
|
Rates of return*
|
||||||||
|
Month
|
2008
|
2009
|
||||||
|
January
|
– | 0.05 | % | |||||
|
February
|
– | (11.34 | ) % | |||||
|
March
|
– | 6.73 | % | |||||
|
April
|
2.84 | %** | (3.85 | ) % | ||||
|
May
|
15.93 | % | 23.13 | % | ||||
|
June
|
5.91 | % | 4.55 | % | ||||
|
July
|
(12.18 | ) % | 0.39 | % | ||||
|
August
|
(8.41 | ) % | (2.71 | ) % | ||||
|
September
|
(9.77 | ) % | (0.48 | ) % | ||||
|
October
|
(28.63 | ) % | 7.60 | % | ||||
|
November
|
(18.38 | ) % | 0.19 | % | ||||
|
December
|
(17.80 | ) % | 2.23 | % | ||||
|
Annual
Rate of Return
|
(56.12 | ) %** | 25.52 | % | ||||
|
*
|
The
monthly rate of return is calculated by dividing the ending NAV of a given
month by the ending NAV of the previous month, subtracting 1 and
multiplying this number by 100 to arrive at a percentage increase or
decrease.
|
|
**
|
Partial
from April 9, 2008.
|
36
For a
definition of draw-down, please see text below “Composite Performance Data for
USOF”.
USSO
:
Experience
in Raising and Investing in Funds through December 31, 2009
PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
|
Dollar
Amount Offered*:
|
$ | 1,500,000,000 | ||
|
Dollar
Amount Raised:
|
$ | 14,290,534 | ||
|
Organizational
and Offering Expenses**:
|
||||
|
SEC registration
fee:
|
$ | 49,125 | ||
|
FINRA registration
fee:
|
$ | 75,500 | ||
|
Listing fee:
|
$ | 5,000 | ||
|
Auditor’s fees and
expenses:
|
$
|
0
|
||
|
Legal fees and
expenses:
|
$ | 512,460 | ||
|
Printing
expenses:
|
$ | 23,945 | ||
|
Length
of USSO Offering:
|
Continuous
|
|||
|
*
|
Reflects
the offering price per unit set forth on the cover page of the
registration statement registering such units filed with the
SEC.
|
|
**
|
These
expenses were paid for by the General
Partner.
|
Compensation
to the General Partner and Other Compensation USSO:
Expenses
paid by USSO through December 31, 2009 in dollar terms:
|
Expenses:
|
Amount in Dollar Terms
|
|||
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
$ | 20,150 | ||
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage Commissions:
|
$ | 4,695 | ||
|
Other
Amounts Paid*:
|
$ | 212,443 | ||
|
Total
Expenses Paid:
|
$ | 237,288 | ||
|
Expenses
Waived**:
|
$ | (206,444 | ) | |
|
Total
Expenses Paid or Accrued Including Expenses Waived:
|
$ | 30,844 | ||
|
*
|
Includes
expenses relating to legal fees, auditing fees, printing expenses,
licensing fees and tax reporting fees and fees paid to the independent
directors of the General Partner.
|
|
**
|
The
General Partner, though under no obligation to do so, agreed to pay
certain expenses, to the extent that such expenses exceeded 0.15% (15
basis points) of USSO’s NAV, on an annualized basis. The General Partner
has no obligation to continue such payment into subsequent
periods.
|
37
Expenses
paid by USSO through December 31, 2009 as a Percentage of Average Daily Net
Assets:
|
Expenses:
|
Amount
as a Percentage
of Average Daily Net Assets
|
||
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
0.60%
annualized
|
||
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage Commissions:
|
0.14%
annualized
|
||
|
Other
Amounts Paid:
|
6.33%
annualized
|
||
|
Total
Expenses Paid:
|
7.07%
annualized
|
||
|
Expenses
Waived:
|
(6.15)%
annualized
|
||
|
Total
Expenses Paid or Accrued Including Expenses Waived:
|
0.92%
annualized
|
|
USS
O
Performance:
|
|||
|
Name
of Commodity Pool:
|
USSO
|
||
|
Type
of Commodity Pool:
|
Exchange
traded security
|
||
|
Inception
of Trading:
|
September
24, 2009
|
||
|
Aggregate
Subscriptions (from inception through December 31, 2009):
|
$14,290,534
|
||
|
Total
Net Assets as of December 31, 2009:
|
$13,196,305
|
||
|
Initial
NAV per Unit as of Inception:
|
$50.00
|
||
|
NAV
per Unit as of December 31, 2009:
|
$43.99
|
||
|
Worst
Monthly Percentage Draw-down:
|
October
2009 (8.65)%
|
||
|
Worst
Peak-to-Valley Draw-down:
|
September 2009-December 2009 (12.02)%
|
||
|
Number
of Unitholders (as of December 31, 2009)
|
185
|
COMPOSITE
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR USSO
PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
|
Rates of return*
|
||||
|
Month
|
2009
|
|||
|
January
|
– | |||
|
February
|
– | |||
|
March
|
– | |||
|
April
|
– | |||
|
May
|
– | |||
|
June
|
– | |||
|
July
|
– | |||
|
August
|
– | |||
|
September
|
(2.90 | )%** | ||
|
October
|
(8.65 | )% | ||
|
November
|
(0.25 | )% | ||
|
December
|
(0.57 | )% | ||
|
Annual
Rate of Return
|
(12.02 | )%** | ||
|
*
|
The
monthly rate of return is calculated by dividing the ending NAV of a given
month by the ending NAV of the previous month, subtracting 1 and
multiplying this number by 100 to arrive at a percentage increase or
decrease.
|
|
**
|
Partial
from September 24, 2009.
|
38
For a
definition of draw-down, please see text below “Composite Performance Data for
USOF”.
US12NG
:
Experience
in Raising and Investing in Funds through December 31, 2009
PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
|
Dollar
Amount Offered*:
|
$ | 1,500,000,000 | ||
|
Dollar
Amount Raised:
|
$ | 40,652,357 | ||
|
Organizational
and Offering Expenses**:
|
||||
|
SEC registration
fee:
|
$ | 82,445 | ||
|
FINRA registration
fee:
|
$ | 75,500 | ||
|
Listing fee:
|
$ | 5,000 | ||
|
Auditor’s fees and
expenses:
|
$ | 2,500 | ||
|
Legal fees and
expenses:
|
$ | 202,252 | ||
|
Printing
expenses:
|
$ | 31,588 | ||
|
Length
of US12NG Offering:
|
Continuous
|
|||
|
*
|
Reflects
the offering price per unit set forth on the cover page of the
registration statement registering such units filed with the
SEC.
|
|
**
|
These
expenses were paid for by the General
Partner.
|
Compensation
to the General Partner and Other Compensation US12NG:
Expenses
paid by US12NG through December 31, 2009 in dollar terms:
|
Expenses:
|
Amount in Dollar Terms
|
|||
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
$ | 16,490 | ||
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage Commissions:
|
$ | 9,284 | ||
|
Other
Amounts Paid*:
|
$ | 141,553 | ||
|
Total
Expenses Paid:
|
$ | 167,327 | ||
|
Expenses
Waived**:
|
$ | (136,678 | ) | |
|
Total
Expenses Paid or Accrued Including Expenses Waived:
|
$ | 30,649 | ||
|
*
|
Includes
expenses relating to legal fees, auditing fees, printing expenses,
licensing fees and tax reporting fees and fees paid to the independent
directors of the General Partner.
|
|
**
|
The
General Partner, though under no obligation to do so, agreed to pay
certain expenses, to the extent that such expenses exceeded 0.15% (15
basis points) of US12NG’s NAV, on an annualized basis. The General Partner
has no obligation to continue such payment into subsequent
periods.
|
39
Expenses
paid by US12NG through December 31, 2009 as a Percentage of Average Daily Net
Assets:
|
Expenses:
|
Amount
as a Percentage
of Average Daily Net Assets
|
||
|
Amount
Paid to General Partner:
|
0.60%
annualized
|
||
|
Amount
Paid in Portfolio Brokerage Commissions:
|
0.34%
annualized
|
||
|
Other
Amounts Paid:
|
5.15%
annualized
|
||
|
Total
Expenses Paid:
|
6.09%
annualized
|
||
|
Expenses
Waived:
|
(4.97)%
annualized
|
||
|
Total
Expenses Paid or Accrued Including Expenses Waived:
|
1.12%
annualized
|
|
US12NG
Performance:
|
|||
|
Name
of Commodity Pool:
|
US12NG
|
||
|
Type
of Commodity Pool:
|
Exchange
traded security
|
||
|
Inception
of Trading:
|
November
18, 2009
|
||
|
Aggregate
Subscriptions (from inception through December 31, 2009):
|
$40,652,357
|
||
|
Total
Net Assets as of December 31, 2009:
|
$37,637,148
|
||
|
Initial
NAV per Unit as of Inception:
|
$50.00
|
||
|
NAV
per Unit as of December 31, 2009:
|
$53.77
|
||
|
Worst
Monthly Percentage Draw-down:
|
November 2009 (0.02)%
|
||
|
Worst
Peak-to-Valley Draw-down:
|
November 2009 (0.02)%
|
||
|
Number
of Unitholders (as of December 31, 2009)
|
1,276
|
COMPOSITE
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR US12NG
PAST
PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
|
Rates of return*
|
||||
|
Month
|
2009
|
|||
|
January
|
- | |||
|
February
|
- | |||
|
March
|
- | |||
|
April
|
- | |||
|
May
|
- | |||
|
June
|
- | |||
|
July
|
- | |||
|
August
|
- | |||
|
September
|
- | |||
|
October
|
- | |||
|
November
|
(0.02 | ) %** | ||
|
December
|
7.56 | % | ||
|
Annual
Rate of Return
|
7.54 | %** | ||
|
*
|
The
monthly rate of return is calculated by dividing the ending NAV of a given
month by the ending NAV of the previous month, subtracting 1 and
multiplying this number by 100 to arrive at a percentage increase or
decrease.
|
|
**
|
Partial
from November 18, 2009.
|
For a
definition of draw-down, please see text below “Composite Performance Data for
USOF”.
40
Other
Related Commodity Trading and Investment Management Experience
Until
December 31, 2009, Ameristock Corporation was an affiliate of the General
Partner, Ameristock Corporation is California-based registered
investment advisor registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as
amended, that has been sponsoring and providing portfolio management services to
mutual funds since 1995. Ameristock Corporation is the investment adviser to the
Ameristock Mutual Fund, Inc., a mutual fund registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), that focuses on large cap U.S.
equities that has $219,616,809 in assets as of December 31, 2009. Ameristock
Corporation was also the investment advisor to the Ameristock ETF Trust, an
open-end management investment company registered under the 1940 Act that
consisted of five separate investment portfolios, each of which sought
investment results, before fees and expenses, that corresponded generally to the
price and yield performance of a particular U.S. Treasury securities index owned
and compiled by Ryan Holdings LLC and Ryan ALM, Inc. The Ameristock
ETF Trust has liquidated each of its investment portfolios and has wound up its
affairs.
Investments
The
General Partner applies substantially all of USOF’s assets toward trading in Oil
Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests, Treasuries, cash and/or cash
equivalents. The General Partner has sole authority to determine the percentage
of assets that are:
|
·
|
held
on deposit with the futures commission merchant or other
custodian,
|
|
·
|
used
for other investments, and
|
|
·
|
held
in bank accounts to pay current obligations and as
reserves.
|
The
General Partner deposits substantially all of USOF’s net assets with the
Custodian or other custodian. When USOF purchases an Oil Futures Contract and
certain exchange traded Other Oil Interests, USOF is required to deposit with
the selling futures commission merchant on behalf of the exchange a portion of
the value of the contract or other interest as security to ensure payment for
the obligation under oil interests at maturity. This deposit is known as
“margin.” USOF invests the remainder of its assets equal to the difference
between the margin deposited and the market value of the futures contract in
Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents.
USOF’s
assets are held in segregated accounts pursuant to the CEA and CFTC regulations.
The General Partner believes that all entities that hold or trade USOF’s assets
are based in the United States and are subject to United States
regulations.
Approximately
10% to 30% of USOF’s assets have normally been committed as margin for commodity
Oil Futures Contracts. However, from time to time, the percentage of assets
committed as margin may be substantially more, or less, than such range. The
General Partner invests the balance of USOF’s assets not invested in oil
interests or held in margin as reserves to be available for changes in margin.
All interest income is used for USOF’s benefit.
The
futures commission merchant, a government agency or a commodity exchange could
increase margins applicable to USOF to hold trading positions at any time.
Moreover, margin is merely a security deposit and has no bearing on the profit
or loss potential for any positions taken.
The
Commodity Interest Markets
General
The CEA
governs the regulation of commodity interest transactions, markets and
intermediaries. In December 2000, the CEA was amended by the Commodity Futures
Modernization Act of 2000 (the “CFMA”), which substantially revised the
regulatory framework governing certain commodity interest transactions and the
markets on which they trade. The CEA, as amended by the CFMA, now provides for
varying degrees of regulation of commodity interest transactions depending upon
the variables of the transaction. In general, these variables include (1) the
type of instrument being traded (
e.g.
, contracts for future
delivery, options, swaps or spot contracts), (2) the type of commodity
underlying the instrument (distinctions are made between instruments based on
agricultural commodities, energy and metals commodities and financial
commodities), (3) the nature of the parties to the transaction (retail, eligible
contract participant, or eligible commercial entity), (4) whether the
transaction is entered into on a principal-to-principal or intermediated basis,
(5) the type of market on which the transaction occurs, and (6) whether the
transaction is subject to clearing through a clearing organization. Information
regarding commodity interest transactions, markets and intermediaries, and their
associated regulatory environment, is provided below.
41
Futures
Contracts
A futures
contract is a standardized contract traded on, or subject to the rules of, an
exchange that calls for the future delivery of a specified quantity and type of
a commodity at a specified time and place. Futures contracts are traded on a
wide variety of commodities, including agricultural products, bonds, stock
indices, interest rates, currencies, energy and metals. The size and terms of
futures contracts on a particular commodity are identical and are not subject to
any negotiation, other than with respect to price and the number of contracts
traded between the buyer and seller.
The
contractual obligations of a buyer or seller may generally be satisfied by
taking or making physical delivery of the underlying of 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. The difference between
the price at which the futures contract is purchased or sold and the price paid
for the offsetting sale or purchase, after allowance for brokerage commissions,
constitutes the profit or loss to the trader. Some futures contracts, such as
stock index contracts, settle in cash (reflecting the difference between the
contract purchase/sale price and the contract settlement price) rather than by
delivery of the underlying commodity.
In market
terminology, a trader who purchases a futures contract is long in the market and
a trader who sells a futures contract is short in the market. Before a trader
closes out his long or short position by an offsetting sale or purchase, his
outstanding contracts are known as open trades or open positions. The aggregate
amount of open positions held by traders in a particular contract is referred to
as the open interest in such contract.
Forward
Contracts
A forward
contract is a contractual obligation to purchase or sell a specified quantity of
a commodity at or before a specified date in the future at a specified price
and, therefore, is economically similar to a futures contract. Unlike futures
contracts, however, forward contracts are typically traded in the
over-the-counter markets and are not standardized contracts. Forward contracts
for a given commodity are generally available for various amounts and maturities
and are subject to individual negotiation between the parties involved.
Moreover, generally there is no direct means of offsetting or closing out a
forward contract by taking an offsetting position as one would a futures
contract on a U.S. exchange. If a trader desires to close out a forward contract
position, he generally will establish an opposite position in the contract but
will settle and recognize the profit or loss on both positions simultaneously on
the delivery date. Thus, unlike in the futures contract market where a trader
who has offset positions will recognize profit or loss immediately, in the
forward market a trader with a position that has been offset at a profit will
generally not receive such profit until the delivery date, and likewise a trader
with a position that has been offset at a loss will generally not have to pay
money until the delivery date. In recent years, however, the terms of forward
contracts have become more standardized, and in some instances such contracts
now provide a right of offset or cash settlement as an alternative to making or
taking delivery of the underlying commodity.
The
forward markets provide what has typically been a highly liquid market for
foreign exchange trading, and in certain cases the prices quoted for foreign
exchange forward contracts may be more favorable than the prices for foreign
exchange futures contracts traded on U.S. exchanges. The forward markets are
largely unregulated. Forward contracts are, in general, not cleared or
guaranteed by a third party. Commercial banks participating in trading foreign
exchange forward contracts often do not require margin deposits, but rely upon
internal credit limitations and their judgments regarding the creditworthiness
of their counterparties. In recent years, however, many over-the-counter market
participants in foreign exchange trading have begun to require that their
counterparties post margin.
Further,
as the result of the CFMA, over-the-counter derivative instruments such as
forward contracts and swap agreements (and options on forwards and physical
commodities) may begin to be traded on lightly-regulated exchanges or electronic
trading platforms that may, but are not required to, provide for clearing
facilities. Exchanges and electronic trading platforms on which over-the-counter
instruments may be traded and the regulation and criteria for that trading are
more fully described below under “Futures Exchanges and Clearing Organizations.”
Nonetheless, absent a clearing facility, USOF’s trading in foreign exchange and
other forward contracts is exposed to the creditworthiness of the counterparties
on the other side of the trade.
42
Options
on Futures Contracts
Options
on futures contracts are standardized contracts traded on an exchange. An option
on a futures contract gives the buyer of the option the right, but not the
obligation, to take a position at a specified price (the striking, strike, or
exercise price) in the underlying futures contract or underlying interest. The
buyer of a call option acquires the right, but not the obligation, to purchase
or take a long position in the underlying interest, and the buyer of a put
option acquires the right, but not the obligation, to sell or take a short
position in the underlying interest.
The
seller, or writer, of an option is obligated to take a position in the
underlying interest at a specified price opposite to the option buyer if the
option is exercised. Thus, the seller of a call option must stand ready to take
a short position in the underlying interest at the strike price if the buyer
should exercise the option. The seller of a put option, on the other hand, must
stand ready to take a long position in the underlying interest at the strike
price.
A call
option is said to be in-the-money if the strike price is below current market
levels and out-of-the-money if the strike price is above current market levels.
Conversely, a put option is said to be in-the-money if the strike price is above
the current market levels and out-of-the-money if the strike price is below
current market levels.
Options
have limited life spans, usually tied to the delivery or settlement date of the
underlying interest. Some options, however, expire significantly in advance of
such date. The purchase price of an option is referred to as its premium, which
consists of its intrinsic value (which is related to the underlying market
value) plus its time value. As an option nears its expiration date, the time
value shrinks and the market and intrinsic values move into parity. An option
that is out-of-the-money and not offset by the time it expires becomes
worthless. On certain exchanges, in-the-money options are automatically
exercised on their expiration date, but on others unexercised options simply
become worthless after their expiration date.
Regardless
of how much the market swings, the most an option buyer can lose is the option
premium. The option buyer deposits his premium with his broker, and the money
goes to the option seller. Option sellers, on the other hand, face risks similar
to participants in the futures markets. For example, since the seller of a call
option is assigned a short futures position if the option is exercised, his risk
is the same as someone who initially sold a futures contract. Because no one can
predict exactly how the market will move, the option seller posts margin to
demonstrate his ability to meet any potential contractual
obligations.
Options
on Forward Contracts or Commodities
Options
on forward contracts or commodities operate in a manner similar to options on
futures contracts. An option on a forward contract or commodity gives the buyer
of the option the right, but not the obligation, to take a position at a
specified price in the underlying forward contract or commodity. However,
similar to forward contracts, options on forward contracts or on commodities are
individually negotiated contracts between counterparties and are typically
traded in the over-the-counter market. Therefore, options on forward contracts
and physical commodities possess many of the same characteristics of forward
contracts with respect to offsetting positions and credit risk that are
described above.
Swap
Contracts
Swap
transactions generally involve contracts between two parties to exchange a
stream of payments computed by reference to a notional amount and the price of
the asset that is the subject of the swap. Swap contracts are principally traded
off-exchange, although recently, as a result of regulatory changes enacted as
part of the CFMA, certain swap contracts are now being traded in electronic
trading facilities and cleared through clearing organizations.
43
Swaps are
usually entered into on a net basis, that is, the two payment streams are netted
out in a cash settlement on the payment date or dates specified in the
agreement, with the parties receiving or paying, as the case may be, only the
net amount of the two payments. Swaps do not generally involve the delivery of
underlying assets or principal. Accordingly, the risk of loss with respect to
swaps is generally limited to the net amount of payments that the party is
contractually obligated to make. In some swap transactions one or both parties
may require collateral deposits from the counterparty to support that
counterparty’s obligation under the swap agreement. If the counterparty to such
a swap defaults, the risk of loss consists of the net amount of payments that
the party is contractually entitled to receive less any collateral deposits
it is holding.
Some swap
transactions are cleared through central counterparties. These
transactions, known as cleared swaps, involve two counterparties first agreeing
to the terms of a swap transaction, then submitting the transaction to a
clearing house that acts as the central counterparty. Once submitted
to the clearing house, the original swap transaction is novated and the central
counterparty becomes the counterparty to a trade with each of the original
parties based upon the trade terms determined in the original
transaction. In this manner each individual swap counterparty reduces
its risk of loss due to counterparty nonperformance because the clearing house
acts as the counterparty to each transaction.
Participants
The two
broad classes of persons who trade commodities are hedgers and speculators.
Hedgers include financial institutions that manage or deal in interest
rate-sensitive instruments, foreign currencies or stock portfolios, and
commercial market participants, such as farmers and manufacturers, that market
or process commodities. Hedging is a protective procedure designed to
effectively lock in prices that would otherwise change due to an adverse
movement in the price of the underlying commodity, for example, the adverse
price movement between the time a merchandiser or processor enters into a
contract to buy or sell a raw or processed commodity at a certain price and the
time he must perform the contract. In such a case, at the time the hedger
contracts to physically sell the commodity at a future date he will
simultaneously buy a futures or forward contract for the necessary equivalent
quantity of the commodity. At the time for performance of the contract, the
hedger may accept delivery under his futures contract and sell the commodity
quantity as required by his physical contract or he may buy the actual
commodity, sell it under the physical contract and close out his position by
making an offsetting sale of a futures contract.
The
commodity interest markets enable the hedger to shift the risk of price
fluctuations. The usual objective of the hedger is to protect the profit that he
expects to earn from farming, merchandising, or processing operations rather
than to profit from his trading. However, at times the impetus for a hedge
transaction may result in part from speculative objectives and hedgers can end
up paying higher prices than they would have, for example, if current market
prices are lower than the locked in price.
Unlike
the hedger, the speculator generally expects neither to make nor take delivery
of the underlying commodity. Instead, the speculator risks his capital with the
hope of making profits from price fluctuations in the commodities. The
speculator is, in effect, the risk bearer who assumes the risks that the hedger
seeks to avoid. Speculators rarely make or take delivery of the underlying
commodity; rather they attempt to close out their positions prior to the
delivery date. Because the speculator may take either a long or short position
in commodities, it is possible for him to make profits or incur losses
regardless of whether prices go up or down.
Futures
Exchanges and Clearing Organizations
Futures
exchanges provide centralized market facilities in which multiple persons have
the ability to execute or trade contracts by accepting bids and offers from
multiple participants. Futures exchanges may provide for execution of trades at
a physical location utilizing trading pits and/or may provide for trading to be
done electronically through computerized matching of bids and offers pursuant to
various algorithms. Members of a particular exchange and the trades executed on
such exchange are subject to the rules of that exchange. Futures exchanges and
clearing organizations are given reasonable latitude in promulgating rules and
regulations to control and regulate their members. Examples of regulations by
exchanges and clearing organizations include the establishment of initial margin
levels, rules regarding trading practices, contract specifications, speculative
position limits, daily price fluctuation limits, and execution and clearing
fees.
44
Clearing
organizations provide services designed to mutualize or transfer the credit risk
arising from the trading of contracts on an exchange or other electronic trading
facility. Once trades made between members of an exchange or electronic trading
facility have been confirmed, the clearing organization becomes substituted for
the clearing member acting on behalf of each buyer and each seller of contracts
traded on the exchange or trading platform and in effect becomes the other party
to the trade. Thereafter, each clearing member party to the trade looks only to
the clearing organization for performance. The clearing organization generally
establishes some sort of security or guarantee fund to which all clearing
members of the exchange must contribute; this fund acts as an emergency buffer
that is intended to enable the clearing organization to meet its obligations
with regard to the other side of an insolvent clearing member’s contracts.
Furthermore, the clearing organization requires margin deposits and continuously
marks positions to market to provide some assurance that its members will be
able to fulfill their contractual obligations. Thus, a central function of the
clearing organization is to ensure the integrity of trades, and members
effecting transactions on an exchange need not concern themselves with the
solvency of the party on the opposite side of the trade; their only remaining
concerns are the respective solvencies of their own customers, their clearing
broker and the clearing organization. The clearing organizations do not deal
with customers, but only with their member firms and the guarantee of
performance for open positions provided by the clearing organization does not
run to customers.
U.S.
Futures Exchanges
Futures
exchanges in the United States are subject to varying degrees of regulation by
the CFTC based on their designation as one of the following: a designated
contract market, a derivatives transaction execution facility, an exempt board
of trade or an electronic trading facility.
A
designated contract market is the most highly regulated level of futures
exchange. Designated contract markets may offer products to retail customers on
an unrestricted basis. To be designated as a contract market, the exchange must
demonstrate that it satisfies specified general criteria for designation, such
as having the ability to prevent market manipulation, rules and procedures to
ensure fair and equitable trading, position limits, dispute resolution
procedures, minimization of conflicts of interest and protection of market
participants. Among the principal designated contract markets in the United
States are the Chicago Board of Trade, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the
NYMEX. Each of the designated contract markets in the United States must provide
for the clearance and settlement of transactions with a CFTC-registered
derivatives clearing organization.
A
derivatives transaction execution facility (a “DTEF”) is a new type of exchange
that is subject to fewer regulatory requirements than a designated contract
market but is subject to both commodity interest and participant limitations.
DTEFs limit access to eligible traders that qualify as either eligible contract
participants or eligible commercial entities for futures and option contracts on
commodities that have a nearly inexhaustible deliverable supply, are highly
unlikely to be susceptible to the threat of manipulation, or have no cash
market, security futures products, and futures and option contracts on
commodities that the CFTC may determine, on a case-by-case basis, are highly
unlikely to be susceptible to the threat of manipulation. In addition, certain
commodity interests excluded or exempt from the CEA, such as swaps, etc. may be
traded on a DTEF. There is no requirement that a DTEF use a clearing
organization, except with respect to trading in security futures contracts, in
which case the clearing organization must be a securities clearing agency.
However, if futures contracts and options on futures contracts on a DTEF are
cleared, then it must be through a CFTC-registered derivatives clearing
organization, except that some excluded or exempt commodities traded on a DTEF
may be cleared through a clearing organization other than one registered with
the CFTC.
An exempt
board of trade is also a newly designated form of exchange. An exempt board of
trade is substantially unregulated, subject only to CFTC anti-fraud and
anti-manipulation authority. An exempt board of trade is permitted to trade
futures contracts and options on futures contracts provided that the underlying
commodity is not a security or securities index and has an inexhaustible
deliverable supply or no cash market. All traders on an exempt board of trade
must qualify as eligible contract participants. Contracts deemed eligible to be
traded on an exempt board of trade include contracts on interest rates, exchange
rates, currencies, credit risks or measures, debt instruments, measures of
inflation, or other macroeconomic indices or measures. There is no requirement
that an exempt board of trade use a clearing organization. However, if contracts
on an exempt board of trade are cleared, then it must be through a
CFTC-registered derivatives clearing organization. A board of trade electing to
operate as an exempt board of trade must file a written notification with the
CFTC.
45
An
electronic trading facility is a new form of trading platform that operates by
means of an electronic or telecommunications network and maintains an automated
audit trail of bids, offers, and the matching of orders or the execution of
transactions on the electronic trading facility. The CEA does not apply to, and
the CFTC has no jurisdiction over, transactions on an electronic trading
facility in certain excluded commodities that are entered into between
principals that qualify as eligible contract participants, subject only to CFTC
anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority. In general, excluded commodities
include interest rates, currencies, securities, securities indices or other
financial, economic or commercial indices or measures.
The
General Partner intends to monitor the development of and opportunities and
risks presented by the new less-regulated exchanges and exempt boards as well as
other trading platforms currently in place or that are being considered by
regulators and may, in the future, allocate a percentage of USOF’s assets to
trading in products on these exchanges. Provided USOF maintains assets exceeding
$5 million, USOF would qualify as an eligible contract participant and thus
would be able to trade on such exchanges.
Non-U.S.
Futures Exchanges
Non-U.S.
futures exchanges differ in certain respects from their U.S. counterparts.
Importantly, non-U.S. futures exchanges are not subject to regulation by the
CFTC, but rather are regulated by their home country regulator. In contrast to
U.S. designated contract markets, some non-U.S. exchanges are principals’
markets, where trades remain the liability of the traders involved, and the
exchange or an affiliated clearing organization, if any, does not become
substituted for any party. Due to the absence of a clearing system, such
exchanges are significantly more susceptible to disruptions. Further,
participants in such markets must often satisfy themselves as to the individual
creditworthiness of each entity with which they enter into a trade. Trading on
non-U.S. exchanges is often in the currency of the exchange’s home jurisdiction.
Consequently, USOF is subject to the additional risk of fluctuations in the
exchange rate between such currencies and U.S. dollars and the possibility that
exchange controls could be imposed in the future. Trading on non-U.S. exchanges
may differ from trading on U.S. exchanges in a variety of ways and, accordingly,
may subject USOF to additional risks.
Accountability
Levels and Position Limits
The CFTC
and U.S. designated contract markets 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 a hedger, which USOF is not) may hold, own or
control. Among the purposes of accountability levels and position limits is to
prevent a corner or squeeze on a market or undue influence on prices by any
single trader or group of traders. The position limits currently established by
the CFTC apply to certain agricultural commodity interests, such as grains
(oats, barley, and flaxseed), soybeans, corn, wheat, cotton, eggs, rye, and
potatoes, but not to interests in energy products. In addition, U.S. exchanges
may set accountability levels and position limits for all commodity interests
traded on that exchange. For example, the current accountability level for
investments at any one time in Oil Futures Contracts for light, sweet crude oil
(including investments in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract) on the NYMEX is
10,000 contracts for one month and 20,000 contracts for all months. The NYMEX
also imposes position limits on contracts held in the last few days of trading
in the near month contract to expire. The ICE Futures has recently adopted
similar accountability levels and position limits for certain of its Oil Futures
Contracts that are traded on the ICE Futures and settled against the price of a
contract listed for trading on a U.S. designated contract market such as NYMEX.
Certain exchanges or clearing organizations also set limits on the total net
positions that may be held by a clearing broker. In general, no position limits
are in effect in forward or other over-the-counter contract trading or in
trading on non-U.S. futures exchanges, although the principals with which USOF
and the clearing brokers may trade in such markets may impose such limits as a
matter of credit policy. For purposes of determining accountability levels and
position limits, USOF’s commodity interest positions will not be attributable to
investors in their own commodity interest trading.
On
January 26, 2010, the CFTC published a proposed rule that, if implemented, would
set fixed position limits on certain energy Futures Contracts, including the
NYMEX Light Sweet crude oil futures contract, NYMEX Henry Hub natural gas
futures contract, NYMEX New York Harbor No. 2 heating oil futures contract, and
NYMEX RBOB gasoline futures contract, along with any contract based upon these
contracts. The proposed position limits would be set as a percentage
of the open interest in these contracts for the spot month, any single month,
and all months combined. Additionally, the proposed rule would
aggregate positions in the enumerated contracts and those based upon such
contracts, including contracts listed on separate exchanges. This
proposal is currently undergoing a 90-day public comment
period.
46
Daily
Price Limits
Most U.S.
futures exchanges (but generally not non-U.S. exchanges) may limit the amount of
fluctuation in some futures contract or options on a futures contract prices
during a single trading day by regulations. These regulations specify what are
referred to as daily price fluctuation limits or, more commonly, daily limits.
The daily limits establish the maximum amount that the price of a futures or
options on futures contract may vary either up or down from the previous day’s
settlement price. Once the daily limit has been reached in a particular futures
or options on futures contract, no trades may be made at a price beyond the
limit. Positions in the futures or options contract may then be taken or
liquidated, if at all, only at inordinate expense or if traders are willing to
effect trades at or within the limit during the period for trading on such day.
Because the daily limit rule governs price movement only for a particular
trading day, it does not limit losses and may in fact substantially increase
losses because it may prevent the liquidation of unfavorable positions. Futures
contract prices have occasionally moved to the daily limit for several
consecutive trading days, thus preventing prompt liquidation of positions and
subjecting the trader to substantial losses for those days. The concept of daily
price limits is not relevant to over-the-counter contracts, including forwards
and swaps, and thus such limits are not imposed by banks and others who deal in
those markets.
In
contrast, the NYMEX does not impose daily limits but rather limits the amount of
price fluctuation for Oil Futures Contracts. For example, the NYMEX imposes a
$10.00 per barrel ($10,000 per contract) price fluctuation limit for the
Benchmark Oil Futures Contract. This limit is initially based off the
previous trading day’s settlement price. If any Benchmark Oil Futures Contract
is traded, bid, or offered at the limit for five minutes, trading is halted for
five minutes. When trading resumes it begins at the point where the limit was
imposed and the limit is reset to be $10.00 per barrel in either direction of
that point. If another halt were triggered, the market would continue to be
expanded by $10.00 per barrel in either direction after each successive
five-minute trading halt. There is no maximum price fluctuation limit during any
one trading session.
Commodity
Prices
Commodity
prices are volatile and, although ultimately determined by the interaction of
supply and demand, are subject to many other influences, including the
psychology of the marketplace and speculative assessments of future world and
economic events. Political climate, interest rates, treaties, balance of
payments, exchange controls and other governmental interventions as well as
numerous other variables affect the commodity markets, and even with
comparatively complete information it is impossible for any trader to predict
reliably commodity prices.
Regulation
Futures
exchanges in the United States are subject to varying degrees of regulation
under the CEA depending on whether such exchange is a designated contract
market, DTEF, exempt board of trade or electronic trading facility. Derivatives
clearing organizations are also subject to the CEA and CFTC regulation. The CFTC
is the governmental agency charged with responsibility for regulation of futures
exchanges and commodity interest trading conducted on those exchanges. The
CFTC’s function is to implement the CEA’s objectives of preventing price
manipulation and excessive speculation and promoting orderly and efficient
commodity interest markets. In addition, the various exchanges and clearing
organizations themselves exercise regulatory and supervisory authority over
their member firms.
The CFTC
possesses exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the activities of CPOs and
commodity trading advisors and has adopted regulations with respect to the
activities of those persons and/or entities. Under the CEA, a registered CPO,
such as the General Partner, is required to make annual filings with the CFTC
describing its organization, capital structure, management and controlling
persons. In addition, the CEA authorizes the CFTC to require and review books
and records of, and documents prepared by, registered CPOs. Pursuant to this
authority, the CFTC requires CPOs to keep accurate, current and orderly records
for each pool that they operate. The CFTC may suspend the registration of a CPO
(1) if the CFTC finds that the operator’s trading practices tend to disrupt
orderly market conditions, (2) if any controlling person of the operator is
subject to an order of the CFTC denying such person trading privileges on any
exchange, and (3) in certain other circumstances. Suspension, restriction or
termination of the General Partner’s registration as a CPO would prevent it,
until that registration were to be reinstated, from managing USOF, and might
result in the termination of USOF. USOF itself is not required to be registered
with the CFTC in any capacity.
47
The CEA
gives the CFTC similar authority with respect to the activities of commodity
trading advisors. If a trading advisor’s commodity trading advisor registration
were to be terminated, restricted or suspended, the trading advisor would be
unable, until the registration were to be reinstated, to render trading advice
to USOF.
The CEA
requires all futures commission merchants, such as USOF’s clearing brokers, to
meet and maintain specified fitness and financial requirements, to segregate
customer funds from proprietary funds and account separately for all customers’
funds and positions, and to maintain specified books and records open to
inspection by the staff of the CFTC. The CFTC has similar authority over
introducing brokers, or persons who solicit or accept orders for commodity
interest trades but who do not accept margin deposits for the execution of
trades. The CEA authorizes the CFTC to regulate trading by futures commission
merchants and by their officers and directors, permits the CFTC to require
action by exchanges in the event of market emergencies, and establishes an
administrative procedure under which customers may institute complaints for
damages arising from alleged violations of the CEA. The CEA also gives the
states powers to enforce its provisions and the regulations of the
CFTC.
USOF’s
investors are afforded prescribed rights for reparations under the CEA.
Investors may also be able to maintain a private right of action for violations
of the CEA. The CFTC has adopted rules implementing the reparation provisions of
the CEA, which provide that any person may file a complaint for a reparations
award with the CFTC for violation of the CEA against a floor broker or a futures
commission merchant, introducing broker, commodity trading advisor, CPO, and
their respective associated persons.
Pursuant
to authority in the CEA, the NFA has been formed and registered with the CFTC as
a registered futures association. At the present time, the NFA is the only
self-regulatory organization for commodity interest professionals, other than
futures exchanges. The CFTC has delegated to the NFA responsibility for the
registration of commodity trading advisors, CPOs, futures commission merchants,
introducing brokers, and their respective associated persons and floor brokers.
The General Partner, each trading advisor, the selling agents and the clearing
brokers are members of the NFA. As such, they are subject to NFA standards
relating to fair trade practices, financial condition and consumer protection.
USOF itself is not required to become a member of the NFA. As the
self-regulatory body of the commodity interest industry, the NFA promulgates
rules governing the conduct of professionals and disciplines those professionals
that do not comply with these rules. The NFA also arbitrates disputes between
members and their customers and conducts registration and fitness screening of
applicants for membership and audits of its existing members.
The
regulations of the CFTC and the NFA prohibit any representation by a person
registered with the CFTC or by any member of the NFA, that registration with the
CFTC, or membership in the NFA, in any respect indicates that the CFTC or the
NFA, as the case may be, has approved or endorsed that person or that person’s
trading program or objectives. The registrations and memberships of the parties
described in this summary must not be considered as constituting any such
approval or endorsement. Likewise, no futures exchange has given or will give
any similar approval or endorsement.
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.
The
function of the CFTC is to implement the objectives of the CEA of preventing
price manipulation and other disruptions to market integrity, avoiding systemic
risk, preventing fraud and promoting innovation, competition and financial
integrity of transactions. As mentioned above, this regulation, among other
things, provides that the trading of commodity interest contracts generally must
be upon exchanges designated as contract markets or DTEFs and that all trading
on those exchanges must be done by or through exchange members. Under the CFMA,
commodity interest trading in some commodities between sophisticated persons may
be traded on a trading facility not regulated by the CFTC. As a general matter,
trading in spot contracts, forward contracts, options on forward contracts or
commodities, or swap contracts between eligible contract participants is not
within the jurisdiction of the CFTC and may therefore be effectively
unregulated. The trading advisors may engage in those transactions on behalf of
USOF in reliance on this exclusion from regulation. However,
legislation currently under consideration by the U.S. Congress would remove the
exclusion provided to these transactions and place them under federal
regulation. The proposed legislation would subject these contracts to
new capital, margin, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
48
In
general, the CFTC does not regulate the interbank and forward foreign currency
markets with respect to transactions in contracts between certain sophisticated
counterparties such as USOF or between certain regulated institutions and retail
investors. Although U.S. banks are regulated in various ways by the Federal
Reserve Board, the Comptroller of the Currency and other U.S. federal and state
banking officials, banking authorities do not regulate the forward
markets.
While the
U.S. government does not currently impose any restrictions on the movements of
currencies, it could choose to do so. The imposition or relaxation of exchange
controls in various jurisdictions could significantly affect the market for that
and other jurisdictions’ currencies. Trading in the interbank market also
exposes USOF to a risk of default since failure of a bank with which USOF had
entered into a forward contract would likely result in a default and thus
possibly substantial losses to USOF.
The CFTC
is prohibited by statute from regulating trading on non-U.S. futures exchanges
and markets. The CFTC, however, has adopted regulations relating to the
marketing of non-U.S. futures contracts in the United States. These regulations
permit certain contracts traded on non-U.S. exchanges to be offered and sold in
the United States.
Commodity
Margin
Original
or initial margin is the minimum amount of funds that must be deposited by a
commodity interest trader with the trader’s broker to initiate and maintain an
open position in futures contracts. Maintenance margin is the amount (generally
less than the original margin) to which a trader’s account may decline before he
must deliver additional margin. A margin deposit is like a cash performance
bond. It helps assure the trader’s performance of the futures contracts that he
or she purchases or sells. Futures contracts are customarily bought and sold on
initial margin that represents a very small percentage (ranging upward from less
than 2%) of the aggregate purchase or sales price of the contract. Because of
such low margin requirements, price fluctuations occurring in the futures
markets may create profits and losses that, in relation to the amount invested,
are greater than are customary in other forms of investment or speculation. As
discussed below, adverse price changes in the futures contract may result in
margin requirements that greatly exceed the initial margin. In addition, the
amount of margin required in connection with a particular futures contract is
set from time to time by the exchange on which the contract is traded and may be
modified from time to time by the exchange during the term of the
contract.
Brokerage
firms, such as USOF’s clearing brokers, carrying accounts for traders in
commodity interest contracts may not accept lower, and generally require higher,
amounts of margin as a matter of policy to further protect themselves. The
clearing brokers require USOF to make margin deposits equal to exchange minimum
levels for all commodity interest contracts. This requirement may be altered
from time to time in the clearing brokers’ discretion.
Trading
in the over-the-counter markets where no clearing facility is provided generally
does not require margin but generally does require the extension of credit
between counterparties. This extension of credit generally takes the
form of transfers of collateral and/or independent amounts. Collateral is
transferred between counterparties during the term of an over-the-counter
transaction based upon the changing value of the transaction, while independent
amounts are fixed amounts posted by one or both counterparties at the start of
an over-the-counter transaction.
When a
trader purchases an option, there is no margin requirement; however, the option
premium must be paid in full. When a trader sells an option, on the other hand,
he or she is required to deposit margin in an amount determined by the margin
requirements established for the underlying interest and, in addition, an amount
substantially equal to the current premium for the option. The margin
requirements imposed on the selling of options, although adjusted to reflect the
probability that out-of-the-money options will not be exercised, can in fact be
higher than those imposed in dealing in the futures markets directly.
Complicated margin requirements apply to spreads and conversions, which are
complex trading strategies in which a trader acquires a mixture of options
positions and positions in the underlying interest.
49
Margin
requirements are computed each day by a trader’s clearing broker. When the
market value of a particular open commodity interest position changes to a point
where the margin on deposit does not satisfy maintenance margin requirements, a
margin call is made by the broker. If the margin call is not met within a
reasonable time, the broker may close out the trader’s position. With respect to
USOF’s trading, USOF (and not its investors personally) is subject to margin
calls.
Finally,
many major U.S. exchanges have passed certain cross margining arrangements
involving procedures pursuant to which the futures and options positions held in
an account would, in the case of some accounts, be aggregated and margin
requirements would be assessed on a portfolio basis, measuring the total risk of
the combined positions.
SEC
Reports
USOF makes available,
free of charge, on its website, its annual reports on Form 10-K, its quarterly
reports on Form 10-Q, its current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to these
reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange
Act as soon as reasonably practicable after these forms are filed with, or
furnished to, the SEC. These reports are also available from the SEC though
its website at:
www.sec.gov
.
CFTC
Reports
USOF also
makes available its monthly reports and its annual reports required to be
prepared and filed with the NFA under the CFTC regulations.
Intellectual
Property
The
General Partner owns trademark registrations for UNITED STATES OIL FUND (U.S.
Reg. No. 3240929) for “investment services in the field of oil futures contracts
and other oil interests,” in use since April 30, 2006, and UNITED STATES OIL
FUND LP (and Oil Rig Design) (U.S. Reg. No. 3447665) for “fund investment
services in the field of oil futures contracts, cash-settled options on oil
futures contracts, forward contracts for oil, over-the-counter transactions
based on the price of oil, and indices based on the foregoing,” in use since
April 10, 2006. USO relies upon these trademarks through which it
markets its services and strives to build and maintain brand recognition in the
market and among current and potential investors. So long as USO
continues to use these trademarks to identify its services, without challenge
from any third party, and properly maintains and renews the trademark
registrations under applicable laws, rules and regulations, it will continue to
have indefinite protection for these trademarks under current laws, rules and
regulations.
A patent application by the General Partner directed to the
creation and operation of USOF and one or more of the Related Public Funds is
pending and the General Partner
’
s registration of
USOF’s trademarks is in process at the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. The patent application pertains to the structure of USOF and one or more
of the Related Public Funds managed by the General Partner. The General Partner
does not believe that rejection or modification of the patent application will
have a material adverse effect on the operations of USOF or the Related Public
Funds.
The
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 USOF’s financial statements
and the related notes.
Risks
Associated With Investing Directly or Indirectly in Crude Oil
Investing
in oil interests subjects USOF to the risks of the crude oil industry and this
could result in large fluctuations in the price of USOF’s units.
USOF is
subject to the risks and hazards of the crude oil industry because it intends to
invest in oil interests. The risks and hazards that are inherent in the crude
oil industry may cause the price of crude oil to widely fluctuate. If USOF’s
units accurately track the percentage changes in the terms of the Benchmark Oil
Futures Contract or the spot price of crude oil, then the price of its units may
also fluctuate. The exploration and production of crude oil are uncertain
processes with many risks. The cost of drilling, completing and operating wells
for crude oil is often uncertain, and a number of factors can delay or prevent
drilling operations or production of crude oil, including:
|
·
|
unexpected
drilling conditions;
|
|
·
|
pressure
or irregularities in
formations;
|
50
|
·
|
equipment
failures or repairs;
|
|
·
|
fires
or other accidents;
|
|
|
·
|
adverse
weather conditions;
|
|
|
·
|
pipeline
ruptures, spills or other supply disruptions;
and
|
|
|
·
|
shortages
or delays in the availability of drilling rigs and the delivery of
equipment.
|
Crude
oil transmission, distribution, gathering, and processing activities involve
numerous risks that may affect the price of crude oil.
There are
a variety of hazards inherent in crude oil transmission, distribution,
gathering, and processing, such as leaks, explosions, pollution, release of
toxic substances, adverse weather conditions (such as hurricanes and flooding),
pipeline failure, abnormal pressures, uncontrollable flows of crude oil,
scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, physical damage to the gathering or
transportation system, and other hazards which could affect the price of crude
oil. To the extent these hazards limit the supply or delivery of crude oil,
crude oil prices will increase.
Changes
in the political climate could have negative consequences for crude oil
prices.
Tensions
with Iran, the world’s fourth largest oil exporter, could put oil exports in
jeopardy. Other global concerns include civil unrest and sabotage affecting the
flow of oil from Nigeria, a large oil exporter. Meanwhile, friction continues
between the governments of the United States and Venezuela, a major exporter of
oil to the United States. Additionally, a series of production cuts by members
of OPEC followed by a refusal to subsequently increase oil production have
tightened world oil markets.
Fluctuations
in the reserve capacity of crude oil could impact future prices.
In the
past, a supply disruption in one area of the world was softened by the ability
of major oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia to increase output to make
up the difference. In recent years, much of that spare capacity has been
absorbed by increased demand. The current global economic downturn, however, has
led to a decrease in the demand for oil that lasted through 2009 and a
corresponding increase in spare capacities. According to the United States
Government’s Energy Information Administration, global oil demand is expected to
rise by 0.7 million barrels a day in 2010, compared with a decrease in demand of
1.8 million barrels a day in 2009 and largely unchanged demand in 2008.
Consumption of oil products continues to increase in certain parts of the world,
especially in rapidly growing countries such as India and China, which is now
the world’s second-largest energy user. The volatility of demand in the oil
market makes it difficult to predict the availability of spare
capacities.
The
price of USOF’s units may be influenced by factors such as the short-term supply
and demand for crude oil and the short-term supply and demand for USOF’s units.
This may cause the units to trade at a price that is above or below USOF’s NAV
per unit. Accordingly, changes in the price of units may substantially vary from
the changes in the spot price of light, sweet crude oil. If this variation
occurs, then investors may not be able to effectively use USOF as a way to hedge
against crude oil-related losses or as a way to indirectly invest in crude
oil.
While it
is expected that the trading prices of the units will fluctuate in accordance
with changes in USOF’s NAV, the prices of units may also be influenced by other
factors, including the short-term supply and demand for crude oil and the units.
There is no guarantee that the units will not trade at appreciable discounts
from, and/or premiums to, USOF’s NAV. This could cause changes in the price of
the units to substantially vary from changes in the spot price of light,
sweet crude oil. This may be harmful to investors because if changes in the
price of units vary substantially from changes in the spot price of light,
sweet crude oil, then investors may not be able to effectively use USOF as a way
to hedge the risk of losses in their crude oil-related transactions or as a way
to indirectly invest in crude oil.
51
Changes
in USOF’s NAV may not correlate with changes in the price of the Benchmark Oil
Futures Contract. If this were to occur, investors may not be able to
effectively use USOF as a way to hedge against crude oil-related losses or as a
way to indirectly invest in crude oil.
The
General Partner endeavors to invest USOF’s assets as fully as possible in
short-term Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests so that the changes in
percentage terms of the NAV closely correlate with the changes in percentage
terms in the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract. However, changes in
USOF’s NAV may not correlate with the changes in the price of the Benchmark Oil
Futures Contract for several reasons as set forth below:
|
|
·
|
USOF
(i) may not be able to buy/sell the exact amount of Oil Futures Contracts
and Other Oil Interests to have a perfect correlation with NAV; (ii) may
not always be able to buy and sell Oil Futures Contracts or Other Oil
Interests at the market price; (iii) may not experience a perfect
correlation between the spot price of light, sweet crude oil and the
underlying investments in Oil Futures Contracts, Other Oil Interests and
Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents; and (iv) is required to pay
fees, including brokerage fees and the management fee, which will
have an effect on the correlation.
|
|
|
·
|
Short-term
supply and demand for light, sweet crude oil may cause the changes in
the market price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract to vary from the
changes in USOF’s NAV if USOF has fully invested in Oil Futures Contracts
that do not reflect such supply and demand and it is unable to replace
such contracts with Oil Futures Contracts that do reflect such supply and
demand. In addition, there are also technical differences between the two
markets,
e.g.,
one is a physical market while the other is a futures market traded on
exchanges, that may cause variations between the spot price of crude oil
and the prices of related futures
contracts.
|
|
|
·
|
USOF
plans to sell and buy only as many Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil
Interests that it can to get the changes in percentage terms of the NAV as
close as possible to the changes in percentage terms in the price of the
Benchmark Oil Futures Contract. The remainder of its assets will be
invested in Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents and will be used to
satisfy initial margin and additional margin requirements, if any, and to
otherwise support its investments in oil interests. Investments in
Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents, both directly and as margin,
will provide rates of return that will vary from changes in the value of
the spot price of light, sweet crude oil and the price of the
Benchmark Oil Futures Contract.
|
|
|
·
|
In
addition, because USOF incurs certain expenses in connection with its
investment activities, and holds most of its assets in more liquid
short-term securities for margin and other liquidity purposes and for
redemptions that may be necessary on an ongoing basis, the General Partner
is generally not able to fully invest USOF’s assets in Oil Futures
Contracts or Other Oil Interests and there cannot be perfect correlation
between changes in USOF’s NAV and changes in the price of the Benchmark
Oil Futures Contract.
|
|
|
·
|
As
USOF grows, there may be more or less correlation. For example, if USOF
only has enough money to buy three Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts and it
needs to buy four contracts to track the price of oil then the correlation
will be lower, but if it buys 20,000 Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts and
it needs to buy 20,001 contracts then the correlation will be higher. At
certain asset levels, USOF may be limited in its ability to purchase the
Benchmark Oil Futures Contract or other Oil Futures Contracts due to
accountability levels imposed by the relevant exchanges. To the extent
that USOF invests in these other Oil Futures Contracts or Other Oil
Interests, the correlation with the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts may be
lower. If USOF is required to invest in other Oil Futures Contracts and
Other Oil Interests that are less correlated with the Benchmark Oil
Futures Contract, USOF would likely invest in over-the-counter contracts
to increase the level of correlation of USOF’s assets. Over-the-counter
contracts entail certain risks described below under “Over-the-Counter
Contract Risk.”
|
|
|
·
|
USOF
may not be able to buy the exact number of Oil Futures Contracts and Other
Oil Interests to have a perfect correlation with the Benchmark Oil Futures
Contract if the purchase price of Oil Futures Contracts required to be
fully invested in such contracts is higher than the proceeds received for
the sale of a Creation Basket on the day the basket was sold. In such
case, USOF could not invest the entire proceeds from the purchase of the
Creation Basket in such futures contracts (for example, assume USOF
receives $4,679,000 for the sale of a Creation Basket and assume that the
price of an Oil Futures Contract for light, sweet crude oil is
$46,800, then USOF could only invest in 99 Oil Futures Contracts with an
aggregate value of $4,633,200). USOF would be required to invest a
percentage of the proceeds in cash, Treasuries or other liquid securities
to be deposited as margin with the futures commission merchant through
which the contract was purchased. The remainder of the purchase price for
the Creation Basket would remain invested in Treasuries, cash and/or cash
equivalents or other liquid securities as determined by the General
Partner from time to time based on factors such as potential calls for
margin or anticipated redemptions. If the trading market for Oil Futures
Contracts is suspended or closed, USOF may not be able to purchase these
investments at the last reported price for such
investments.
|
52
If
changes in USOF’s NAV do not correlate with changes in the price of the
Benchmark Oil Futures Contract, then investing in USOF may not be an effective
way to hedge against oil-related losses or indirectly invest in
oil.
The
Benchmark Oil Futures Contract may not correlate with the spot price
of light, sweet crude oil and this could cause changes in the price of the
units to substantially vary from the changes in the spot price of light, sweet
crude oil. If this were to occur, then investors may not be able to effectively
use USOF as a way to hedge against crude oil-related losses or as a way to
indirectly invest in crude oil.
When
using the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract as a strategy to track the spot price
of light, sweet crude oil, at best the correlation between changes in
prices of such oil interests and the spot price of crude oil can be only
approximate. The degree of imperfection of correlation depends upon
circumstances such as variations in the speculative oil market, supply of and
demand for such oil interests and technical influences in oil futures trading.
If there is a weak correlation between the oil interests and the spot price
of light, sweet crude oil, then the price of units may not accurately track
the spot price of light, sweet crude oil and investors may not be able to
effectively use USOF as a way to hedge the risk of losses in their oil-related
transactions or as a way to indirectly invest in crude oil.
USOF
may experience a loss if it is required to sell Treasuries at a price lower than
the price at which they were acquired.
The value
of Treasuries generally moves inversely with movements in interest rates. If
USOF is required to sell Treasuries at a price lower than the price at which
they were acquired, USOF will experience a loss. This loss may adversely impact
the price of the units and may decrease the correlation between the price of the
units, the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests,
and the spot price of light, sweet crude oil.
Certain
of USOF’s investments could be illiquid which could cause large losses to
investors at any time or from time to time.
USOF may
not always be able to liquidate its positions in its investments 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 in
its currency, its crude oil production or exports, or in another major export,
can also make it difficult to liquidate a position. Alternatively, limits
imposed by futures exchanges or other regulatory organizations, such as
accountability levels, position limits and daily price fluctuation limits, may
contribute to a lack of liquidity with respect to some commodity
interests.
Unexpected
market illiquidity may cause major losses to investors at any time or from time
to time. In addition, USOF has not and does not intend at this time to establish
a credit facility, which would provide an additional source of liquidity and
instead will rely only on the Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents that it
holds. The anticipated large value of the positions in Oil Futures
Contracts that the General Partner will acquire or enter into for USOF increases
the risk of illiquidity. The Other Oil Interests that USOF invests in, such as
negotiated over-the-counter contracts, may have a greater likelihood of
being illiquid since they are contracts between two parties that take into
account not only market risk, but also the relative credit, tax, and settlement
risks under such contracts. Such contracts also have limited transferability
that results from such risks and the contract’s express
limitations.
Because
both Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests may be illiquid, USOF’s oil
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.
53
If
the nature of hedgers and speculators in futures markets has shifted such that
crude oil purchasers are the predominant hedgers in the market, USOF might have
to reinvest at higher futures prices or choose Other Oil Interests.
The
changing nature of the hedgers and speculators in the crude oil market
influences whether futures prices are above or below the expected future spot
price. In order to induce speculators to take the corresponding long side of the
same futures contract, crude oil producers must generally be willing to sell
futures contracts at prices that are below expected future spot prices.
Conversely, if the predominant hedgers in the futures market are the purchasers
of the crude oil who purchase futures contracts to hedge against a rise in
prices, then speculators will only take the short side of the futures contract
if the futures price is greater than the expected future spot price of crude
oil. This can have significant implications for USOF when it is time to reinvest
the proceeds from a maturing Oil Futures Contract into a new Oil Futures
Contract.
While
USOF does not intend to take physical delivery of oil under its Oil Futures
Contracts, physical delivery under such contracts impacts the value of the
contracts.
While it
is not the current intention of USOF to take physical delivery of crude oil
under its Oil Futures Contracts, futures contracts are not required to be
cash-settled and it is possible to take delivery under some of these contracts.
Storage costs associated with purchasing crude oil could result in costs and
other liabilities that could impact the value of Oil Futures Contracts or Other
Oil Interests. Storage costs include the time value of money invested in crude
oil as a physical commodity plus the actual costs of storing the crude oil less
any benefits from ownership of crude oil that are not obtained by the holder of
a futures contract. In general, Oil Futures Contracts have a one-month delay for
contract delivery and the back month (the back month is any future delivery
month other than the spot month) includes storage costs. To the extent that
these storage costs change for crude oil while USOF holds Oil Futures Contracts
or Other Oil Interests, the value of the Oil Futures Contracts or Other Oil
Interests, and therefore USOF’s NAV, may change as well.
The
price relationship between the near month contract and the next month contract
that compose the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract will vary and may impact both
the total return over time of USOF’s NAV, as well as the degree to which its
total return tracks other crude oil price indices’ total returns.
The
design of USOF’s Benchmark Oil 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 a crude oil 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 crude oil prices the value of the
benchmark contract would tend to rise as it approaches expiration. As a result,
the total return of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract would tend to track
higher. Conversely, in the event of a crude oil 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 crude oil prices the value of the benchmark contract would
tend to decline as it approaches expiration. As a result the total return of the
Benchmark Oil Futures Contract would tend to track lower. When compared to total
return of other price indices, such as the spot price of crude oil, the impact
of backwardation and contango may lead the total return of USOF’s NAV to vary
significantly. In the event of a prolonged period of contango, and absent the
impact of rising or falling oil prices, this could have a significant negative
impact on USOF’s NAV and total return.
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 USOF.
The
futures markets are subject to comprehensive statutes, regulations, and margin
requirements. In addition, the CFTC and the 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. The regulation of futures transactions in the United States is a
rapidly changing area of law and is subject to modification by government and
judicial action.
54
The
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 which are publicly distributed in the United
States. There is a possibility of future regulatory changes altering, perhaps to
a material extent, the nature of an investment in USOF or the ability of USOF to
continue to implement its investment strategy. In addition, various national
governments 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
USOF is impossible to predict, but could be substantial and
adverse.
In the
wake of the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009, the Administration, federal
regulators and Congress are revisiting the regulation of the financial sector,
including securities and commodities markets. These efforts are likely to result
in significant changes in the regulation of these markets.
Currently,
a number of proposals that would alter the regulation of Oil Interests are being
considered by federal regulators and Congress. These proposals include the
imposition of fixed position limits on energy-based commodity futures contracts,
extension of position and accountability limits to futures contracts on non-U.S.
exchanges previously exempt from such limits, and the forced use of
clearinghouse mechanisms for all over-the-counter transactions. Certain
proposals would aggregate and limit all positions in energy futures held by a
single entity, whether such positions exist on U.S. futures exchanges, non-U.S.
futures exchanges, or in over-the-counter contracts. While it cannot be
predicted at this time what reforms will eventually be made or how they will
impact USOF, if any of the aforementioned proposals are implemented, USOF’s
ability to meet its investment objective may be negatively impacted and
investors could be adversely affected.
Additionally,
on January 26, 2010, the CFTC published a proposed rule that, if implemented,
would set fixed position limits on certain energy Futures Contracts including
the NYMEX Light Sweet crude oil futures contract, NYMEX Henry Hub natural gas
futures contract, NYMEX New York Harbor No. 2 heating oil futures contract, and
NYMEX RBOB gasoline futures contract, along with any contract based upon these
contracts. The proposed position limits would be set as a percentage
of the open interest in these contracts for the spot month, any single month,
and all months combined. Additionally, the proposed rule would
aggregate positions in the enumerated contracts and those based upon such
contracts, including contracts listed on separate exchanges. This
proposal is currently undergoing a 90-day public comment period.
Investing
in USOF for purposes of hedging may be subject to several risks including the
possibility of losing the benefit of favorable market movement.
Participants
in the crude oil or in other industries may use USOF as a vehicle to hedge the
risk of losses in their crude oil-related transactions. There are several risks
in connection with using USOF as a hedging device. While hedging can provide
protection against an adverse movement in market prices, it can also preclude a
hedger’s opportunity to benefit from a favorable market movement. In a hedging
transaction, the hedger may be concerned that the hedged item will increase in
price, but must recognize the risk that the price may instead decline and if
this happens he will have lost his opportunity to profit from the change in
price because the hedging transaction will result in a loss rather than a gain.
Thus, the hedger foregoes the opportunity to profit from favorable price
movements.
In
addition, if the hedge is not a perfect one, the hedger can lose on the hedging
transaction and not realize an offsetting gain in the value of the underlying
item being hedged.
When
using futures contracts as a hedging technique, at best, the correlation between
changes in prices of futures contracts and of the items being hedged can be only
approximate. The degree of imperfection of correlation depends upon
circumstances such as: variations in speculative markets, demand for futures and
for crude oil products, technical influences in futures trading, and differences
between anticipated energy costs being hedged and the instruments underlying the
standard futures contracts available for trading. Even a well-conceived hedge
may be unsuccessful to some degree because of unexpected market behavior as well
as the expenses associated with creating the hedge.
55
In
addition, using an investment in USOF as a hedge for changes in energy costs
(
e.g.
, investing in
crude oil, heating oil, gasoline, natural gas or other fuels, or electricity)
may not correlate because changes in the spot price of crude oil may vary from
changes in energy costs because the spot price may not be at the same rate as
changes in the price of other energy products, and, in any case, the price of
crude oil does not reflect the refining, transportation, and other costs that
may impact the hedger’s energy costs.
An
investment in USOF may provide little or no diversification benefits. Thus, in a
declining market, USOF may have no gains to offset losses from other
investments, and an investor may suffer losses on an investment in USOF while
incurring losses with respect to other asset classes.
Historically,
Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests 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, USOF’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 the units. In such a case, USOF
may have no gains to offset losses from other investments, and investors
may suffer losses on their investment in USOF 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 crude oil prices and crude oil-linked
instruments, including Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests, than on
traditional securities. These additional variables may create additional
investment risks that subject USOF’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 historic evidence
that the spot price of crude oil and prices of other financial assets, such
as stocks and bonds, are negatively correlated. In the absence of negative
correlation, USOF cannot be expected to be automatically profitable during
unfavorable periods for the stock market, or vice versa.
USOF’s
Operating Risks
USOF
is not a registered investment company so unitholders do not have the
protections of the 1940 Act.
USOF 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.
The
General Partner is leanly staffed and relies heavily on key personnel to manage
trading activities.
In
managing and directing the day-to-day activities and affairs of USOF, the
General Partner relies heavily on Messrs. Howard Mah and John
Hyland. If Messrs. Mah or Hyland were to leave or be unable to carry
out their present responsibilities, it may have an adverse effect on the
management of USOF. Furthermore, Messrs. Mah and Hyland are currently involved
in the management of the Related Public Funds, and the General Partner has filed
a registration statement for two other exchange traded security funds, USBO and
USCI. Mr. Mah is also employed by Ameristock Corporation, a registered
investment adviser that manages a public mutual fund. It is estimated that Mr.
Mah will spend approximately 90% of his time on USOF and Related Public Fund
matters. Mr. Hyland will spend approximately 85% of his time on USOF
and Related Public Fund matters. To the extent that the General Partner
establishes additional funds, even greater demands will be placed on Messrs.
Gerber, Mah and Hyland, as well as the other officers of the General Partner and
its Board of Directors.
Accountability
levels, position limits, and daily price fluctuation limits set by the exchanges
have the potential to cause a tracking error, which could cause the price of
units to substantially vary from the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract
and prevent investors from being able to effectively use USOF as a way to hedge
against crude oil-related losses or as a way to indirectly invest in crude
oil.
U.S.
designated contract markets such as the NYMEX 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 USOF is
not) may hold, own or control. For example, the current accountability level for
investments at any one time in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract is
20,000. While this is not a fixed ceiling, it is a threshold above which the
NYMEX may exercise greater scrutiny and control over an investor, including
limiting an investor to holding no more than 20,000 Benchmark Oil Futures
Contracts. With regard to position limits, the NYMEX limits an investor from
holding more than 3,000 net futures in the last 3 days of trading in the near
month contract to expire.
56
In
addition to accountability levels and position limits, the NYMEX also sets 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.
For
example, the NYMEX imposes a $10.00 per barrel ($10,000 per contract) price
fluctuation limit for the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract. This limit is
initially based off of the previous trading day’s settlement price. If any
Benchmark Oil Futures Contract is traded, bid, or offered at the limit for five
minutes, trading is halted for five minutes. When trading resumes it begins at
the point where the limit was imposed and the limit is reset to be $10.00 per
barrel in either direction of that point. If another halt were triggered, the
market would continue to be expanded by $10.00 per barrel in either direction
after each successive five-minute trading halt. There is no maximum price
fluctuation limit during any one trading session.
U.S.
futures exchanges, including the NYMEX, currently do not implement fixed
position limits for Futures Contracts held outside of the last few days of
trading in the near month contract to expire. However, on January 26,
2010, the CFTC published a proposed rule that, if implemented, would set fixed
position limits on energy Futures Contracts, including the NYMEX Light Sweet
crude oil futures contract, NYMEX Henry Hub natural gas futures contract, NYMEX
New York Harbor No. 2 heating oil futures contract, and NYMEX RBOB gasoline
futures contract, along with any contract based upon these
contracts. The proposed position limits would be set as a percentage
of the open interest in these contracts for the spot month, any single month,
and all months combined. Additionally, the proposed rule would
aggregate positions in the enumerated contracts and those based upon such
contracts, including contracts listed on separate exchanges. This
proposal is currently undergoing a 90-day public comment period.
All of
these limits may potentially cause a tracking error between the price of the
units and the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract. This may in turn
prevent investors from being able to effectively use USOF as a way to hedge
against crude oil-related losses or as a way to indirectly invest in crude
oil.
USOF has
not limited the size of its offering and is committed to utilizing substantially
all of its proceeds to purchase Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests.
If USOF encounters accountability levels, position limits, or price fluctuation
limits for Oil Futures Contracts on the NYMEX, it may then, if permitted under
applicable regulatory requirements, purchase Oil Futures Contracts on the ICE
Futures or other exchanges that trade listed crude oil futures. The Oil Futures
Contracts available on the ICE Futures are comparable to the contracts on the
NYMEX, but they may have different underlying commodities, sizes, deliveries,
and prices. In addition, certain of the Oil Futures Contracts available on the
ICE Futures are subject to accountability levels and position
limits.
There
are technical and fundamental risks inherent in the trading system the General
Partner intends to employ.
The
General Partner’s trading system is quantitative in nature and it is possible
that the General Partner might make a mathematical error. In addition, it is
also possible that a computer or software program may malfunction and cause an
error in computation.
To
the extent that the General Partner uses spreads and straddles as part of its
trading strategy, there is the risk that the NAV may not closely track the
changes in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract.
Spreads
combine simultaneous long and short positions in related futures contracts that
differ by commodity (
e.g.
, long crude oil and
short gasoline), by market (
e.g.
, long WTI crude futures,
short Brent crude futures), or by delivery month (
e.g.
, long December, short
November). Spreads gain or lose value as a result of relative changes in price
between the long and short positions. Spreads often reduce risk to investors,
because the contracts tend to move up or down together. However, both legs of
the spread could move against an investor simultaneously, in which case the
spread would lose value. Certain types of spreads may face unlimited risk,
e.g.
, because the price of a
futures contract underlying a short position can increase by an unlimited amount
and the investor would have to take delivery or offset at that
price.
57
A
commodity straddle takes both long and short option positions in the same
commodity in the same market and delivery month simultaneously. The buyer of a
straddle profits if either the long or the short leg of the straddle moves
further than the combined cost of both options. The seller of a straddle profits
if both the long and short positions do not trade beyond a range equal to the
combined premium for selling both options.
If the
General Partner were to utilize a spread or straddle position and the spread
performed differently than expected, the results could impact USOF’s tracking
error. This could affect USOF’s investment objective of having its NAV closely
track the changes in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract. Additionally, a loss on
a spread position would negatively impact USOF’s absolute return.
USOF
and the General Partner may have conflicts of interest, which may permit them to
favor their own interests to the detriment of unitholders.
USOF and
the General Partner may have inherent conflicts to the extent the General
Partner attempts to maintain USOF’s asset size in order to preserve its fee
income and this may not always be consistent with USOF’s objective of having the
value of its units’ NAV track changes in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract. The
General Partner’s officers, directors and employees do not devote their time
exclusively to USOF. These persons are directors, officers or employees of other
entities that may compete with USOF for their services. They could have a
conflict between their responsibilities to USOF and to those other
entities.
In
addition, the General Partner’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 USOF trades using the clearing broker to be used by USOF. A potential
conflict also may occur if the General Partner’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
USOF.
The
General Partner has sole current authority to manage the investments and
operations of USOF, and this may allow it to act in a way that furthers its own
interests which may create a conflict with the best interests of investors.
Limited partners have limited voting control, which will limit the ability to
influence matters such as amendment of the LP Agreement, change in USOF’s basic
investment policy, dissolution of this fund, or the sale or distribution of
USOF’s assets.
The
General Partner serves as the general partner to each of USOF and the Related
Public Funds and will serve as the general partner for USBO and the sponsor for
USCI, if such funds offer their securities to the public or begin operations.
The General Partner may have a conflict to the extent that its trading decisions
for USOF may be influenced by the effect they would have on the other funds it
manages. These trading decisions may be influenced since the General Partner
also serves as the general partner for all of the funds and is required to meet
all of the funds’ investment objectives as well as USOF’s. If the General
Partner believes that a trading decision it made on behalf of USOF might (i)
impede its other funds from reaching their investment objectives, or (ii)
improve the likelihood of meeting its other funds’ objectives, then the General
Partner may choose to change its trading decision for USOF, which could either
impede or improve the opportunity for USOF to meet its investment objective. In
addition, the General Partner is required to indemnify the officers and
directors of its other funds if the need for indemnification arises. This
potential indemnification will cause the General Partner’s assets to decrease.
If the General Partner’s other sources of income are not sufficient to
compensate for the indemnification, then the General Partner may terminate and
investors could lose their investment.
Unitholders
may only vote on the removal of the General Partner and limited partners have
only limited voting rights. Unitholders and limited partners will not
participate in the management of USOF and do not control the General Partner so
they will not have influence over basic matters that affect USOF.
Unitholders
that have not applied to become limited partners have no voting rights, other
than to remove the General Partner. Limited partners will have limited voting
rights with respect to USOF’s affairs. Unitholders may remove the General
Partner only if 66 2/3% of the unitholders elect to do so. Unitholders and
limited partners will not be permitted to participate in the management or
control of USOF or the conduct of its business. Unitholders and limited partners
must therefore rely upon the duties and judgment of the General Partner to
manage USOF’s affairs.
58
The
General Partner may manage a large amount of assets and this could affect USOF’s
ability to trade profitably.
Increases
in assets under management may affect trading decisions. In general, the General
Partner does not intend to limit the amount of assets of USOF that it may
manage. The more assets the General Partner manages, the more difficult it may
be for it to trade profitably because of the difficulty of trading larger
positions without adversely affecting prices and performance and of managing
risk associated with larger positions.
USOF
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.
USOF may
terminate at any time, regardless of whether USOF 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 the General Partner could cause USOF 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 the General Partner to
terminate USOF. USOF’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.
Limited
partners may not have limited liability in certain circumstances, including
potentially having liability for the return of wrongful
distributions.
Under
Delaware law, a limited partner might be held liable for USOF’s obligations as
if it were a General Partner if the limited partner participates in the control
of the partnership’s business and the persons who transact business with the
partnership think the limited partner is the General Partner.
A limited
partner will not be liable for assessments in addition to its initial capital
investment in any of USOF’s capital securities representing units. However, a
limited partner may be required to repay to USOF any amounts wrongfully returned
or distributed to it under some circumstances. Under Delaware law, USOF may not
make a distribution to limited partners if the distribution causes USOF’s
liabilities (other than liabilities to partners on account of their partnership
interests and nonrecourse liabilities) to exceed the fair value of USOF’s
assets. Delaware law provides that a limited partner who receives such a
distribution and knew at the time of the distribution that the distribution
violated the law will be liable to the limited partnership for the amount of the
distribution for three years from the date of the distribution.
With
adequate notice, a limited partner may be required to withdraw from the
partnership for any reason.
If the
General Partner gives at least fifteen (15) days’ written notice to a limited
partner, then the General Partner may for any reason, in its sole discretion,
require any such limited partner to withdraw entirely from the partnership or to
withdraw a portion of its partner capital account. The General Partner may
require withdrawal even in situations where the limited partner has complied
completely with the provisions of the LP Agreement.
59
USOF’s
existing units are, and any units USOF issues in the future will be, subject to
restrictions on transfer. Failure to satisfy these requirements will preclude a
transferee from being able to have all the rights of a limited
partner.
No
transfer of any unit or interest therein may be made if such transfer would (a)
violate the then applicable federal or state securities laws or rules and
regulations of the SEC, any state securities commission, the CFTC or any other
governmental authority with jurisdiction over such transfer, or (b) cause USOF
to be taxable as a corporation or affect USOF’s existence or qualification as a
limited partnership. In addition, investors may only become limited partners if
they transfer their units to purchasers that meet certain conditions outlined in
the LP Agreement, which provides that each record holder or limited partner or
unitholder applying to become a limited partner (each a record holder) may be
required by the General Partner to furnish certain information, including that
holder’s nationality, citizenship or other related status. A transferee who is
not a U.S. resident may not be eligible to become a record holder or a limited
partner if its ownership would subject USOF to the risk of cancellation or
forfeiture of any of its assets under any federal, state or local law or
regulation. All purchasers of USOF’s units, who wish to become limited partners
or record holders, and receive cash distributions, if any, or have certain other
rights, must deliver an executed transfer application in which the purchaser or
transferee must certify that, among other things, he, she or it agrees to be
bound by USOF’s LP Agreement and is eligible to purchase USOF’s securities. Any
transfer of units will not be recorded by the transfer agent or recognized by
USOF unless a completed transfer application is delivered to the General Partner
or the Administrator. A person purchasing USOF’s existing units, who does not
execute a transfer application and certify that the purchaser is eligible to
purchase those securities acquires no rights in those securities other than the
right to resell those securities. Whether or not a transfer application is
received or the consent of the General Partner obtained, USOF’s units will be
securities and will be transferable according to the laws governing transfers of
securities. See “Transfer of Units.”
USOF
does not expect to make cash distributions.
The
General Partner has not previously made any cash distributions and intends to
re-invest any realized gains in additional oil 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, USOF generally does not
expect to distribute cash to limited partners. An investor should not invest in
USOF if it will need cash distributions from USOF to pay taxes on its share of
income and gains of USOF, if any, or for any other reason. Although USOF 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 oil
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.
There
is a risk that USOF will not earn trading gains sufficient to compensate for the
fees and expenses that it must pay and as such USOF may not earn any
profit.
USOF pays
brokerage charges of approximately 0.15% based on futures commission merchant
fees of $3.50 per buy or sell, management fees of 0.45% 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 the General Partner on USOF’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 can not be quantified. These fees and expenses must be paid
in all cases regardless of whether USOF’s activities are profitable.
Accordingly, USOF must earn trading gains sufficient to compensate for these
fees and expenses before it can earn any profit.
If
offerings of the units do not raise sufficient funds to pay USOF’s future
expenses and no other source of funding of expenses is found, USOF may be forced
to terminate and investors may lose all or part of their
investment.
Prior to
the offering of units that commenced on April 10, 2006, all of USOF’s expenses
were funded by the General Partner and its affiliates. These payments by the
General Partner and its affiliates were designed to allow USOF the ability
to commence the public offering of its units. USOF now directly pays certain of
these fees and expenses. The General Partner will continue to pay other
fees and expenses, as set forth in the LP Agreement. If the General Partner and
USOF are unable to raise sufficient funds to cover their expenses or locate any
other source of funding, USOF may be forced to terminate and investors may lose
all or part of their investment.
USOF
may incur higher fees and expenses upon renewing existing or entering into new
contractual relationships.
The
clearing arrangements between the clearing brokers and USOF generally are
terminable by the clearing brokers once the clearing broker has given USOF
notice. Upon termination, the General Partner may be required to renegotiate or
make other arrangements for obtaining similar services if USOF intends to
continue trading in Oil Futures Contracts or Other Oil Interest contracts at its
present level of capacity. The services of any clearing broker may not be
available, or even if available, these services may not be available on the
terms as favorable as those of the expired or terminated clearing
arrangements.
60
USOF
may miss certain trading opportunities because it will not receive the benefit
of the expertise of independent trading advisors.
The
General Partner does not employ trading advisors for USOF; however, it reserves
the right to employ them in the future. The only advisor to USOF is the General
Partner. A lack of independent trading advisors may be disadvantageous to USOF
because it will not receive the benefit of a trading advisor’s
expertise.
An
unanticipated number of redemption requests during a short period of time could
have an adverse effect on the NAV of USOF.
If a
substantial number of requests for redemption of Redemption Baskets are received
by USOF during a relatively short period of time, USOF may not be able to
satisfy the requests from USOF’s assets not committed to trading. As a
consequence, it could be necessary to liquidate positions in USOF’s trading
positions before the time that the trading strategies would otherwise dictate
liquidation.
The
financial markets are currently in a period of disruption and USOF does not
expect these conditions to improve in the near future.
Currently
and throughout 2008 and 2009, the financial markets have experienced very
difficult conditions and volatility as well as significant adverse trends. The
conditions in these markets have resulted in a decrease in availability of
corporate credit and liquidity and have led indirectly to the insolvency,
closure or acquisition of a number of major financial institutions and have
contributed to further consolidation within the financial services industry. A
continued recession or a depression could adversely affect the financial
condition and results of operations of USOF’s service providers and Authorized
Purchasers which would impact the ability of the General Partner to achieve
USOF’s investment objective.
The
failure or bankruptcy of a clearing broker could result in a substantial loss of
USOF’s assets; the clearing broker could be subject to proceedings that impair
its ability to execute USOF’s trades.
Under
CFTC regulations, a clearing broker maintains customers’ assets in a bulk
segregated account. If a clearing broker fails to do so, or is unable to satisfy
a substantial deficit in a customer account, its 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
USOF, 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 USOF’s assets posted with
the clearing broker; though the vast majority of USOF’s assets are held in
Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents with USOF’s custodian and would not be
impacted by the bankruptcy of a clearing broker. USOF also may 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.
From time
to time, the 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 USOF’s
trades.
The
failure or insolvency of USOF’s custodian could result in a substantial loss of
USOF’s assets.
As noted
above, the vast majority of USOF’s assets are held in Treasuries, cash and/or
cash equivalents with USOF’s custodian. The insolvency of the custodian could
result in a complete loss of USOF’s assets held by that custodian, which, at any
given time, would likely comprise a substantial portion of USOF’s total
assets.
61
Third
parties may infringe upon or otherwise violate intellectual property rights or
assert that the General Partner has infringed or otherwise violated their
intellectual property rights, which may result in significant costs and diverted
attention.
Third
parties may utilize USOF’s intellectual property or technology, including the
use of its business methods, trademarks and trading program software, without
permission. The General Partner has a patent pending for USOF’s business method
and it is registering its trademarks. USOF does not currently have any
proprietary software. However, if it obtains proprietary software in the future,
then any unauthorized use of USOF’s proprietary software and other technology
could also adversely affect its competitive advantage. USOF may have difficulty
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 the General Partner or claim that the General Partner has violated their
intellectual property rights, including their copyrights, trademark rights,
trade names, trade secrets and patent rights. As a result, the General Partner
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 the General Partner is successful and regardless of the merits,
may result in significant costs, divert its resources from USOF, or require it
to change its proprietary software and other technology or enter into royalty or
licensing agreements.
The
success of USOF depends on the ability of the General Partner to accurately
implement trading systems, and any failure to do so could subject USOF to losses
on such transactions.
The
General Partner uses mathematical formulas built into a generally available
spreadsheet program to decide whether it should buy or sell oil interests each
day. Specifically, the General Partner uses the spreadsheet to make mathematical
calculations and to monitor positions in oil interests and Treasuries and
correlations to the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract. The General Partner must
accurately process the spreadsheets’ outputs and execute the transactions called
for by the formulas. In addition, USOF relies on the General Partner to properly
operate and maintain its computer and communications systems. Execution of the
formulas and operation of the systems are subject to human error. Any failure,
inaccuracy or delay in implementing any of the formulas or systems and executing
USOF’s transactions could impair its ability to achieve USOF’s investment
objective. It could also result in decisions to undertake transactions based on
inaccurate or incomplete information. This could cause substantial losses on
transactions.
USOF
may experience substantial losses on transactions if the computer or
communications system fails.
USOF’s
trading activities, including its risk management, depend on the integrity and
performance of the computer and communications systems supporting them.
Extraordinary transaction volume, hardware or software failure, power or
telecommunications failure, a natural disaster or other catastrophe could cause
the computer systems to operate at an unacceptably slow speed or even fail. Any
significant degradation or failure of the systems that the General Partner uses
to gather and analyze information, enter orders, process data, monitor risk
levels and otherwise engage in trading activities may result in substantial
losses on transactions, liability to other parties, lost profit opportunities,
damages to the General Partner’s and USOF’s reputations, increased operational
expenses and diversion of technical resources.
If
the computer and communications systems are not upgraded, USOF’s financial
condition could be harmed.
The
development of complex computer and communications systems and new technologies
may render the existing computer and communications systems supporting USOF’s
trading activities obsolete. In addition, these computer and communications
systems must be compatible with those of third parties, such as the systems of
exchanges, clearing brokers and the executing brokers. As a result, if these
third parties upgrade their systems, the General Partner will need to make
corresponding upgrades to continue effectively its trading activities. USOF’s
future success will depend on USOF’s ability to respond to changing technologies
on a timely and cost-effective basis.
62
USOF
depends on the reliable performance of the computer and communications systems
of third parties, such as brokers and futures exchanges, and may experience
substantial losses on transactions if they fail.
USOF
depends on the proper and timely function of complex computer and communications
systems maintained and operated by the futures exchanges, brokers and other data
providers that the General Partner uses to conduct trading activities. Failure
or inadequate performance of any of these systems could adversely affect the
General Partner’s ability to complete transactions, including its ability to
close out positions, and result in lost profit opportunities and significant
losses on commodity interest transactions. This could have a material adverse
effect on revenues and materially reduce USOF’s available capital. For example,
unavailability of price quotations from third parties may make it difficult or
impossible for the General Partner to use its proprietary software that it
relies upon to conduct its trading activities. Unavailability of records from
brokerage firms may make it difficult or impossible for the General Partner to
accurately determine which transactions have been executed or the details,
including price and time, of any transaction executed. This unavailability of
information also may make it difficult or impossible for the General Partner to
reconcile its records of transactions with those of another party or to
accomplish settlement of executed transactions.
The
occurrence of a terrorist attack, or the outbreak, continuation or expansion of
war or other hostilities could disrupt USOF’s trading activity and materially
affect USOF’s profitability.
The
operations of USOF, the exchanges, brokers and counterparties with which USOF
does business, and the markets in which USOF does business could be severely
disrupted in the event of a major terrorist attack or the outbreak, continuation
or expansion of war or other hostilities. The terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001 and the war in Iraq, global anti-terrorism initiatives and political unrest
in the Middle East and Southeast Asia continue to fuel this
concern.
Risk
of Leverage and Volatility
If
the General Partner permits USOF to become leveraged, investors could lose all
or substantially all of their investment if USOF’s trading positions suddenly
turn unprofitable.
Commodity
pools’ trading positions in futures contracts or other commodity interests are
typically required to be secured by the deposit of margin funds that represent
only a small percentage of a futures contract’s (or other commodity interests’)
entire market value. This feature permits commodity pools to “leverage” their
assets by purchasing or selling futures contracts (or other commodity interests)
with an aggregate value in excess of the commodity pool’s assets. While this
leverage can increase the pool’s profits, relatively small adverse movements in
the price of the pool’s futures contracts can cause significant losses to the
pool. While the General Partner has not and does not currently intend to
leverage USOF’s assets, it is not prohibited from doing so under the LP
Agreement or otherwise.
The
price of crude oil is volatile which could cause large fluctuations in the price
of units.
Movements
in the price of crude oil may be the result of factors outside of the General
Partner’s control and may not be anticipated by the General Partner. Among the
factors that can cause volatility in the price of crude oil are:
|
·
|
worldwide
or regional demand for energy, which is affected by economic
conditions;
|
|
·
|
the
domestic and foreign supply and inventories of oil and
gas;
|
|
·
|
weather
conditions, including abnormally mild winter or summer weather, and
abnormally harsh winter or summer
weather;
|
|
·
|
availability
and adequacy of pipeline and other transportation
facilities;
|
|
·
|
domestic
and foreign governmental regulations and
taxes;
|
|
·
|
political
conditions in gas or oil producing
regions;
|
|
|
·
|
technological
advances relating to energy usage or relating to technology for
exploration, production, refining and petrochemical
manufacturing;
|
|
|
·
|
the
ability of members of OPEC to agree upon and maintain oil prices and
production levels;
|
|
·
|
the
price and availability of alternative fuels;
and
|
63
|
·
|
the
impact of energy conservation
efforts.
|
The
impact of environmental and other governmental laws and regulations may affect
the price of crude oil.
Environmental
and other governmental laws and regulations have increased the costs to plan,
design, drill, install, operate and abandon oil wells. Other laws have prevented
exploration and drilling of crude oil in certain environmentally sensitive
federal lands and waters. Several environmental laws that have a direct or an
indirect impact on the price of crude oil include, but are not limited to, the
Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980.
The
limited method for transporting and storing crude oil may cause the price of
crude oil to increase.
Crude oil
is transported throughout the United States by way of pipelines, barges,
tankers, trucks and rail cars and is stored in aboveground and underground
storage facilities. These systems may not be adequate to meet demand, especially
in times of peak demand or in areas of the United States where crude oil service
is already limited due to minimal pipeline and storage infrastructure. As a
result of the limited method for transporting and storing crude oil, the price
of crude oil may increase.
Over-the-Counter
Contract Risk
Over-the-counter
transactions are subject to little, if any, regulation.
A portion
of USOF’s assets may be used to trade over-the-counter crude oil interest
contracts, such as forward contracts or swap or spot contracts. Over-the-counter
contracts are typically traded on a principal-to-principal basis through dealer
markets that are dominated by major money center and investment banks and other
institutions and are essentially unregulated by the CFTC. Investors therefore do
not receive the protection of CFTC regulation or the statutory scheme of the CEA
in connection with this trading activity by USOF. 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. The lack of regulation in these markets could expose USOF in
certain circumstances to significant losses in the event of trading abuses or
financial failure by participants.
USOF
will be subject to credit risk with respect to counterparties to
over-the-counter contracts entered into by USOF or held by special purpose or
structured vehicles.
USOF
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 USOF, in which case USOF could suffer
significant losses on these contracts.
If a
counterparty becomes bankrupt or otherwise fails to perform its obligations due
to financial difficulties, USOF may experience significant delays in obtaining
any recovery in a bankruptcy or other reorganization proceeding. USOF may obtain
only limited recovery or may obtain no recovery in such
circumstances.
USOF
may be subject to liquidity risk with respect to its over-the-counter
contracts.
Over-the-counter
contracts may have terms that make them less marketable than Oil Futures
Contracts. Over-the-counter contracts are less marketable 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 diminish the 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.
64
Risk
of Trading in International Markets
Trading
in international markets could expose USOF to credit and regulatory
risk.
The
General Partner invests primarily in Oil Futures Contracts, a significant
portion of which are traded on United States exchanges, including the NYMEX.
However, a portion of USOF’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. None of
the CFTC, NFA, or any domestic exchange regulates activities of any foreign
boards of trade or exchanges, including the execution, delivery and clearing of
transactions, nor has the power to compel enforcement of the rules of a foreign
board of trade or exchange or of any applicable non-U.S. laws. Similarly, the
rights of market participants, such as USOF, in the event of the insolvency or
bankruptcy of a non-U.S. market or broker are also likely to be more limited
than in the case of U.S. markets or brokers. As a result, in these markets, USOF
has less legal and regulatory protection than it does when it trades
domestically.
In some
of these non-U.S. markets, the performance on a contract is the responsibility
of the counterparty and is not backed by an exchange or clearing corporation and
therefore exposes USOF to credit risk. Trading in non-U.S. markets also leaves
USOF 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.
International
trading activities subject USOF to foreign exchange risk.
The price
of any non-U.S. Oil Futures Contract, option on any non-U.S. Oil Futures
Contract, or other non-U.S. Other Oil Interest and, therefore, the potential
profit and loss on such contract, may be affected by any variance in the foreign
exchange rate between the time the order is placed and the time it is
liquidated, offset or exercised. As a result, changes in the value of the local
currency relative to the U.S. dollar may cause losses to USOF even if the
contract traded is profitable.
USOF’s
international trading could expose it to losses resulting from non-U.S.
exchanges that are less developed or less reliable than United States
exchanges.
Some
non-U.S. exchanges may be in a more developmental stage so that prior price
histories may not be indicative of current price dynamics. In addition, USOF may
not have the same access to certain positions on foreign trading exchanges as do
local traders, and the historical market data on which the General Partner bases
its strategies may not be as reliable or accessible as it is for U.S.
exchanges.
Tax
Risk
An
investor’s tax liability may exceed the amount of distributions, if any, on its
units.
Cash or
property will be distributed at the sole discretion of the General Partner. The
General Partner has not and does not currently intend to make cash or other
distributions with respect to units. 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 USOF’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 units 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 units.
Due to
the application of the assumptions and conventions applied by USOF in making
allocations for tax purposes and other factors, an investor’s allocable share of
USOF’s income, gain, deduction or loss may be different than its economic profit
or loss from its units 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.
65
Items
of income, gain, deduction, loss and credit with respect to units could be
reallocated if the IRS does not accept the assumptions and conventions applied
by USOF 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 USOF is in many respects uncertain. USOF
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 unitholders’ 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 U.S. Internal Revenue Service
will successfully challenge USOF’s allocation methods and require USOF 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.
USOF
could be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, which may
substantially reduce the value of the units.
USOF has
received an opinion of counsel that, under current U.S. federal income tax laws,
USOF 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
USOF’s annual gross income consists of “qualifying income” as defined in the
Code, (ii) USOF is organized and operated in accordance with its governing
agreements and applicable law and (iii) USOF does not elect to be taxed as a
corporation for federal income tax purposes. Although the General Partner
anticipates that USOF has satisfied and will continue to satisfy the “qualifying
income” requirement for all of its taxable years, that result cannot be assured.
USOF 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 USOF 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
unitholders, USOF would be subject to tax on its net income for the year at
corporate tax rates. In addition, although the General Partner does not
currently intend to make distributions with respect to units, any distributions
would be taxable to unitholders as dividend income. Taxation of USOF as a
corporation could materially reduce the after-tax return on an investment in
units and could substantially reduce the value of the units.
|
Item
1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments.
|
Not
applicable.
|
Item
2.
|
Properties.
|
Not
applicable.
|
Item
3.
|
Legal
Proceedings.
|
USCF has been advised by the staff of the CFTC that they
intend to recommend enforcement action against USCF based upon the failure
of USOF’s futures commission merchant (“FCM”) to properly report certain trades
relating to the February 6, 2009 roll. The CFTC staff has advised that they do
not view USCF
’
s behavior as
culpable; however, they intend to recommend that USCF beheld vicariously liable
to the NYMEX in connection, with reporting to it certain transactions in NYMEX
futures contracts. USCF has vigorously contested the proposed charges and
requested that the CFTC decline to bring any action against it. (For a
discussion of the monthly “roll” of USOF’s investments in futures contracts, see
pages 5-6 of this annual report on Form 10-K.) As a regulated entity, USOF
regularly responds to inquiries from the CFTC and its other regulators. As they
have with past inquiries, USOF and the General Partner intend to cooperate with
the CFTC’s enforcement staff regarding its investigation.
|
Item
4.
|
Reserved.
|
Not
applicable.
66
|
Item
5.
|
Market
for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer
Purchases of Equity Securities.
|
Price
Range of Units
USOF’s
units have traded on the NYSE Arca under the symbol “USO” since November
25, 2008. Prior to trading on the NYSE Arca, USOF’s units previously
traded on the AMEX under the symbol “USO” since its initial public offering on
April 10, 2006. The following table sets forth the range of reported high and
low sales prices of the units as reported on the AMEX and NYSE Arca, as
applicable, for the periods indicated below.
|
High
|
Low
|
|||||||
|
Fiscal year 2009
|
||||||||
|
First
quarter
|
$ | 37.30 | $ | 22.86 | ||||
|
Second
quarter
|
$ | 39.68 | $ | 27.22 | ||||
|
Third
quarter
|
$ | 38.30 | $ | 32.11 | ||||
|
Fourth
quarter
|
$ | 41.92 | $ | 35.00 | ||||
|
High
|
Low
|
|||||||
|
Fiscal year 2008
|
||||||||
|
First
quarter
|
$ | 87.21 | $ | 69.02 | ||||
|
Second
quarter
|
$ | 113.75 | $ | 81.06 | ||||
|
Third
quarter
|
$ | 117.48 | $ | 74.99 | ||||
|
Fourth
quarter
|
$ | 79.59 | $ | 29.02 | ||||
As of
December 31, 2009, USOF had 84,835 holders of units.
Dividends
USOF has
not made and does not currently intend to make cash distributions to its
unitholders.
Issuer
Purchases of Equity Securities
USOF does
not purchase units directly from its unitholders; however, in connection with
its redemption of baskets held by Authorized Purchasers, USOF redeemed 1,947
baskets (comprising 194,700,000 units) during the year ended December 31,
2009.
|
Item
6.
|
Selected
Financial Data.
|
Financial
Highlights (for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 and the period
from April 10, 2006 to December 31, 2006)
(Dollar
amounts in 000’s except for per unit information)
|
Year
ended
December
31, 2009
|
Year
ended
December
31, 2008
|
Year
ended
December
31, 2007
|
For
the period from
April
10, 2006 to
December
31, 2006
|
|||||||||||||
|
Total
assets
|
$ | 2,580,081 | $ | 2,571,491 | $ | 485,817 | $ | 804,349 | ||||||||
|
Net
realized and unrealized gain (loss) on futures transactions, inclusive of
commissions
|
$ | 661,220 | $ | (863,389 | ) | $ | 254,426 | $ | (138,926 | ) | ||||||
|
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 649,379 | $ | (855,496 | ) | $ | 284,416 | $ | (126,349 | ) | ||||||
|
Weighted-average
limited partnership units
|
78,901,918 | 13,549,727 | 13,730,137 | 7,018,797 | ||||||||||||
|
Net
income (loss) per unit
|
$ | 4.85 | $ | (41.51 | ) | $ | 23.95 | $ | (15.52 | ) | ||||||
|
Net
income (loss) per weighted average unit
|
$ | 8.23 | $ | (63.14 | ) | $ | 20.71 | $ | (18.00 | ) | ||||||
|
Cash
and cash equivalents at end of year/period
|
$ | 2,072,425 | $ | 1,025,376 | $ | 354,816 | $ | 712,884 | ||||||||
67
|
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 USOF 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 USOF’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 USOF’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 USOF cannot
assure investors that these projections included in these forward-looking
statements will come to pass. USOF’s actual results could differ materially
from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements as a result of
various factors.
USOF 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 USOF assumes no obligation to update any such forward-looking
statements. Although USOF 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 USOF may make directly to them or through reports that USOF 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
USOF, a
Delaware limited partnership, is a commodity pool that issues units that may be
purchased and sold on the NYSE Arca. The investment objective of USOF is for the
changes in percentage terms of its units’ NAV to reflect the changes in
percentage terms of the spot price of light, sweet crude oil delivered to
Cushing, Oklahoma, as measured by the changes in the price of the futures
contract for light, sweet crude oil 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, less USOF’s expenses.
USOF
seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing in a combination of Oil
Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests such that changes in its NAV, measured
in percentage terms, will closely track the changes in the price of the
Benchmark Oil Futures Contract, also measured in percentage terms. USOF’s
General Partner believes the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract historically
has exhibited a close correlation with the spot price of light, sweet crude
oil. It is not the intent of USOF to be operated in a fashion such that the NAV
will equal, in dollar terms, the spot price of light, sweet crude oil or any
particular futures contract based on light, sweet crude oil. Management believes
that it is not practical to manage the portfolio to achieve such an investment
goal when investing in listed Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil
Interests.
On any
valuation day, the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract is the near month futures
contract for light, sweet crude oil traded on the NYMEX unless the near
month contract is within two weeks of expiration in which case the Benchmark Oil
Futures Contract becomes, over a 4-day period, the next month contract for
light, sweet crude oil traded on the NYMEX. “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.
The
regulation of oil interests in the United States is a rapidly changing area of
law and is subject to ongoing modification by governmental and judicial
action. As stated under the heading, “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of
this annual report on Form 10-K, regulation of the commodity interests and
energy markets is extensive and constantly changing; future regulatory
developments in the commodity interests and energy markets are impossible to
predict but may significantly and adversely affect USOF.
68
Currently,
a number of proposals to alter the regulation of oil interests are being
considered by federal regulators and legislators. These proposals include the
imposition of hard position limits on energy-based commodity futures contracts,
the extension of position and accountability limits to futures contracts on
non-U.S. exchanges previously exempt from such limits, and the forced use of
clearinghouse mechanisms for all over-the-counter transactions. An additional
proposal would aggregate and limit all positions in energy futures held by a
single entity, whether such positions exist on U.S. futures exchanges, non-U.S.
futures exchanges, or in over-the-counter contracts. The CFTC has also recently
published a proposed rule that would impose fixed position limits on certain
energy futures contracts without the need for any new legislation to be passed.
If any of the aforementioned proposals is implemented, USOF’s ability to meet
its investment objective may be negatively impacted and investors could be
adversely affected.
USOF may
also invest in other Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests. The
General Partner of USOF, which is registered as a CPO with the CFTC, is
authorized by the LP Agreement to manage USOF. The General Partner is
authorized by USOF in its sole judgment to employ and establish the terms of
employment for, and termination of, commodity trading advisors or futures
commission merchants.
Crude oil
futures prices were volatile during 2009 and exhibited wide daily swings along
with an uneven upward trend from late February 2009 to late March 2009. The
price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract started the year at $44.60 per
barrel. The low of the year was on February 18, 2009 when prices dropped to
$37.41 per barrel. Prices rose over the course of the year and hit a peak on
October 21, 2009 of $81.37 per barrel. The year ended with the Benchmark Oil
Futures Contract at $79.36 per barrel, up approximately 77.94% over the year.
USOF’s NAV rose during the period from a starting level of $34.31 per unit and
reached its high for the period on October 21, 2009 at $41.61 per unit. USOF’s
NAV reached its low for the period on February 18, 2009 at $22.88 per unit.
USOF’s NAV on December 31, 2009 was $39.16, up approximately 14.14% over the
year. The Benchmark Oil Futures Contract prices listed above begin with the
February 2009 contract and end with the February 2010 contract. The return of
approximately 77.94% on the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract listed above is a
hypothetical return only and could not actually be achieved by an investor
holding futures contracts. An investment in oil futures contracts would need to
be rolled forward during the time period described in order to achieve such a
result.
During
parts of January and February 2009, the level of contango remained unusually
steep, meaning that the price of the near month crude oil futures contract is
less than the price of the next month crude oil futures contract, or contracts
further away from expiration. Crude oil inventories, which reached historic
levels in January 2009 and February 2009 and which appear to be the primary
cause of the steep level of contango, began to drop in March 2009 and for the
balance of the first half of 2009. The crude oil futures market remained in
contango through the rest of 2009. For a discussion of the impact of
backwardation and contango on total returns, see “Term Structure of Crude Oil
Prices and the Impact on Total Returns”.
Valuation
of Crude Oil Futures Contracts and the Computation of the NAV
The NAV
of USOF’s units is calculated once each NYSE Arca trading day. The
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 USOF 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 Crude Oil Market
Results of
Operations.
On April 10, 2006, USOF listed its units on the
AMEX under the ticker symbol “USO.” On that day, USOF established its initial
offering price at $67.39 per unit and issued 200,000 units to the initial
Authorized Purchaser, KV Execution Services LLC, in exchange for $13,479,000 in
cash. As a result of the acquisition of the AMEX by NYSE Euronext, USOF’s units
no longer trade on the AMEX and commenced trading on the NYSE Arca on November
25, 2008.
69
Since its
initial offering of 17,000,000 units, USOF has made seven subsequent offerings
of its units: 30,000,000 units which were registered with the SEC on
October 18, 2006, 50,000,000 units which were registered with the SEC on
January 30, 2007, 30,000,000 units which were registered with the SEC
on December 4, 2007, 100,000,000 units which were registered with the SEC on
February 7, 2008, 100,000,000 units which were registered with the SEC on
September 29, 2008, 300,000,000 units which were registered with the SEC on
January 16, 2009 and 1,000,000,000 units which were registered with the SEC on
June 29, 2009. Units offered by USOF in the subsequent offerings were sold by it
for cash at the units’ NAV as described in the applicable prospectus. As of
December 31, 2009, USOF had issued 475,100,000 units, 63,100,000 of
which were outstanding. As of December 31, 2009, there were
1,151,800,000 units registered but not yet issued.
More
units may have been issued by USOF than are outstanding due to the redemption of
units. Unlike funds that are registered under the 1940 Act, units that have been
redeemed by USOF cannot be resold by USOF. As a result, USOF contemplates that
additional offerings of its units will be registered with the SEC in the future
in anticipation of additional issuances and redemptions.
For the Year Ended December
31, 2009 Compared to the Years Ended December 31, 2008 and
2007
As of
December 31, 2009, the total unrealized gain on Oil Futures Contracts owned
or held on that day was $184,278,050 and USOF established cash deposits,
including cash investments in money market funds, that were equal to
$2,395,095,731. USOF held 86.53% of its cash assets in overnight deposits and
money market funds at the Custodian, while 13.47% of the cash balance was held
as margin deposits for the Oil Futures Contracts purchased. The ending per unit
NAV on December 31, 2009 was $39.16.
By
comparison, as of December 31, 2008, the total unrealized gain on Oil
Futures Contracts owned or held on that day was $97,616,100 and USOF
established cash deposits, including cash investments in money market funds,
that were equal to $2,381,842,321. USOF held 43.05% of its cash assets in
overnight deposits and money market funds at the Custodian, while 56.95% of the
cash balance was held as margin deposits for the Oil Futures Contracts
purchased. The ending per unit NAV on December 31, 2008 was
$34.31. The increase in the per unit NAV from December 31, 2008 to
December 31, 2009 was primarily a result of higher prices for crude oil and the
related increase in the value of the Oil Futures Contracts that USOF had
invested in between the year ended December 31, 2008 and the year ended December
31, 2009.
By
comparison, as of December 31, 2007, the total unrealized gain on Oil
Futures Contracts owned or held on that day was $35,705,020 and USOF
established cash deposits, including cash investments in money market funds,
that were equal to $441,146,799. USOF held 80.43% of its cash assets in
overnight deposits and money market funds at the Custodian, while 19.57% of the
cash balance was held as margin deposits for the Oil Futures Contracts
purchased. The ending per unit NAV on December 31, 2007 was
$75.82. The decrease in the per unit NAV from December 31, 2007 to
December 31, 2008 was primarily a result of sharply lower prices for crude oil
and the related decline in the value of the Oil Futures Contracts that USOF had
invested in between the year ended December 31, 2008 and the year ended December
31, 2007. Relatively higher prices in 2007 were due to increased demand for
crude oil that decreased in 2008 due to the economic downturn, which led to
decreased demand for oil.
Portfolio Expenses
. USOF’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 the General Partner and expenses
relating to tax accounting and reporting requirements. The management
fee that USOF pays to the General Partner is calculated as a percentage of the
total net assets of USOF. USOF pays the General Partner a management
fee of 0.45% of NAV on its average net assets. The fee is accrued daily. Prior
to January 1, 2009, the management fee was 0.50% for total net assets of up
to $1 billion and the management fee was 0.20% on the incremental amount of
total net assets over $1 billion, and was accrued daily.
During
the year ended December 31, 2009, the daily average total net assets of USOF
were $2,600,159,060. The management fee paid by USOF during the year
amounted to $11,700,716.
By
comparison, during the year ended December 31, 2008, the daily average total net
assets of USOF were $889,910,016. During the year ended December 31,
2008, the total net assets of USOF exceeded $1 billion. The management fee
paid by USOF for the year ended December 31, 2008 amounted to $4,058,250, which
was calculated at the 0.50% rate for total net assets up to and including $1
billion and at the rate of 0.20% on average net assets over $1 billion, and
accrued daily. Management fees as a percentage of total net assets averaged
0.46% over the course of the year ended December 31, 2008. USOF’s management
fees as a percentage of total net assets were slightly higher for the year ended
December 31, 2008 compared to the year ended December 31, 2009 due to USOF’s
modified expense ratio schedule.
70
By
comparison, during the year ended December 31, 2007, the daily average total net
assets of USOF were $732,683,031. During the year ended December 31,
2007, the total net assets of USOF exceeded $1 billion. The management fee
paid by USOF for the year ended December 31, 2007 amounted to $3,622,613, which
was calculated at the 0.50% rate for total net assets up to and including $1
billion and at the rate of 0.20% on average net assets over $1 billion, and
accrued daily. Management fees as a percentage of total net assets averaged
0.50% over the course of the year ended December 31, 2007. USOF’s management
fees as a percentage of total net assets were higher for the year ended December
31, 2007 compared to the year ended December 31, 2008 due primarily to the year
ended December 31, 2008 having a greater number of days in which total net
assets exceeded $1 billion and were therefore charged the lower daily rate of
0.20%.
In
addition to the management fee, USOF pays all brokerage fees and other
expenses, including certain tax reporting costs, licensing fees for the use of
intellectual property, ongoing registration or other fees paid to the
SEC, FINRA and any other regulatory agency in connection
with offers and sales of its units subsequent to the initial offering and
all legal, accounting, printing and other expenses associated therewith. The
total of these fees and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2009 was
$8,656,679, as compared to $4,057,544 for the year ended December 31, 2008 and
$2,715,237 for the year ended December 31, 2007. The increase in expenses during
the year ended December 31, 2009 was primarily due to the relative size of USOF
and activity that resulted from its increased size, including the registration
and the offering of additional units, increased brokerage fees, increased
licensing fees and increased tax reporting costs due to the greater number of
unitholders during each year. For the year ended December 31, 2009,
USOF incurred $1,230,850 in ongoing registration fees and other expenses
relating to the registration and offering of additional units. By comparison,
for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, USOF incurred $687,209 and
$380,992, respectively, in ongoing registration fees and other expenses relating
to the registration and offering of additional units.
USOF is
responsible for paying its portion of the directors’ and officers’ liability
insurance of the General Partner and the fees and expenses of the independent
directors of the General Partner who are also the General Partner’s audit
committee members. USOF shares these fees and expenses with the
Related Public Funds based on the relative assets of each fund computed on a
daily basis. These fees and expenses for calendar year 2009 amounted to a total
of $433,046 for all funds, and USOF’s portion of such fees and expenses was
$254,952.
By comparison, for the
year ended December 31, 2008, these fees and expenses amounted to a total of
$282,000 for all funds, and USOF’s portion of such fees and expenses was
$145,602. The increase in directors’ expenses incurred by USOF from the
year ended December 31, 2008 compared to the year ended December 31,
2009 was primarily due to
payment for directors’ and officers’ liability
insurance and an increase in the compensation awarded to the independent
directors of the General Partner. Effective as of March 3, 2009, the General
Partner obtained directors’ and officers’ liability insurance covering all of
the directors and officers of the General Partner. Previously, the General
Partner did not have liability insurance for its directors and officers;
instead, the independent directors received a payment in lieu of directors’ and
officers’ liability insurance coverage.
By
comparison, for the year ended December 31, 2007, these fees and expenses
amounted to a total of $286,000 for all funds, and USOF’s portion of such fees
and expenses was $184,000. The decrease in directors’ expenses
incurred by USOF from the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year
ended December 31, 2008 was due to the proportionate sharing of these fees and
expenses with the Related Public Funds.
USOF also
incurs commissions to brokers for the purchase and sale of Oil Futures
Contracts, Other Oil Interests or Treasuries. During the year ended
December 31, 2009, total commissions paid to brokers amounted to $3,888,197. By
comparison, during the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, total commissions
paid to brokers amounted to $1,607,632 and $1,184,956, respectively. The
increase in the total commissions paid to brokers was primarily a function of
increased brokerage fees due to a higher number of futures contracts being held
and traded as a result of the increase in USOF’s average total net assets, the
decrease in the price of Oil Futures Contracts and the increase in redemptions
and creations of units during each year. The increase in assets required USOF to
purchase a greater number of Oil Futures Contracts and incur a larger amount of
commissions. As an annualized percentage of total net assets, the figure
for the year ended December 31, 2009 represents approximately 0.15% of total net
assets. By comparison, the figure for the year ended December 31, 2008
represented approximately 0.18% of total net assets and the figure for the year
ended December 31, 2007 represented approximately 0.16% of 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.
71
The fees
and expenses associated with USOF’s audit expenses and tax accounting and
reporting requirements are paid by USOF. These costs are estimated to be
$1.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2009.
Interest Income
. USOF seeks
to invest its assets such that it holds Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil
Interests in an amount equal to the total net assets of its portfolio.
Typically, such investments do not require USOF to pay the full amount of the
contract value at the time of purchase, but rather require USOF to post an
amount as a margin deposit against the eventual settlement of the contract. As a
result, USOF retains an amount that is approximately equal to its total net
assets, which USOF invests in Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents.
This includes both the amount on deposit with the futures commission merchant as
margin, as well as unrestricted cash and cash equivalents held with USOF’s
Custodian. The Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents earn interest that
accrues on a daily basis. For the year ended December 31, 2009, USOF earned
$4,258,654 in interest income on such cash holdings. Based on USOF’s average
daily total net assets, this was equivalent to an annualized yield of 0.16%.
USOF did not purchase Treasuries during the year ended December 31, 2009
and held all of its funds in cash and/or cash equivalents during this time
period. By comparison, for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, USOF
earned $14,050,785 and $34,845,846, respectively, in interest income on such
cash holdings. Based on USOF’s average daily total net assets, this was
equivalent to an annualized yield of 1.58% and 4.76%,
respectively. USOF did not purchase Treasuries during the years
ended December 31, 2008 or 2007 and held all of its funds in cash and/or cash
equivalents during these time periods. Interest rates on short-term investments
in the United States, including cash, cash equivalents, and short-term
Treasuries, were sharply lower during 2009 compared to the same time periods in
2008 and 2007. As a result, the amount of interest earned by USOF as a
percentage of total net assets was lower during the year ended December 31, 2009
compared to the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007.
For the Three Months Ended
December 31, 2009 Compared to the Three Months Ended December 31, 2008 and
2007
During
the three months ended December 31, 2009, the daily average total net assets of
USOF were $2,261,837,125. The management fee paid by USOF during the period
amounted to $2,565,481. Management fees as a percentage of total net assets
averaged 0.45% over the three months ended December 31, 2009.
By
comparison, during the three months ended December 31, 2008, the daily average
total net assets of USOF were $1,125,579,667. During the three months
ended December 31, 2008, the total net assets of USOF exceeded $1 billion.
The management fee paid by USOF for the three months ended December
31, 2008 amounted to $1,252,606, which was calculated at the 0.50% rate for
total net assets up to and including $1 billion and at the rate of 0.20% on
average net assets over $1 billion, and accrued daily. Management fees as a
percentage of total net assets averaged 0.44% over the course of the three
months ended December 31, 2008. USOF’s management fees as a percentage of total
net assets were slightly lower for the three months ended December 31, 2008
compared to the three months ended December 31, 2009 due to USOF’s modified
expense ratio schedule.
By
comparison, during the three months ended December 31, 2007, the daily average
total net assets of USOF were $488,404,527. At no time during the
three months ended December 31, 2007 did the total net assets of USOF exceed $1
billion. The management fee paid by USOF for the three months ended
December 31, 2007 amounted to $615,524, which was calculated at the 0.50% rate
for total net assets up to and including $1 billion and at the rate of 0.20% on
average net assets over $1 billion, and accrued daily. Management fees as a
percentage of total net assets averaged 0.50% over the course of the three
months ended December 31, 2007. USOF’s management fees as a percentage of total
net assets were higher for the three months ended December 31, 2007 compared to
the three months ended December 31, 2008 due primarily to the three months ended
December 31, 2008 having a greater number of days in which total net assets
exceeded $1 billion and were therefore charged the lower daily rate of
0.20%.
72
In
addition to the management fee, USOF pays all brokerage fees and other
expenses, including certain tax reporting costs, licensing fees for the use of
intellectual property, ongoing registration or other fees paid to the
SEC, FINRA and any other regulatory agency in connection
with offers and sales of its units subsequent to the initial offering and
all legal, accounting, printing and other expenses associated therewith. The
total of these fees and expenses for the three months ended December 31, 2009
was $1,643,476, as compared to $1,350,642 for the three months ended December
31, 2008 and $683,099 for the three months ended December 31, 2007. The increase
in expenses during the three months ended December 31, 2009 was primarily due to
the relative size of USOF and activity that resulted from its increased size,
including increased licensing fees and increased tax reporting costs due to the
greater number of unitholders during each year. For the three months ended
December 31, 2009, USOF incurred $28,250 in ongoing registration fees and
other expenses relating to the registration and offering of additional units. By
comparison, for the three months ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, USOF incurred
$400,346 and $449,192, respectively, in ongoing registration fees and other
expenses relating to the registration and offering of additional units. The
decrease in registration expenses incurred by USOF from the three months ended
December 31, 2008 to the three months ended December 31, 2009 was primarily due
to a slower amortization of prepaid registration costs, which were matched to
the slower rate of share creations during the three months ended December 31,
2009.
USOF is
responsible for paying its portion of the directors’ and officers’ liability
insurance of the General Partner and the fees and expenses of the independent
directors of the General Partner who are also the General Partner’s audit
committee members. USOF shares these fees and expenses with the
Related Public Funds based on the relative assets of each fund computed on a
daily basis. These fees and expenses for the three months ended December 31,
2009 amounted to a total of $119,250 for all funds, and USOF’s portion of such
fees and expenses was $57,213.
By comparison, for the
three months ended December 31, 2008, these fees and expenses amounted to a
total of $68,750 for all funds, and USOF’s portion of such fees and expenses was
$38,807. The increase in directors’ expenses incurred by USOF from
the three months ended December 31, 2008 to the three months ended December 31,
2009 was primarily due to
payment for directors’ and officers’ liability
insurance and an increase in the compensation awarded to the independent
directors of the General Partner. Effective as of March 3, 2009, the General
Partner obtained directors’ and officers’ liability insurance covering all of
the directors and officers of the General Partner. Previously, the General
Partner did not have liability insurance for its directors and officers;
instead, the independent directors received a payment in lieu of directors’ and
officers’ liability insurance coverage.
By
comparison, for the three months ended December 31, 2007, these fees and
expenses amounted to a total of $41,379 for all funds, and USOF’s portion of
such fees and expenses was $41,379. The increase in directors’
expenses incurred by USOF from the three months ended December 31,
2007 to the three months ended December 31, 2008 was due to the
proportionate sharing of these fees and expenses with the Related Public
Funds.
USOF also
incurs commissions to brokers for the purchase and sale of Oil Futures
Contracts, Other Oil Interests or Treasuries. During the three months ended
December 31, 2009, total commissions paid to brokers amounted to $574,385. By
comparison, during the three months ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, total
commissions paid to brokers amounted to $715,990 and $233,907, respectively. The
decrease in the total commissions paid to brokers for the three months ended
December 31, 2009 was primarily a function of decreased redemptions and
creations of units during the three months ended December 31, 2009. The decrease
in activity resulted in USOF buying and selling fewer futures contracts which
led to a lower amount of commissions for the period. As an annualized percentage
of total net assets, the figure for the three months ended December 31,
2009 represents approximately 0.10% of total net assets. By comparison, the
figure for the three months ended December 31, 2008 represented approximately
0.25% of total net assets and the figure for the three months ended December 31,
2007 represented approximately 0.19% of 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.
The fees
and expenses associated with USOF’s audit expenses and tax accounting and
reporting requirements are paid by USOF. No amounts were required to be
paid for audit expenses and tax accounting and reporting requirements for the
three months ended December 31, 2009.
73
Interest Income
. USOF seeks
to invest its assets such that it holds Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil
Interests in an amount equal to the total net assets of its portfolio.
Typically, such investments do not require USOF to pay the full amount of the
contract value at the time of purchase, but rather require USOF to post an
amount as a margin deposit against the eventual settlement of the contract. As a
result, USOF retains an amount that is approximately equal to its total net
assets, which USOF invests in Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents.
This includes both the amount on deposit with the futures commission merchant as
margin, as well as unrestricted cash and cash equivalents held with USOF’s
Custodian. The Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents earn interest that
accrues on a daily basis. For the three months ended December 31, 2009, USOF
earned $299,426 in interest income on such cash holdings. Based on USOF’s
average daily total net assets, this was equivalent to an annualized yield of
0.05%. USOF did not purchase Treasuries during the three months ended
December 31, 2009 and held all of its funds in cash and/or cash equivalents
during this time period. By comparison, for the three months ended December 31,
2008 and 2007, USOF earned $1,837,513 and $4,669,974, respectively, in interest
income on such cash holdings. Based on USOF’s average daily total net assets,
this was equivalent to an annualized yield of 0.65% and 3.79%,
respectively. USOF did not purchase Treasuries during the three
months ended December 31, 2008 or 2007 and held all of its funds in cash and/or
cash equivalents during these time periods. Interest rates on short-term
investments in the United States, including cash, cash equivalents, and
short-term Treasuries, were sharply lower during the three months ended December
31, 2009 compared to the same time periods in 2008 and 2007. As a result, the
amount of interest earned by USOF as a percentage of total net assets was lower
during the three months ended December 31, 2009 compared to the three months
ended December 31, 2008 and 2007.
Tracking USOF’s Benchmark
.
USOF seeks to manage its portfolio such that changes in its average daily NAV,
on a percentage basis, closely track the changes in the average daily price of
the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract, also on a percentage basis. Specifically,
USOF seeks to manage the portfolio such that over any rolling period of 30
valuation days, the average daily change in the 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 Oil
Futures Contract. As an example, if the average daily movement of the price of
the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract for a particular 30-day time period was 0.5%
per day, USOF management would attempt to manage the portfolio such that the
average daily movement of the 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). USOF’s portfolio management
goals do not include trying to make the nominal price of USOF’s NAV equal to the
nominal price of the current Benchmark Oil Futures Contract or the spot price
for light, sweet crude oil. Management believes that it is not practical to
manage the portfolio to achieve such an investment goal when investing in listed
Oil Futures Contracts.
For the
30 valuation days ended December 31, 2009, the simple average daily change in
the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract was -0.090%, while the simple average daily
change in the NAV of USOF over the same time period
was -0.093%. 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 Oil Futures Contract, the average error in daily
tracking by the NAV was -2.395%, meaning that over this time period USOF’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
USOF’s NAV versus the daily movement of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract for
the 30-day period ended December 31, 2009.
74
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY
INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY
INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
Since the
offering of USOF’s units to the public on April 10, 2006 to December 31,
2009, the simple average daily change in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract was
-0.027%, while the simple average daily change in the NAV of USOF over the same
time period was -0.022%. The average daily difference was 0.005% (or 0.5 basis
points, where 1 basis point equals 1/100 of 1%). As a percentage of the daily
movement of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract, the average error in daily
tracking by the NAV was 1.560%, meaning that over this time period USOF’s
tracking error was within the plus or minus 10% range established as its
benchmark tracking goal.
75
An
alternative tracking measurement of the return performance of USOF versus the
return of its Benchmark Oil Futures Contract can be calculated by comparing the
actual return of USOF, measured by changes in its NAV, versus the
expected
changes in its NAV
under the assumption that USOF’s returns had been exactly the same as the daily
changes in its Benchmark Oil Futures Contract.
For the
year ended December 31, 2009, the actual total return of USOF as measured
by changes in its NAV was 14.14%. This is based on an initial NAV of $34.31
on December 31, 2008 and an ending NAV as of December 31, 2009 of $39.16.
During this time period, USOF made no distributions to its unitholders. However,
if USOF’s daily changes in its NAV had instead exactly tracked the changes in
the daily return of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract, USOF would have ended
2009 with an estimated NAV of $39.18, for a total return over the relevant time
period of 14.21%. The difference between the actual NAV total return of USOF of
14.14% and the expected total return based on the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract
of 14.21% was an error over the time period of -0.07%, which is to say that
USOF’s actual total return trailed the benchmark result by that percentage.
Management believes that a portion of the difference between the actual
return and the expected benchmark return can be attributed to the net impact of
the expenses and the interest that USOF collects on its cash and cash equivalent
holdings. During the year ended December 31, 2009, USOF received interest
income of $4,258,654, which is equivalent to a weighted average interest rate of
0.16% for 2009. In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2009, USOF
also collected $369,000 from its Authorized Purchasers creating or redeeming
baskets of units. This income also contributed to USOF’s actual return. However,
if the total assets of USOF continue to increase, management believes that the
impact on total returns of these fees from creations and redemptions will
diminish as a percentage of the total return. During the year
ended December 31, 2009, USOF incurred total expenses of $20,357,395.
Income from interest and Authorized Purchaser collections net of expenses was
$(15,729,741) which is equivalent to a weighted average net interest rate of
-0.60% for the year ended December 31, 2009.
By
comparison, for the year ended December 31, 2008, the actual total return
of USOF as measured by changes in its NAV was -54.75%. This is based on an
initial NAV of $75.82 on December 31, 2007 and an ending NAV as of
December 31, 2008 of $34.31. During this time period, USOF made no
distributions to its unitholders. However, if USOF’s daily changes in its NAV
had instead exactly tracked the changes in the daily return of the Benchmark Oil
Futures Contract, USOF would have ended 2008 with an estimated NAV of $32.39,
for a total return over the relevant time period of -55.12%. The difference
between the actual NAV total return of USOF of -54.75% and the expected total
return based on the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract of -55.12% was an error over
the time period of 0.37%, which is to say that USOF’s actual total return
exceeded the benchmark result by that percentage. Management believes that a
portion of the difference between the actual return and the expected
benchmark return can be attributed to the impact of the interest that USOF
collects on its cash and cash equivalent holdings. During 2008, USOF received
interest income of $14,050,785, which is equivalent to a weighted average
interest rate of 1.58% for 2008. In addition, during the year ended December 31,
2008, USOF also collected $350,000 from its Authorized Purchasers creating or
redeeming baskets of units. This income also contributed to USOF’s actual
return. During 2008, USOF incurred total expenses of $8,115,794. Income from
interest and Authorized Purchaser collections net of expenses was $6,284,991,
which is equivalent to a weighted average net interest rate of 0.71% for
2008.
By
comparison, for the year ended December 31, 2007, the actual total return
of USOF as measured by changes in its NAV was 46.17%. This is based on an
initial NAV of $51.87 on December 31, 2006 and an ending NAV as of
December 31, 2007 of $75.82. During this time period, USOF made no
distributions to its unitholders. However, if USOF’s daily changes in its NAV
had instead exactly tracked the changes in the daily return of the Benchmark Oil
Futures Contract, USOF would have ended 2007 with an estimated NAV of $73.01,
for a total return over the relevant time period of 40.75%. The difference
between the actual NAV total return of USOF of 46.17% and the expected total
return based on the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract of 40.75% was an error over
the time period of 5.42%, which is to say that USOF’s actual total return
exceeded the benchmark result by that percentage. Management believes that a
portion of the difference between the actual return and the expected
benchmark return can be attributed to the impact of the interest that USOF
collects on its cash and cash equivalent holdings. During 2007, USOF received
interest income of $34,845,846, which is equivalent to a weighted average
interest rate of 4.76% for 2007. In addition, during the year ended
December 31, 2007, USOF also collected $297,000 from its Authorized Purchasers
creating or redeeming baskets of units. This income also contributed to USOF’s
actual return. During 2007, USOF incurred total expenses of
$6,337,850. Income from interest and Authorized Purchaser collections
net of expenses was $28,804,996, which is equivalent to a weighted average net
interest rate of 3.93% for 2007.
76
There are
currently three factors that have impacted or are most likely
to impact USOF’s ability to accurately track its Benchmark Oil Futures
Contract.
First,
USOF may buy or sell its holdings in the then current Benchmark Oil Futures
Contract at a price other than the closing settlement price of that contract on
the day during which USOF executes the trade. In that case, USOF may pay a price
that is higher, or lower, than that of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract,
which could cause the changes in the daily NAV of USOF to either be too
high or too low relative to the changes in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract.
In 2009, management attempted to minimize the effect of these transactions by
seeking to execute its purchase or sale of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract
at, or as close as possible to, the end of the day settlement price. However, it
may not always be possible for USOF 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 USOF’s attempt to track the Benchmark Oil
Futures Contract over time.
Second,
USOF earns interest on its cash, cash equivalents and Treasury
holdings. USOF is not required to distribute any portion of its income to its
unitholders and did not make any distributions to unitholders in 2009. Interest
payments, and any other income, were retained within the portfolio and added to
USOF’s NAV. When this income exceeds the level of USOF’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 the General Partner), USOF will realize a net yield
that will tend to cause daily changes in the NAV of USOF to track slightly
higher than daily changes in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract. During the year
ended December 31, 2009, USOF earned, on an annualized basis, approximately
0.16% on its cash holdings. It also incurred cash expenses on an annualized
basis of 0.45% for management fees and approximately 0.15% in brokerage
commission costs related to the purchase and sale of futures contracts, and
0.18% for other expenses. The foregoing fees and expenses resulted in a net
yield on an annualized basis of approximately (0.62)% and affected USOF’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 NAV to underperform the daily returns of the
Benchmark Oil Futures Contract.
Third,
USOF may hold Other Oil Interests in its portfolio that may fail to closely
track the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract’s total return movements. In that case,
the error in tracking the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract could result in daily
changes in the NAV of USOF that are either too high, or too low, relative to the
daily changes in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract. During 2009, USOF did not
hold any Other Oil Interests. Due, in part, to the increased size of USOF
over the last several quarters and its obligations to comply with regulatory
limits, USOF is likely to invest in Other Oil Interests which may have the
effect of increasing transaction related expenses and result in increased
tracking error.
Term Structure of Crude Oil 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
crude oil 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 crude oil for immediate delivery (the “spot”
price), was $50 per barrel, and the value of a position in the near month
futures contract was also $50. Over time, the price of the barrel of crude oil
will fluctuate based on a number of market factors, including demand for
oil 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
oil, every month they must sell their current near month contract as it
approaches expiration and invest in the next month contract.
77
If the
futures market is in backwardation,
e.g.
, when the expected price
of crude oil 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.
Hypothetically, and assuming no other changes to either prevailing crude oil
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
interest earned on Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents), the value of the
next month contract would rise as it approaches expiration and becomes the new
near month contract. In this example, the value of the $50 investment would tend
to rise faster than the spot price of crude oil, or fall slower. As a result, it
would be possible in this hypothetical example for the price of spot crude oil
to have risen to $60 after some period of time, while the value of the
investment in the futures contract would have risen to $65, assuming
backwardation is large enough or enough time has elapsed. Similarly, the spot
price of crude oil could have fallen to $40 while the value of an investment in
the futures contract could have fallen to only $45. 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.
Hypothetically, and assuming no other changes to either prevailing crude oil
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
interest earned on cash), the value of the next month contract would fall as it
approaches expiration and becomes the new near month contract. In this example,
it would mean that the value of the $50 investment would tend to rise slower
than the spot price of crude oil, or fall faster. As a result, it would be
possible in this hypothetical example for the spot price of crude oil to
have risen to $60 after some period of time, while the value of the investment
in the futures contract will have risen to only $55, assuming contango is large
enough or enough time has elapsed. Similarly, the spot price of crude oil could
have fallen to $45 while the value of an investment in the futures contract
could have fallen to $40. 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 average price of the
near 12 months over the last 10 years (2000-2009) for light, sweet crude oil.
When the price of the near month contract is higher than the average price of
the near 12 month contracts, the market would be described as being in
backwardation. When the price of the near month contract is lower than the
average price of the near 12 month contracts, the market would be described as
being in contango. Although the prices of the near month contract and the
average price of the near 12 month contracts do tend to move up or down
together, it can be seen that at times the near month prices are clearly higher
than the average price of the near 12 month contracts (backwardation), and other
times they are below the average price of the near 12 month contracts
(contango).
78
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY
INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
An
alternative way to view the same data is to subtract the dollar price of the
average dollar price of the near 12 month contracts for light, sweet crude oil
from the dollar price of the near month contract for light, sweet crude oil. If
the resulting number is a positive number, then the near month price is higher
than the average price of the near 12 months 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 average price of the near 12 months and
the market could be described as being in contango. The chart below shows the
results from subtracting the average dollar price of the near 12 month contracts
from the near month price for the 10 year period between 2000 and
2009.
79
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY
INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
An
investment in a portfolio that involved owning only the near month contract
would likely produce a different result than an investment in a portfolio that
owned an equal number of each of the near 12 months’ worth of contracts.
Generally speaking, when the crude oil futures market is in backwardation, the
near month only portfolio would tend to have a higher total return than the 12
month portfolio. Conversely, if the crude oil futures market was in contango,
the portfolio containing 12 months’ worth of contracts would tend to outperform
the near month only portfolio. The chart below shows the annual results of
owning a portfolio consisting of the near month contract and a portfolio
containing the near 12 months’ worth of contracts. In addition, the chart shows
the annual change in the spot price of light, sweet crude oil. In this example,
each month, the near month only portfolio would sell the near month contract at
expiration and buy the next month out contract. The portfolio holding an equal
number of the near 12 months’ worth of contracts would sell the near month
contract at expiration and replace it with the contract that becomes the new
twelfth month contract.
80
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY
INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
As seen
in the chart above, there have been periods of both positive and negative annual
total returns for both hypothetical portfolios over the last 10 years. In
addition, there have been periods during which the near month only approach had
higher returns, and periods where the 12 month approach had higher total
returns. The above chart does not represent the performance history of USOF or
any affiliated funds.
Historically,
the crude oil futures markets have experienced periods of contango and
backwardation, with backwardation being in place more often than contango.
During 2006 and the first half of 2007, these markets have experienced contango.
However, starting early in the third quarter of 2007, the crude oil futures
market moved into backwardation. The crude oil markets remained in backwardation
until late in the second quarter of 2008 when they moved into contango. The
crude oil markets remained in contango until late in the third quarter of 2008,
when the markets moved into backwardation. Early in the fourth quarter of 2008,
the crude oil market moved back into contango and remained in contango for the
balance of 2008. Throughout the rest of 2009, the crude oil market remained
in contango. During parts of January and February 2009, the level of
contango was unusually steep. Crude oil inventories, which reached historic
levels in January and February 2009 and which appear to be the primary cause of
the steep level of contango, began to drop in March 2009 and for the balance of
2009. The crude oil futures market remained in contango through the rest
of 2009.
Periods
of contango or backwardation do not materially impact USOF’s investment
objective of having the percentage changes in its per unit NAV track the
percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract since the
impact of backwardation and contango tended to equally impact the percentage
changes in price of both USOF’s units and the Benchmark Oil 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.
81
Crude Oil Market
. During the
year ended December 31, 2009, crude oil prices were impacted by several factors.
On the consumption side, demand remained weak inside and outside the United
States as global economic growth, including emerging economies such as China and
India, remained weak to negative for the first quarter of the year. On the
supply side, efforts to reduce production by OPEC to more closely match global
consumption were only partially successful. This divergence between production
and consumption has led to large build-ups in crude oil inventories and
contributed to weak oil prices. However, crude oil prices did finish
2009 approximately 78% higher than at the beginning of the year, as investors
looked forward to improvements in the global economy. Management believes,
however, that should the global economic situation remain weak, there is a
meaningful possibility that crude oil prices could retreat from their current
levels.
Crude Oil Price Movements in
Comparison to other Energy Commodities and Investment Categories.
The
General Partner 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 indicating 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 or 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 2000 and 2009, the chart below compares the monthly
movements of crude oil prices versus the monthly movements of the prices of
several other energy commodities, such as natural gas, heating oil, and unleaded
gasoline, 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 crude oil on a
monthly basis was not strongly correlated, positively or negatively, with the
movements of large cap U.S. equities, U.S. government bonds or global equities.
However, movements in crude oil had a strong positive correlation to movements
in natural gas and unleaded gasoline. Finally, crude oil had a positive, but
weaker, correlation with heating oil.
|
10
Year Correlation
Matrix
2000-2009
|
Large
Cap
U.S.
Equities
(S&P
500)
|
U.S.
Govt.
Bonds
(EFFAS
U.S.
Government
Bond
Index)
|
Global
Equities
(FTSE
World
Index)
|
Unleaded
Gasoline
|
Natural
Gas
|
Heating
Oil
|
Crude
Oil
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Large
Cap U.S. Equities (S&P 500)
|
1.000 | -0.259 | 0.966 | 0.135 | 0.087 | 0.023 | 0.152 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
U.S.
Govt. Bonds (EFFAS U.S. Government Bond Index)
|
1.000 | -0.237 | -0.214 | -0.078 | 0.128 | -0.127 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Global
Equities (FTSE World Index)
|
1.000 | 0.196 | 0.165 | 0.084 | 0.246 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Unleaded
Gasoline
|
1.000 | 0.613 | 0.257 | 0.724 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural
Gas
|
1.000 | 0.466 | 0.783 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Heating
Oil
|
1.000 | 0.334 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Crude
Oil
|
1.000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
source:
Bloomberg, NYMEX
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY
INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
82
The chart
below covers a more recent, but much shorter, range of dates than the above
chart. Over the one year period ended December 31, 2009, crude oil continued to
have a strong positive correlation with heating oil and unleaded gasoline.
During this period, it also had a
slightly
weaker
correlation
with the movements of natural gas than it had displayed over the ten year period
ended December 31, 2009. Notably, the correlation between crude oil and both
large cap U.S. equities and global equities, which had been essentially
non-correlated over the ten year period ended December 31, 2009, displayed
results that indicated that they had a mildly positive correlation over this
shorter time period, particularly due to the recent downturn in the U.S.
economy. Finally, the results showed that crude oil and U.S. government bonds,
which had essentially been non-correlated for the ten year period ended December
31, 2009, were weakly negatively correlated over this more recent time
period.
|
Correlation
Matrix
2009
|
Large
Cap
U.S.
Equities
(S&P
500)
|
U.S.
Govt.
Bonds
(EFFAS
U.S.
Government
Bond Index)
|
Global
Equities
(FTSE
World
Index)
|
Unleaded
Gasoline
|
Natural
Gas
|
Heating
Oil
|
Crude
Oil
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Large
Cap U.S. Equities (S&P 500)
|
1.000 | 0.303 | 0.974 | -0.083 | 0.325 | 0.139 | 0.182 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
U.S.
Govt. Bonds (EFFAS U.S. Government Bond Index)
|
1.000 | 0.284 | -0.544 | -0.347 | -0.016 | -0.264 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Global
Equities (FTSE World Index)
|
1.000 | -0.043 | 0.320 | 0.149 | 0.216 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Unleaded
Gasoline
|
1.000 | 0.714 | -0.267 | 0.576 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural
Gas
|
1.000 | 0.253 | 0.769 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Heating
Oil
|
1.000 | 0.255 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Crude
Oil
|
1.000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
source:
Bloomberg, NYMEX
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY
INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
Investors
are cautioned that the historical price relationships between crude oil 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. The General Partner believes that
crude oil has historically not demonstrated a strong correlation with equities
or bonds over long periods of time. However, the General Partner also believes
that in the future it is possible that crude oil could have long term
correlation results that indicate prices of crude oil more closely track the
movements of equities or bonds. In addition, the General Partner believes that,
when measured over time periods shorter than ten years, there will always be
some periods where the correlation of crude oil 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
crude oil, natural gas, heating oil and gasoline are relevant because the
General Partner endeavors to invest USOF’s assets in Oil Futures Contracts and
Other Oil Interests so that daily changes in USOF’s NAV correlate as closely as
possible with daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract.
If certain other fuel-based commodity futures contracts do not closely
correlate with the Oil Futures Contracts then their use could lead to greater
tracking error. As noted, the General Partner also believes that the changes in
the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract will closely correlate with
changes in the spot price of light, sweet crude oil.
83
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. USOF’s application of these policies involves judgments
and actual results may differ from the estimates used.
The
General Partner has evaluated the nature and types of estimates that
it makes in preparing USOF’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 USOF for its forward
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, USOF estimates interest income on
a daily basis using prevailing interest 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
USOF has
not made, and does not anticipate making, use of borrowings or other lines of
credit to meet its obligations. USOF has met, and it is anticipated that USOF
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. USOF’s
liquidity needs include: redeeming units, providing margin deposits for its
existing Oil Futures Contracts or the purchase of additional Oil Futures
Contracts and posting collateral for its over-the-counter contracts and payment
of its expenses, summarized below under “Contractual Obligations.”
USOF
currently generates cash primarily from (i) the sale of Creation Baskets and
(ii) interest earned on Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents. USOF has
allocated substantially all of its net assets to trading in oil interests. USOF
invests in oil 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 Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil
Interests. A significant portion of the NAV is held in cash and cash
equivalents that are used as margin and as collateral for USOF’s trading in
oil interests. The balance of the net assets is held in USOF’s account at its
custodian bank. Interest earned on USOF’s interest-bearing funds is paid to
USOF. In prior periods, the amount of cash earned by USOF from the sale of
Creation Baskets and from interest has exceeded the amount of cash required to
pay USOF’s expenses. However, during the year ended December 31, 2009, USOF’s
expenses exceeded the interest income USOF earned and the cash earned from the
sale of Creation Baskets. During the year ended December 31, 2009, USOF was
forced to use other assets to pay cash expenses, which could cause a drop in
USOF’s NAV over time.
USOF’s
investment in oil 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 Oil 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 an Oil 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 USOF from promptly
liquidating its positions in Oil Futures Contracts. During the year ended
December 31, 2009, USOF was not forced to purchase or liquidate any of its
positions while daily limits were in effect; however, USOF cannot predict
whether such an event may occur in the future.
Since
March 23, 2007, USOF 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 units subsequent to the initial
offering, (v) other expenses, including certain tax reporting costs, (vi) fees
and expenses of the independent directors of the General Partner and (vii) other
extraordinary expenses not in the ordinary course of business, while the General
Partner has been responsible for expenses relating to the fees of the Marketing
Agent, the Administrator and the Custodian. If the General Partner and USOF
are unsuccessful in raising sufficient funds to cover these respective expenses
or in locating any other source of funding, USOF will terminate and investors
may lose all or part of their
investment.
84
Market
Risk
Trading
in Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests, such as
forwards, involves USOF entering into contractual commitments to purchase
or sell oil at a specified date in the future. The aggregate market value of
the contracts will significantly exceed USOF’s future cash requirements
since USOF intends to close out its open positions prior to settlement. As a
result, USOF is generally only subject to the risk of loss arising
from the change in value of the contracts. USOF considers the “fair value” of
its derivative instruments to be the unrealized gain or loss on the contracts.
The market risk associated with USOF’s commitments to purchase oil is limited to
the aggregate market value of the contracts held. However, should USOF enter
into a contractual commitment to sell oil, it would be required to make delivery
of the oil at the contract price, repurchase the contract at prevailing prices
or settle in cash. Since there are no limits on the future price of oil, the
market risk to USOF could be unlimited.
USOF’s
exposure to market risk depends on a number of factors, including the
markets for oil, the volatility of interest rates and foreign exchange rates,
the liquidity of the Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests markets and
the relationships among the contracts held by USOF. Drastic market occurrences
could ultimately lead to the loss of all or substantially all of an investor’s
capital.
Credit
Risk
When USOF
enters into Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests, it is exposed to the
credit risk that the counterparty will not be able to meet its obligations. The
counterparty for the Oil Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX and on most
other foreign futures exchanges is the clearinghouse associated with the
particular exchange. In general, 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 USOF in such circumstances.
The
General Partner attempts to manage the credit risk of USOF by following
various trading limitations and policies. In particular, USOF generally posts
margin and/or holds liquid assets that are approximately equal to the market
value of its obligations to counterparties under the Oil Futures Contracts and
Other Oil Interests it holds. The General Partner 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 USOF to limit its credit exposure. UBS
Securities, USOF’s commodity broker, or any other broker that may be retained by
USOF in the future, when acting as USOF’s futures commission merchant in
accepting orders to purchase or sell Oil Futures Contracts on United States
exchanges, is required by CFTC regulations to separately account for and
segregate as belonging to USOF, all assets of USOF relating to domestic Oil
Futures Contracts trading. These futures commission merchants are not allowed to
commingle USOF’s assets with its other assets. In addition, the CFTC requires
commodity brokers to hold in a secure account USOF’s assets related to foreign
Oil Futures Contracts trading. During the year ended December 31, 2009, the only
foreign exchange on which USOF made investments was the ICE Futures, which is a
London based futures exchange. Those crude oil contracts are denominated in U.S.
dollars.
If, in
the future, USOF purchases over-the-counter contracts, see “Item 7A.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure About Market Risk” for a discussion of
over-the-counter contracts.
As of December 31, 2009, USOF had
deposits in domestic and foreign financial institutions, including cash
investments in money market funds, in the amount of $2,395,095,731. This amount
is subject to loss should these institutions cease
operations.
85
Off
Balance Sheet Financing
As of
December 31, 2009, USOF has no loan guarantee, credit support or other
off-balance sheet arrangements of any kind other than agreements entered into in
the normal course of business, which may include indemnification provisions
relating to certain risks that service providers undertake in performing
services which are in the best interests of USOF. While USOF’s exposure under
these indemnification provisions cannot be estimated, they are not expected to
have a material impact on USOF’s financial position.
Redemption
Basket Obligation
In order
to meet its investment objective and pay its contractual obligations described
below, USOF requires liquidity to redeem units, which redemptions must be
in blocks of 100,000 units called Redemption Baskets. USOF has to date satisfied
this obligation by paying from the cash or cash equivalents it holds or through
the sale of its Treasuries in an amount proportionate to the number of units
being redeemed.
Contractual
Obligations
USOF’s
primary contractual obligations are with the General Partner. In return for its
services, the General Partner is entitled to a management fee calculated monthly
as a fixed percentage of USOF’s NAV, currently 0.45% of NAV on its average daily
net assets.
The
General Partner agreed to pay the start-up costs associated with the
formation of USOF, primarily its legal, accounting and other costs in connection
with the General Partner’s registration with the CFTC as a CPO and the
registration and listing of USOF and its units with the SEC, FINRA and the
AMEX, respectively. However, since USOF’s initial offering of units, offering
costs incurred in connection with registering and listing additional units of
USOF are directly borne on an ongoing basis by USOF, and not by the General
Partner.
The
General Partner pays the fees of the Marketing Agent and the fees of the
Custodian and transfer agent, BBH&Co., as well as BBH&Co.’s fees for
performing administrative services, including in connection with the preparation
of USOF’s financial statements and its SEC and CFTC reports. The General Partner
and USOF have also entered into a licensing agreement with the NYMEX
pursuant to which USOF and the affiliated funds managed by the General Partner
pay a licensing fee to the NYMEX. USOF also pays the fees and expenses
associated with its tax accounting and reporting requirements.
In
addition to the General Partner’s management fee, USOF pays its brokerage fees
(including fees to a futures commission merchant), over-the-counter dealer
spreads, any licensing fees for the use of intellectual property, and,
subsequent to the initial offering, registration and other fees paid to the SEC,
FINRA, or other regulatory agencies in connection with the offer and sale of
units, as well as legal, printing, accounting and other expenses associated
therewith, and extraordinary expenses. The latter are expenses not incurred
in the ordinary course of USOF’s business, including expenses relating to
the indemnification of any person against liabilities and obligations to the
extent permitted by law and under the LP Agreement, the bringing or defending of
actions in law or in equity or otherwise conducting litigation and incurring
legal expenses and the settlement of claims and litigation. Commission
payments to a futures commission merchant are on a contract-by-contract, or
round turn, basis. USOF also pays a portion of the fees and expenses of the
independent directors of the General Partner. See Note 3 to the Notes to
Financial Statements.
The
parties cannot anticipate the amount of payments that will be required under
these arrangements for future periods, as USOF’s NAVs and trading levels to meet
its investment objectives will not be known until a future date. These
agreements are effective for a specific term agreed upon by the parties with an
option to renew, or, in some cases, are in effect for the duration of USOF’s
existence. Either party may terminate these agreements earlier for certain
reasons described in the agreements.
86
Over-the-Counter
Derivatives
In the
future, USOF may purchase over-the-counter contracts. Unlike most of the
exchange-traded Oil Futures Contracts or exchange-traded options on such
futures, each party to an over-the-counter contract bears the credit risk
that the other party may not be able to perform its obligations under its
contract.
Some
crude oil-based derivatives transactions contain fairly generic terms and
conditions and are available from a wide range of participants. Other crude
oil-based derivatives have highly customized terms and conditions and are not as
widely available. Many of these over-the-counter contracts are cash-settled
forwards for the future delivery of crude oil- or petroleum-based fuels that
have terms similar to the Oil Futures Contracts. Others take the form of “swaps”
in which the two parties exchange cash flows based on pre-determined formulas
tied to the spot price of crude oil, forward crude oil prices or crude oil
futures prices. For example, USOF may enter into over-the-counter derivative
contracts whose value will be tied to changes in the difference between
the spot price of light, sweet crude oil, the price of Oil Futures
Contracts traded on the NYMEX and the prices of other Oil Futures Contracts in
which USOF may invest.
To
protect itself from the credit risk that arises in connection with such
contracts, USOF may enter into agreements with each counterparty that provide
for the netting of its overall exposure to such counterparty, such as the
agreements published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association,
Inc. USOF also may require that the counterparty be highly rated and/or
provide collateral or other credit support to address USOF’s exposure to the
counterparty. In addition, it is also possible for USOF and its counterparty to
agree to clear their agreement through an established futures clearinghouse such
as those connected to the NYMEX or the ICE Futures. In that event, USOF would no
longer have credit risk of its original counterparty, as the clearinghouse would
now be USOF’s counterparty. USOF would still retain any price risk associated
with its transaction.
The
creditworthiness of each potential counterparty is assessed by the General
Partner. The General Partner assesses or reviews, as appropriate, the
creditworthiness of each potential or existing counterparty to an
over-the-counter contract pursuant to guidelines approved by the Board.
Furthermore, the General Partner on behalf of USOF only enters into
over-the-counter 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 the General Partner.
USOF
anticipates that the use of Other Oil Interests together with its investments in
Oil Futures Contracts will produce price and total return results that closely
track the investment goals of USOF. However, there can be no assurance of this.
Over-the-counter contracts may result in higher transaction-related expenses
than the brokerage commissions paid in connection with the purchase of Futures
Contracts, which may impact USOF’s ability to successfully track the Benchmark
Futures Contract.
USOF may
employ spreads or straddles in its trading to mitigate the differences in its
investment portfolio and its goal of tracking the price of the Benchmark Oil
Futures Contract. USOF would use a spread when it chooses to take simultaneous
long and short positions in futures written on the same underlying asset, but
with different delivery months. The effect of holding such combined positions is
to adjust the sensitivity of USOF to changes in the price relationship between
futures contracts which will expire sooner and those that will expire later.
USOF would use such a spread if the General Partner felt that taking such long
and short positions, when combined with the rest of its holdings, would more
closely track the investment goals of USOF, or if the General Partner felt it
would lead to an overall lower cost of trading to achieve a given level of
economic exposure to movements in oil prices. USOF would enter into a straddle
when it chooses to take an option position consisting of a long (or short)
position in both a call option and put option. The economic effect of holding
certain combinations of put options and call options can be very similar to that
of owning the underlying futures contracts. USOF would make use of such a
straddle approach if, in the opinion of the General Partner, the resulting
combination would more closely track the investment goals of USOF or if it would
lead to an overall lower cost of trading to achieve a given level of economic
exposure to movements in oil prices.
During
the year ended December 31, 2009, USOF did not employ any hedging methods such
as those described above since all of its investments were made over an
exchange. Therefore, during the year ended December 31, 2009, USOF was not
exposed to counterparty risk.
87
United
States Oil Fund, LP
Index
to Financial Statements
|
Documents
|
Page
|
|
|
Management’s
Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting.
|
89
|
|
|
Reports
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.
|
90
|
|
|
Statements
of Financial Condition at December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
92
|
|
|
Schedule
of Investments at December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
93
|
|
|
Statements
of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and
2007.
|
95
|
|
|
Statements
of Changes in Partners’ Capital for the years ended December 31, 2009,
2008 and 2007.
|
96
|
|
|
Statements
of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and
2007.
|
97
|
|
|
Notes
to Financial Statements for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008
and 2007.
|
98
|
88
Management’s
Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.
USOF’s
management assessed the effectiveness of USOF’s internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2009. 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, USOF
’s
management believes that, as of December 31, 2009, its internal control
over financial reporting is effective.
89
Attestation
Report of Registered Public Accounting Firm.
Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Auditors’
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
To the
Partners of
United
States Oil Fund, LP
We have
audited the internal control over financial reporting of United States Oil Fund,
LP (the “Fund”) as of December 31, 2009, based on criteria established in
Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of
Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Fund’s management is
responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting
and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Annual Report on Internal
Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting based on our
audit.
We
conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective
internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over
financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing
and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based
on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable
basis for our opinion.
A
company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or
under the supervision of, the company’s principal executive and principal
financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the
company’s board of directors, management, and other personnel to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over
financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain
to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company;
(2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as
necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of
the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management
and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance
regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or
disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because
of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting,
including the possibility of collusion or improper management override of
controls, material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented or
detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the
effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods
are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or
procedures may deteriorate.
In our
opinion, the Fund maintained, in all material respects, effective internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on the criteria
established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
We have
also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), the financial statements as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2009, of the Fund and our report dated February 26, 2010
expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.
/s/
SPICER JEFFRIES LLP
Greenwood
Village, Colorado
February
26, 2010
90
Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the
Partners of
United
States Oil Fund, LP
We have
audited the accompanying statements of financial condition of United
States Oil Fund, LP, (the “Fund”) as of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
including the schedule of investments as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and
the related statements of operations, changes in partners’ capital and cash
flows for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007. 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 Oil Fund,
LP as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the results of its operations
and its cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.
We also
have audited, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), the Fund's internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on criteria established in Internal
Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 26, 2010
expressed an unqualified opinion on the Fund's internal control over financial
reporting.
/s/
SPICER JEFFRIES LLP
Greenwood
Village, Colorado
February
26, 2010
91
United
States Oil Fund, LP
At
December 31, 2009 and 2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||
|
Assets
|
||||||||
|
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$ | 2,072,425,180 | $ | 1,025,376,289 | ||||
|
Equity
in UBS Securities LLC trading accounts:
|
||||||||
|
Cash
|
322,670,551 | 1,356,466,032 | ||||||
|
Unrealized
gain on open commodity futures contracts
|
184,278,050 | 97,616,100 | ||||||
|
Receivable
for units sold
|
- | 90,984,366 | ||||||
|
Interest
receivable
|
83,916 | 351,735 | ||||||
|
Other
assets
|
623,125 | 696,590 | ||||||
|
Total
assets
|
$ | 2,580,080,822 | $ | 2,571,491,112 | ||||
|
Liabilities
and Partners’ Capital
|
||||||||
|
General
Partner management fees (Note 3)
|
$ | 911,277 | $ | 513,420 | ||||
|
Payable
for units redeemed
|
105,743,070 | - | ||||||
|
Professional
fees payable
|
1,903,529 | 1,050,555 | ||||||
|
License
fees payable
|
132,784 | 85,968 | ||||||
|
Brokerage
commission fees payable
|
111,386 | 180,086 | ||||||
|
Directors’
fees payable
|
25,959 | 37,152 | ||||||
|
Total
liabilities
|
108,828,005 | 1,867,181 | ||||||
|
Commitments and Contingencies
(Notes 3, 4 and 5)
|
||||||||
|
Partners’
Capital
|
||||||||
|
General
Partner
|
- | - | ||||||
|
Limited
Partners
|
2,471,252,817 | 2,569,623,931 | ||||||
|
Total
Partners’ Capital
|
2,471,252,817 | 2,569,623,931 | ||||||
|
Total liabilities and partners’ capital
|
$ | 2,580,080,822 | $ | 2,571,491,112 | ||||
|
Limited
Partners’ units outstanding
|
63,100,000 | 74,900,000 | ||||||
|
Net
asset value per unit
|
$ | 39.16 | $ | 34.31 | ||||
|
Market
value per unit
|
$ | 39.28 | $ | 33.10 | ||||
See
accompanying notes to financial statements.
92
United
States Oil Fund, LP
Schedule
of Investments
At
December 31, 2009
|
Gain on Open
|
||||||||
|
Number of
|
Commodity
|
% of Partners’
|
||||||
|
Contracts
|
Contracts
|
Capital
|
||||||
|
Open
Futures Contracts
|
||||||||
|
Foreign Contracts
|
||||||||
|
ICE
WTI Crude Oil Futures contracts, expire February 2010
|
17,747
|
$
|
97,707,560
|
3.95
|
||||
|
United
States Contracts
|
||||||||
|
NYMEX
Crude Oil Financial Futures WS contracts, expire February
2010
|
2,000
|
11,000,000
|
0.44
|
|||||
|
NYMEX
Crude Oil Futures CL contracts, expire February 2010
|
11,393
|
75,570,490
|
3.06
|
|||||
|
13,393
|
86,570,490
|
3.50
|
||||||
|
Total
Open Futures Contracts
|
31,140
|
$
|
184,278,050
|
7.45
|
||||
|
Principal
Amount
|
Market Value
|
||||||||
|
Cash
Equivalents
|
|||||||||
|
United
States - Money Market Funds
|
|||||||||
|
Fidelity
Institutional Government Portfolio – Class I
|
$
|
751,572,698 |
$
|
751,572,698 | 30.41 | ||||
|
Goldman
Sachs Financial Square Funds - Government Fund – Class SL
|
662,501,283 | 662,501,283 | 26.81 | ||||||
|
Morgan
Stanley Institutional Liquidity Fund – Government
Portfolio
|
350,583,990 | 350,583,990 | 14.19 | ||||||
|
Total
Cash Equivalents
|
$
|
1,764,657,971 | 71.41 | ||||||
See
accompanying notes to financial statements.
93
United
States Oil Fund, LP
Schedule
of Investments
At
December 31, 2008
|
Gain on Open
|
% of
|
|||||||
|
Number of
|
Commodity
|
Partners’
|
||||||
|
Contracts
|
Contracts
|
Capital
|
||||||
|
Open
Futures Contracts
|
||||||||
|
Foreign Contracts
|
||||||||
|
ICE
WTI Crude Oil Futures contracts, expire February 2009
|
5,847
|
$
|
9,851,000
|
0.38
|
||||
|
United
States Contracts
|
||||||||
|
NYMEX
Crude Oil Futures CL contracts, expire February 2009
|
51,772
|
87,765,100
|
3.42
|
|||||
|
Total
Open Futures Contracts
|
57,619
|
$
|
97,616,100
|
3.80
|
||||
|
Principal
Amount
|
Market Value
|
||||||||
|
Cash
Equivalents
|
|||||||||
|
United
States - Money Market Fund
|
|||||||||
|
Goldman
Sachs Financial Square Funds - Government Fund – Class SL
|
$ | 410,363,791 | $ | 410,363,791 | 15.97 | ||||
|
Total
Cash Equivalents
|
$ | 410,363,791 | 15.97 | ||||||
See
accompanying notes to financial statements.
94
United
States Oil Fund, LP
For
the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007
|
Year ended
|
Year ended
|
Year ended
|
||||||||||
|
December 31, 2009
|
December 31, 2008
|
December 31, 2007
|
||||||||||
|
Income
|
||||||||||||
|
Gains
(losses) on trading of commodity futures contracts:
|
||||||||||||
|
Realized
gain (loss) on closed positions
|
$ | 578,446,510 | $ | (923,692,430 | ) | $ | 185,522,880 | |||||
|
Change
in unrealized gain on open positions
|
86,661,950 | 61,911,080 | 70,088,020 | |||||||||
|
Interest
income
|
4,258,654 | 14,050,785 | 34,845,846 | |||||||||
|
Other
income
|
369,000 | 350,000 | 297,000 | |||||||||
|
Total
income (loss)
|
669,736,114 | (847,380,565 | ) | 290,753,746 | ||||||||
|
Expenses
|
||||||||||||
|
General
Partner management fees (Note 3)
|
11,700,716 | 4,058,250 | 3,622,613 | |||||||||
|
Brokerage
commission fees
|
3,888,197 | 1,607,632 | 1,184,956 | |||||||||
|
Professional
fees
|
2,658,818 | 1,337,965 | 423,232 | |||||||||
|
Registration
fees
|
1,230,850 | 687,209 | 380,992 | |||||||||
|
License
fees
|
623,062 | 279,809 | 385,335 | |||||||||
|
Directors’
fees
|
164,984 | 144,929 | 340,722 | |||||||||
|
Other
expenses
|
90,768 | - | - | |||||||||
|
Total
expenses
|
20,357,395 | 8,115,794 | 6,337,850 | |||||||||
|
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 649,378,719 | $ | (855,496,359 | ) | $ | 284,415,896 | |||||
|
Net
income (loss) per limited partnership unit
|
$ | 4.85 | $ | (41.51 | ) | $ | 23.95 | |||||
|
Net
income (loss) per weighted average limited partnership
unit
|
$ | 8.23 | $ | (63.14 | ) | $ | 20.71 | |||||
|
Weighted
average limited partnership units outstanding
|
78,901,918 | 13,549,727 | 13,730,137 | |||||||||
See
accompanying notes to financial statements.
95
United
States Oil Fund, LP
Statements
of Changes in Partners’ Capital
For
the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007
|
General
Partner
|
Limited Partners
|
Total
|
||||||||||
|
Balances,
at December 31, 2006
|
$ | - | $ | 803,949,254 | $ | 803,949,254 | ||||||
|
Addition
of 78,400,000 partnership units
|
- | 4,402,551,383 | 4,402,551,383 | |||||||||
|
Redemption
of 87,500,000 partnership units
|
- | (5,005,693,796 | ) | (5,005,693,796 | ) | |||||||
|
Net
income
|
- | 284,415,896 | 284,415,896 | |||||||||
|
Balances,
at December 31, 2007
|
- | 485,222,737 | 485,222,737 | |||||||||
|
Addition
of 184,900,000 partnership units
|
- | 12,435,374,223 | 12,435,374,223 | |||||||||
|
Redemption
of 116,400,000 partnership units
|
- | (9,495,476,670 | ) | (9,495,476,670 | ) | |||||||
|
Net
loss
|
- | (855,496,359 | ) | (855,496,359 | ) | |||||||
|
Balances,
at December 31, 2008
|
- | 2,569,623,931 | 2,569,623,931 | |||||||||
|
Addition
of 182,900,000 partnership units
|
- | 5,679,117,242 | 5,679,117,242 | |||||||||
|
Redemption
of 194,700,000 partnership units
|
- | (6,426,867,075 | ) | (6,426,867,075 | ) | |||||||
|
Net
income
|
- | 649,378,719 | 649,378,719 | |||||||||
|
Balances,
at December 31, 2009
|
$ | - | $ | 2,471,252,817 | $ | 2,471,252,817 | ||||||
|
Net
Asset Value Per Unit
|
||||||||||||
|
At
December 31, 2006
|
$ | 51.87 | ||||||||||
|
At
December 31, 2007
|
$ | 75.82 | ||||||||||
|
At
December 31, 2008
|
$ | 34.31 | ||||||||||
|
At
December 31, 2009
|
$ | 39.16 | ||||||||||
See
accompanying notes to financial statements.
96
United
States Oil Fund, LP
For
the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007
|
Year ended
|
Year ended
|
Year ended
|
||||||||||
|
December 31,
2009
|
December 31,
2008
|
December 31,
2007
|
||||||||||
|
Cash
Flows from Operating Activities:
|
||||||||||||
|
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 649,378,719 | $ | (855,496,359 | ) | $ | 284,415,896 | |||||
|
Adjustments
to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities:
|
||||||||||||
|
Decrease
(increase) in commodity futures trading account – cash
|
1,033,795,481 | (1,270,135,282 | ) | 792,886 | ||||||||
|
Unrealized
gain on futures contracts
|
(86,661,950 | ) | (61,911,080 | ) | (70,088,020 | ) | ||||||
|
Decrease
in interest receivable and other assets
|
341,284 | 334,931 | 1,259,974 | |||||||||
|
Increase
(decrease) in management fees payable
|
397,857 | 286,638 | (105,954 | ) | ||||||||
|
Increase
(decrease) in brokerage commission fees payable
|
(68,700 | ) | 157,200 | (21,500 | ) | |||||||
|
Increase
in professional fees payable
|
852,974 | 810,601 | 239,954 | |||||||||
|
Increase
in license fees payable
|
46,816 | 14,808 | 48,962 | |||||||||
|
Increase
(decrease) in directors’ fees payable
|
(11,193 | ) | 3,917 | 33,235 | ||||||||
|
Net
cash provided by (used in) operating activities
|
1,598,071,288 | (2,185,934,626 | ) | 216,575,433 | ||||||||
|
Cash
Flows from Financing Activities:
|
||||||||||||
|
Subscription
of partnership units
|
5,770,101,608 | 12,351,971,536 | 4,431,050,600 | |||||||||
|
Redemption
of partnership units
|
(6,321,124,005 | ) | (9,495,476,670 | ) | (5,005,693,796 | ) | ||||||
|
Net
cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
(551,022,397 | ) | 2,856,494,866 | (574,643,196 | ) | |||||||
|
Net
Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
1,047,048,891 | 670,560,240 | (358,067,763 | ) | ||||||||
|
Cash and Cash
Equivalents
, beginning of year
|
1,025,376,289 | 354,816,049 | 712,883,812 | |||||||||
|
Cash and Cash
Equivalents
, end of year
|
$ | 2,072,425,180 | $ | 1,025,376,289 | $ | 354,816,049 | ||||||
See
accompanying notes to financial statements.
97
United
States Oil Fund, LP
Notes
to Financial Statements
For
the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007
The
United States Oil Fund, LP (“USOF”) was organized as a limited partnership under
the laws of the state of Delaware on May 12, 2005. USOF is a commodity pool that
issues limited partnership units (“units”) that may be purchased and sold on the
NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “NYSE Arca”). Prior to November 25, 2008, USOF’s units
traded on the American Stock Exchange (the “AMEX”). USOF will continue in
perpetuity, unless terminated sooner upon the occurrence of one or more events
as described in its Fifth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership dated as of October 13, 2008 (the “LP Agreement”). The investment
objective of USOF is for the changes in percentage terms of its units’ net asset
value to reflect the changes in percentage terms of the spot price of light,
sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma, as measured by the changes in
the price of the futures contract on light, sweet crude oil as 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 become, over a 4-day period,
the next month contract to expire, less USOF’s expenses. USOF accomplishes
its objective through investments in futures contracts for light, sweet
crude oil, and other types of crude oil, 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 and over-the-counter transactions that are
based on the price of crude oil, heating oil, gasoline, natural gas and other
petroleum-based fuels, Oil Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing
(collectively, “Other Oil Interests”). As of December 31, 2009, USOF held 13,393
Oil Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX and 17,747 Oil Futures Contracts
traded on the ICE Futures.
USOF
commenced investment operations on April 10, 2006 and has a fiscal year ending
on December 31. United States Commodity Funds LLC (formerly known as Victoria
Bay Asset Management, LLC) (the “General Partner”) is responsible for the
management of USOF. The General Partner is a member of the National Futures
Association (the “NFA”) and became a commodity pool operator
registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission effective December 1,
2005. The General Partner is also the general partner of the United States
Natural Gas Fund, LP (“USNG”), the United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP
(“US12OF”), the United States Gasoline Fund, LP (“UGA”) and the United States
Heating Oil Fund, LP (“USHO”), which listed their limited partnership units on
the AMEX under the ticker symbols “UNG” on April 18, 2007, “USL” on
December 6, 2007, “UGA” on February 26, 2008 and “UHN” on April 9, 2008,
respectively. As a result of the acquisition of the AMEX by NYSE Euronext, each
of USNG’s, US12OF’s, UGA’s and USHO’s units commenced trading on the NYSE Arca
on November 25, 2008. The General Partner is also the general partner of the
United States Short Oil Fund, LP (“USSO”) and the United States 12 Month Natural
Gas Fund, LP, which listed their limited partnership units on the NYSE Arca on
September 24, 2009 and November 18, 2009, respectively. The General Partner has
also filed registration statements to register units of the United States Brent
Oil Fund, LP (“USBO”) and the United States Commodity Index Funds Trust
(“USCI”).
USOF
issues units to certain authorized purchasers (“Authorized Purchasers”) by
offering baskets consisting of 100,000 units (“Creation Baskets”) through
ALPS Distributors, Inc. (the “Marketing Agent”). The purchase price for a
Creation Basket is based upon the net asset value of a unit 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.
In
addition, Authorized Purchasers pay USOF a $1,000 fee for each order placed
to create one or more Creation Baskets or redeem one or more baskets
consisting of 100,000 units (“Redemption Baskets”). Units may be purchased
or sold on a nationally recognized securities exchange in smaller increments
than a Creation Basket or Redemption Basket. Units purchased or sold on a
nationally recognized securities exchange are not purchased or sold at the net
asset value of USOF but rather at market prices quoted on such
exchange.
In April
2006, USOF initially registered 17,000,000 units on Form S-1 with the SEC. On
April 10, 2006, USOF listed its units on the AMEX under the ticker symbol “USO”.
On that day, USOF established its initial net asset value by setting the
price at $67.39 per unit and issued 200,000 units in exchange for $13,479,000.
USOF also commenced investment operations on April 10, 2006 by purchasing Oil
Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX based on light, sweet crude
oil. As of December 31, 2009, USOF had registered a total of 1,627,000,000
units.
98
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 statement of financial condition and in
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 statement
of operations. USOF earns interest on its assets denominated in U.S. dollars on
deposit with the futures commission merchant at the overnight Federal Funds
Rate less 32 basis points. In addition, USOF earns interest on funds held at the
custodian 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
USOF 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.
Additions
and Redemptions
Authorized
Purchasers may purchase Creation Baskets or redeem Redemption Baskets only in
blocks of 100,000 units equal to the net asset value of the units calculated
shortly after the close of the core trading session on the NYSE Arca on the day
the order is placed.
USOF
receives or pays the proceeds from units 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 USOF’s statement of financial condition
as receivable for units sold, and amounts payable to Authorized Purchasers upon
redemption are reflected as payable for units redeemed.
Partnership
Capital and Allocation of Partnership Income and Losses
Profit or
loss shall be allocated among the partners of USOF in proportion to the number
of units each partner holds as of the close of each month. The General Partner
may revise, alter or otherwise modify this method of allocation as described in
the LP Agreement.
Calculation
of Net Asset Value
USOF’s
net asset value is calculated on each NYSE Arca trading day by taking the
current market value of its total assets, subtracting any liabilities and
dividing the amount by the total number of units issued and outstanding. USOF
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 Unit
Net
income (loss) per unit is the difference between the net asset value per
unit at the beginning of each period and at the end of each period. The
weighted average number of units outstanding was computed for purposes of
disclosing net income (loss) per weighted average unit. The weighted average
units are equal to the number of units outstanding at the end of the period,
adjusted proportionately for units redeemed based on the amount of time the
units were outstanding during such period. There were no units held by the
General Partner at December 31, 2009.
99
Offering
Costs
Offering
costs incurred in connection with the registration of additional units after the
initial registration of units are borne by USOF. These costs include
registration fees paid to regulatory agencies and all legal, accounting,
printing and other expenses associated with such offerings. These costs will be
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 three months or less.
Use
of Estimates
The
preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America requires USOF’s management 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 could differ from those estimates
and assumptions.
General
Partner Management Fee
Under the
LP Agreement, the General Partner is responsible for investing the assets of
USOF in accordance with the objectives and policies of USOF. In addition, the
General Partner has arranged for one or more third parties to provide
administrative, custody, accounting, transfer agency and other necessary
services to USOF. For these services through December 31, 2008, USOF was
contractually obligated to pay the General Partner a fee, which was paid
monthly, that was equal to 0.50% per annum of average daily net assets of
$1,000,000,000 or less and 0.20% per annum of average daily net assets that
were greater than $1,000,000,000. As of January 1, 2009, this fee changed to
0.45% per annum of all amounts of average daily net assets.
Ongoing
Registration Fees and Other Offering Expenses
USOF pays
all costs and expenses associated with the ongoing registration of its units
subsequent to the initial offering. These costs include
registration or other fees paid to regulatory agencies in connection with the
offer and sale of units, and all legal, accounting, printing and other expenses
associated with such offer and sale. For the years ended December 31, 2009,
2008 and 2007, USOF incurred $1,230,850, $687,209, $380,992, respectively, in
registration fees and other offering expenses.
Directors’
Fees and Expenses
USOF is
responsible for paying its portion of the directors’ and officers’ liability
insurance of the General Partner and the fees and expenses of the independent
directors of the General Partner who are also the General Partner’s audit
committee members. USOF shares these fees and expenses with USNG, US12OF,
UGA, USHO, USSO and US12NG based on the relative assets of each fund, computed
on a daily basis. These fees and expenses for the calendar year 2009 amounted to
a total of $433,046 for all funds and USOF’s portion of such fees and expenses
was $254,952. For the calendar years 2008 and 2007, these fees and
expenses were $282,000 and $286,000, respectively, and USOF’s portion of such
fees and expenses was $144,929 and $184,000, respectively.
100
Licensing
Fees
As
discussed in Note 4, USOF entered into a licensing agreement with the NYMEX
on May 30, 2007. Pursuant to the agreement, USOF and the affiliated
funds managed by the General Partner pay a licensing fee that is 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. During the years ended December 31,
2009, 2008 and 2007, USOF incurred $623,062, $279,809 and $385,335,
respectively, under this arrangement.
Investor
Tax Reporting Cost
The fees
and expenses associated with USOF’s audit expenses and tax accounting and
reporting requirements are paid by USOF. These costs are approximately
$1,750,000 as of December 31, 2009.
Other
Expenses and Fees
In
addition to the fees described above, USOF pays all brokerage fees and
other expenses in connection with the operation of USOF, excluding costs and
expenses paid by the General Partner as outlined in Note 4.
USOF is
party to a marketing agent agreement, dated as of March 13, 2006, with the
Marketing Agent and the General Partner, whereby the Marketing Agent provides
certain marketing services for USOF as outlined in the agreement. The fees of
the Marketing Agent, which are borne by the General Partner, include a marketing
fee of $425,000 per annum plus the following incentive fee: 0.00% on USOF’s
assets from $0 - $500 million; 0.04% on USOF’s assets from $500 million - $4
billion; and 0.03% on USOF’s assets in excess of $4 billion.
The above
fees do not include the following expenses, which are also borne by the General
Partner: the cost of placing advertisements in various periodicals; web
construction and development; or the printing and production of various
marketing materials.
USOF is
also party to a custodian agreement, dated March 13, 2006, with Brown Brothers
Harriman & Co. (“BBH&Co.”) and the General Partner, whereby BBH&Co.
holds investments on behalf of USOF. The General Partner pays the fees of
the custodian, which are determined by the parties from time to time. In
addition, USOF is party to an administrative agency agreement, dated March 13,
2006, with the General Partner and BBH&Co., whereby BBH&Co. acts as the
administrative agent, transfer agent and registrar for USOF. The General Partner
also pays the fees of BBH&Co. for its services under this agreement and such
fees are determined by the parties from time to time.
Currently,
the General Partner 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 USOF and each of the
affiliated funds managed by the General Partner, as well as a $20,000 annual fee
for its transfer agency services. In addition, the General Partner pays
BBH&Co. an asset-based charge of (a) 0.06% for the first $500 million of
USOF’s, USNG’s, US12OF’s, UGA’s, USHO’s, USSO’s and US12NG’s combined net
assets, (b) 0.0465% for USOF’s, USNG’s, US12OF’s, UGA’s, USHO’s, USSO’s and
US12NG’s combined net assets greater than $500 million but less than $1 billion,
and (c) 0.035% once USOF’s, USNG’s, US12OF’s, UGA’s, USHO’s, USSO’s and US12NG’s
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. The
General Partner also pays transaction fees ranging from $7.00 to $15.00 per
transaction.
USOF has
entered into a brokerage agreement with UBS Securities LLC (“UBS Securities”).
The agreement requires UBS Securities to provide services to USOF in connection
with the purchase and sale of Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil Interests that
may be purchased and sold by or through UBS Securities for USOF’s account. The
agreement provides that UBS Securities charge USOF commissions of approximately
$7 per round-turn trade, plus applicable exchange and NFA fees for Oil Futures
Contracts and options on Oil Futures Contracts.
On May
30, 2007, USOF and the NYMEX entered into a licensing agreement whereby USOF was
granted a non-exclusive license to use certain of the NYMEX’s settlement prices
and service marks. The agreement has an effective date of April 10,
2006. Under the licensing agreement, USOF and the affiliated funds
managed by the General Partner pay the NYMEX an asset-based fee for the license,
the terms of which are described in Note 3.
101
USOF
expressly disclaims any association with the NYMEX or endorsement of USOF by the
NYMEX and acknowledges that “NYMEX” and “New York Mercantile Exchange” are
registered trademarks of the NYMEX.
USOF engages
in the trading of futures contracts, options on futures contracts and cleared
swaps (collectively, “derivatives”). USOF 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.
USOF 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.
The
purchase and sale of futures contracts, options on futures contracts and cleared
swaps require margin deposits with a futures commission merchant. Additional
deposits may be necessary for any loss on contract value. The Commodity Exchange
Act requires a futures commission merchant to segregate all customer
transactions and assets from the futures commission merchant’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 USOF 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.
All of
the futures contracts currently traded by USOF 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, USOF must rely solely on the credit of its
respective individual counterparties. However, in the future, if USOF were
to enter into non-exchange traded contracts, it would be 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. USOF also has credit risk 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, USOF bears the risk of financial failure by the clearing
broker.
USOF’s
cash and other property, such as U.S. Treasuries, deposited with a futures
commission merchant are considered commingled with all other customer funds
subject to the futures commission merchant’s segregation requirements. In the
event of a futures commission merchant’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 futures commission merchant could result in the
complete loss of USOF’s assets posted with that futures commission merchant;
however, the vast majority of USOF’s assets are held in Treasuries, cash and/or
cash equivalents with USOF’s custodian and would not be impacted by the
insolvency of a futures commission merchant. Also, the failure or insolvency of
USOF’s custodian could result in a substantial loss of USOF’s
assets.
USOF
invests a portion of its cash in money market funds that seek to maintain a
stable net asset value. USOF is exposed to any risk of loss associated with an
investment in these money market funds. As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, USOF
had deposits in domestic and foreign financial institutions, including cash
investments in money market funds, in the amounts of $2,395,095,731 and
$2,381,842,321, respectively. This amount is subject to loss should these
institutions cease operations.
For
derivatives, risks arise from changes in the market value of the contracts.
Theoretically, USOF is exposed to a 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, USOF 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.
102
USOF’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, USOF 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 USOF are reported in its 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
maturity.
The
following table presents per unit performance data and other supplemental
financial data for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007. This
information has been derived from information presented in the financial
statements.
|
Year ended
|
Year ended
|
Year ended
|
||||||||||
|
December 31,
2009
|
December 31,
2008
|
December 31,
2007
|
||||||||||
|
Per Unit Operating
Performance:
|
||||||||||||
|
Net
asset value, beginning of year
|
$ | 34.31 | $ | 75.82 | $ | 51.87 | ||||||
|
Total income
(loss)
|
5.11 | (40.91 | ) | 24.41 | ||||||||
|
Total
expenses
|
(0.26 | ) | (0.60 | ) | (0.46 | ) | ||||||
|
Net
increase (decrease) in net asset value
|
4.85 | (41.51 | ) | 23.95 | ||||||||
|
Net
asset value, end of year
|
$ | 39.16 | $ | 34.31 | $ | 75.82 | ||||||
|
Total
Return
|
14.14 | % | (54.75 | ) % | 46.17 | % | ||||||
|
Ratios
to Average Net Assets
|
||||||||||||
|
Total income
(loss)
|
25.76 | % | (95.22 | ) % | 39.68 | % | ||||||
|
Expenses
excluding management fees
|
0.33 | % | 0.45 | % | 0.36 | % | ||||||
|
Management
fees
|
0.45 | % | 0.46 | % | 0.50 | % | ||||||
|
Net income
(loss)
|
24.97 | % | (96.13 | ) % | 38.82 | % | ||||||
Total
returns are calculated based on the change in value during the period. An
individual limited partner’s total return and ratio may vary from the above
total returns and ratios based on the timing of contributions to and withdrawals
from USOF.
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, 2009 and 2008.
103
|
First
Quarter
|
Second
Quarter
|
Third
Quarter
|
Fourth
Quarter
|
|||||||||||||
|
2009
|
2009
|
2009
|
2009
|
|||||||||||||
|
Tot Total
Income (Loss)
|
$ | (247,059,730 | ) | $ | 740,481,296 | $ | (60,967,448 | ) | $ | 237,281,996 | ||||||
|
Total
Expenses
|
6,366,485 | 5,895,357 | 3,886,594 | 4,208,959 | ||||||||||||
|
Net
Income (Loss)
|
$ | (253,426,215 | ) | $ | 734,585,939 | $ | (64,854,042 | ) | $ | 233,073,037 | ||||||
|
Net
Income (Loss) per Unit
|
$ | (4.95 | ) | $ | 8.46 | $ | (1.51 | ) | $ | 2.85 | ||||||
|
First
Quarter
|
Second
Quarter
|
Third
Quarter
|
Fourth
Quarter
|
|||||||||||||
|
2008
|
2008
|
2008
|
2008
|
|||||||||||||
|
Tot Total
Income (Loss)
|
$ | 30,757,600 | $ | 249,301,882 | $ | (382,128,020 | ) | $ | (745,312,027 | ) | ||||||
|
Total
Expenses
|
1,345,783 | 1,903,219 | 2,263,544 | 2,603,248 | ||||||||||||
|
Net
Income (Loss)
|
$ | 29,411,817 | $ | 247,398,663 | $ | (384,391,564 | ) | $ | (747,915,275 | ) | ||||||
|
Net
Income (Loss) per Unit
|
$ | 5.51 | $ | 31.98 | $ | (32.13 | ) | $ | (46.87 | ) | ||||||
Effective
January 1, 2008, USOF adopted 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 USOF (observable inputs) and (2) USOF’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 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
following tables summarize the valuation of USOF’s securities at December 31,
2009 and 2008 using the fair value hierarchy:
|
At December
31, 2009
|
Total
|
Level I
|
Level II
|
Level III
|
||||||||||||
|
Short-Term
Investments
|
$ | 1,764,657,971 | $ | 1,764,657,971 | $ | - | $ | - | ||||||||
|
Exchange-Traded
Futures Contracts
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Foreign Contracts
|
97,707,560 | 97,707,560 | - | - | ||||||||||||
|
United States
Contracts
|
86,570,490 | 86,570,490 | - | - | ||||||||||||
|
At December
31, 2008
|
Total
|
Level I
|
Level II
|
Level III
|
||||||||||||
|
Short-Term
Investments
|
$ | 410,363,791 | $ | 410,363,791 | $ | - | $ | - | ||||||||
|
Exchange-Traded
Futures Contracts
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Foreign
Contracts
|
9,851,000 | 9,851,000 | - | - | ||||||||||||
|
United
States Contracts
|
87,765,100 | 87,765,100 | - | - | ||||||||||||
104
Effective January 1, 2009, USOF adopted the provisions
of
Accounting
Standards Codification 815
—
Derivatives
and Hedging (“
ASC
815”
)
,
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
|
At
|
At
|
||||||||
|
December
31,
|
December 31,
|
||||||||
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||||||
|
Derivatives not
|
Statement of
|
||||||||
|
Accounted for as
|
Financial
|
||||||||
|
for as Hedging
|
Condition
|
||||||||
|
Instruments
|
Location
|
Fair
Value
|
Fair
Value
|
||||||
|
Futures
-
|
|||||||||
|
Commodity
Contracts
|
Assets
|
$ | 184,278,050 | $ | 97,616,100 | ||||
The
Effect of Derivative Instruments on the Statement of Operations
|
For the year
ended
|
For the year
ended
|
||||||||||||||||
|
December
31,
|
December
31,
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Realized
|
Change in
|
Realized
|
Change in
|
||||||||||||||
|
Location of
|
Gain or (Loss)
|
Unrealized
|
Gain or (Loss)
|
Unrealized
|
|||||||||||||
|
Derivatives not
|
Gain or (Loss)
|
on Derivatives
|
Gain or (Loss)
|
on Derivatives
|
Gain or (Loss)
|
||||||||||||
|
Accounted for as
|
on Derivatives
|
Recognized
|
Recognized
|
Recognized
|
Recognized
|
||||||||||||
|
for as Hedging
|
Recognized
|
in Income
|
in Income
|
in Income
|
in Income
|
||||||||||||
|
Instruments
|
in Income
|
2009
|
2009
|
2008
|
2008
|
||||||||||||
|
Futures
-
|
Realized
gain (loss) on
|
$
|
578,446,510
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
(923,692,430
|
)
|
-
|
||||||||
|
Commodity
Contracts
|
closed
futures contracts
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Change
in unrealized
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
86,661,950
|
-
|
$
|
61,911,080
|
||||||||||
|
gain
(loss) on open futures contracts
|
|||||||||||||||||
In March
2008, the Financial Accounting Standards Board released Accounting Standards
Codification 815 – Derivatives and Hedging (“ASC 815”). ASC 815 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. USOF adopted ASC 815 on January 1,
2009.
In
January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting
Standards Update (“ASU”)
No. 2010-06 “Improving
Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements.” ASU No. 2010-06 clarifies existing
disclosure and
requires additional
disclosures regarding fair value measurements. Effective for interim and annual
reporting periods
beginning after December
15, 2009, entities will be required to disclose significant transfers into and
out of Level 1
and 2
measurements in the fair value hierarchy and the reasons for those transfers.
Effective for fiscal years beginning
after December 15, 2010,
and for interim periods within those fiscal years, entities will need to
disclose information
about purchases, sales,
issuances and settlements of Level 3 securities on a gross basis, rather than as
a net number as
currently required. The
General Partner is currently evaluating the impact ASU No. 2010-06 will have on
the financial statement
disclosures.
USOF has
performed an evaluation of subsequent events through February 26, 2010, which is
the date the financial statements were available to be issued. This evaluation
did not result in any subsequent events that necessitated disclosures and/or
adjustments.
Not
applicable.
Disclosure
Controls and Procedures
USOF
maintains disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that
material information required to be disclosed in USOF’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 the General Partner, 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 USOF if
USOF had any officers, have evaluated the effectiveness of USOF’s
disclosure controls and procedures and have concluded that the
disclosure controls and procedures of USOF 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
USOF is
responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over
financial reporting. USOF’s internal control system is designed to provide
reasonable assurance to its management and the board of directors of the General
Partner 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. Management’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.
105
Change
in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There
were no changes in USOF’s internal control over financial reporting during
USOF’s last fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably
likely to materially affect, USOF’s internal control over financial
reporting.
Monthly
Account Statements
Pursuant
to the requirement under Rule 4.22 under the CEA, each month USOF publishes an
account statement for its unitholders, which includes a Statement of Income
(Loss) and a Statement of Changes in NAV. 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 USOF’s website at
www.unitedstatesoilfund.com.
Mr.
Nicholas Gerber and Mr. Howard Mah serve as executive officers of the General
Partner. USOF has no executive officers. Its affairs are generally managed by
the General Partner. The following individuals serve as Management Directors of
the General Partner.
Nicholas
Gerber
has been the President and CEO of the General Partner since June
9, 2005 and a Management Director of the General Partner since May 10, 2005. He
maintains his main business office at 1320 Harbor Bay Parkway, Suite 145,
Alameda, California 94502. Mr. Gerber has also acted as a portfolio manager for
USOF and the Related Public Funds. He has been listed with the CFTC as a
Principal of the General Partner since November 29, 2005, as Branch Manager of
the General Partner since May 15, 2009 and registered with the CFTC as an
Associated Person of the General Partner on December 1, 2005. Currently, Mr.
Gerber manages USOF and the Related Public Funds. He will also manage USBO and
USCI. Mr. Gerber also served as Vice President/Chief Investment Officer of
Lyon’s Gate Reinsurance Company, Ltd. from June 2003 to December 2009. Mr.
Gerber has an extensive background in securities portfolio management and in
developing investment funds that make use of indexing and futures contracts. He
is also the founder of Ameristock Corporation, 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
March 1995. Since August 1995, Mr. Gerber has been the portfolio manager of the
Ameristock Mutual Fund, Inc. a mutual fund registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940, focused on large cap U.S. equities that, as of December 31,
2009, had $219,616,809 in assets. He has also been a Trustee for the Ameristock
ETF Trust since June 2006, and served as a portfolio manager for the
Ameristock/Ryan 1 Year, 2 Year, 5 Year, 10 Year and 20 Year Treasury ETF from
June 2007 to June 2008 when such funds were liquidated. In these roles, Mr.
Gerber has gained extensive experience in evaluating and retaining third-party
service providers, including custodians, accountants, transfer agents, and
distributors. Mr. Gerber has passed the Series 3 examination for associated
persons. He holds an MBA in finance from the University of San Francisco and a
BA from Skidmore College. Mr. Gerber is 47 years old.
In
concluding that Mr. Gerber should serve as Management Director of the General
Partner, the General Partner considered his broad business experiences in the
industry including: forming and managing investment companies and commodity
pools, raising capital for such entities and founding and managing
non-finance related companies.
Howard Mah
has been a Management Director of the General Partner since May 10, 2005,
Secretary of the General Partner since June 9, 2005, and Chief Financial Officer
of the General Partner since May 23, 2006. He has been listed with the CFTC as a
Principal of the General Partner since November 29, 2005. In these roles, Mr.
Mah is currently involved in the management of USOF and the Related Public Funds
and will be involved in the management of USBO and USCI. Mr. Mah also serves as
the General Partner’s Chief Compliance Officer. He received a Bachelor of
Education from the University of Alberta, in 1986 and an MBA from the University
of San Francisco in 1988. He served as Secretary and Chief Compliance Officer of
the Ameristock ETF Trust from February 2007 until June 2008 when the trust was
liquidated, Chief Compliance Officer of Ameristock Corporation since January
2001; a tax and finance consultant in private practice since January 1995,
Secretary of Ameristock Mutual Fund since June 1995 and Ameristock Focused Value
Fund from December 2000 to January 2005; Chief Compliance Officer of Ameristock
Mutual Fund since August 2004 and the Co-Portfolio Manager of the Ameristock
Focused Value Fund from December 2000 to January 2005. Mr. Mah is 45 years
old.
106
In
concluding that Mr. Mah should serve as Management Director of the General
Partner, the General Partner considered his background in accounting and
finance, as well as his experience as Chief Compliance Officer for the General
Partner and Ameristock Corporation.
Andrew F.
Ngim
has been a Management Director of the General Partner since May 10,
2005 and Treasurer of the General Partner since June 9, 2005. He has been listed
with the CFTC as a Principal of the General Partner since November 29, 2005. As
Treasurer of the General Partner, Mr. Ngim is currently involved in the
management of USOF and the Related Public Funds and will be involved in the
management of USBO and USCI. He received a Bachelor of Arts from the University
of California at Berkeley in 1983. Mr. Ngim has been Ameristock Corporation’s
Managing Director since January 1999 and co-portfolio manager of Ameristock
Corporation since January 2000, Trustee of the Ameristock ETF Trust since
February 2007, and served as a portfolio manager for the Ameristock/Ryan 1 Year,
2 Year, 5 Year, 10 Year and 20 Year Treasury ETF from June 2007 to June 2008
when such funds were liquidated. Mr. Ngim is 49 years old.
In
concluding that Mr. Ngim should serve as Management Director of the General
Partner, the General Partner considered his broad career in the financial
services industry as well as experience as co-Portfolio Manager of the
Ameristock Mutual Fund.
Robert L.
Nguyen
has been a Management Director of the General Partner since May
10, 2005. He has been listed with the CFTC as a Principal of the General Partner
since November 29, 2005 and registered with the CFTC as an Associated Person on
November 9, 2007. As a Management Director of the General Partner, Mr. Nguyen is
currently involved in the management of USOF and the Related Public Funds and
will be involved in the management of USBO and USCI. He received a Bachelor of
Science from California State University Sacramento in 1981. Mr. Nguyen has been
the Managing Principal of Ameristock Corporation since January 2000. Mr. Nguyen
is 50 years old.
In
concluding that Mr. Nguyen should serve as Management Director of the General
Partner, the General Partner considered his background in the financial services
industry as well as his experience in leading the marketing efforts for
Ameristock Corporation.
The
following individuals provide significant services to USOF and are employed by
the General Partner.
John
P. Love
has acted as
the Portfolio Operations
Manager
for USOF and
the
Related Public Funds since January 2006 and, effective March 1, 2010, is the
Senior Portfolio Manager for USOF and the Related Public Funds. He
is
expected to
be
Senior Portfolio Manager for USBO and
USCI. Mr. Love is also employed by the General Partner. He has been listed with
the CFTC as a Principal of the
General Partner
since January 17, 2006. Mr. Love also
served as the operations manager of A
meristock Corporation from October 2002
to January 2007, where he was responsible for back office and marketing
activities for the Ameristock Mutual Fund and Ameristock Focused Value Fund and
for the firm in general. Mr. Love holds a Series 3 license and
w
as registered with the CFTC as an
Associated Person of the General Partner from December 1, 2005 through April 16,
2009. Mr. Love has passed the Level 1 Chartered Financial Analyst examination
and is currently a Level II candidate in the CFA Program. He h
o
lds a BFA in cinema-television from the
University of Southern California. Mr. Love is 38 years old.
107
John T. Hyland,
CFA
acts as a Portfolio Manager and as the Chief Investment Officer for
the General Partner. Mr. Hyland is employed by the General Partner. He
registered with the CFTC as an Associated Person of the General Partner on
December 1, 2005, and has been listed as a Principal of the General Partner
since January 17, 2006. Mr. Hyland became the Portfolio Manager for USOF, USNG,
US12OF, UGA, USHO, USSO and US12NG in April 2006, April 2007, December 2007,
February 2008, April 2008, September, 2009 and November, 2009 respectively, and
as Chief Investment Officer of the General Partner since January 2008, acts in
such capacity on behalf of USOF and the Related Public Funds. He is also
expected to become the Portfolio Manager for USBO and USCI. As part of his
responsibilities for USOF and the Related Public Funds, Mr. Hyland handles
day-to-day trading, helps set investment policies, and oversees USOF’s and the
Related Public Funds’ activities with their futures commission brokers,
custodian-administrator, and marketing agent. Mr. Hyland has an extensive
background in portfolio management and research with both equity and fixed
income securities, as well as in the development of new types of complex
investment funds. In July 2001, Mr. Hyland founded Towerhouse Capital
Management, LLC, a firm that provides portfolio management and new fund
development expertise to non-U.S. institutional investors. Mr. Hyland has been,
and remains, a Principal and Portfolio Manager for Towerhouse. Mr. Hyland
received his Chartered Financial Analyst (“CFA”) designation in 1994. Mr. Hyland
is a member of the CFA Institute (formerly AIMR). He is also a member of the
National Association of Petroleum Investment Analysts, a not-for-profit
organization of investment professionals focused on the oil industry. He serves
as an arbitrator for FINRA, as part of their dispute resolution program. He is a
graduate of the University of California, Berkeley. Mr. Hyland is 50 years
old.
The
following individuals serve as independent directors of the General
Partner.
Peter M.
Robinson
has been an Independent Director of the General Partner since
September 30, 2005 and, as such, serves on the board of directors of the General
Partner, which acts on behalf of USOF, and the Related Public Funds and will
serve on behalf of USBO and USCI, if such funds commence operations. He has been
listed with the CFTC as a Principal of the General Partner since December
2005. Mr. Robinson has been employed as a Research Fellow with the
Hoover Institution since 1993. The Hoover Institution is a public policy think
tank located on the campus of Stanford University. Mr. Robinson graduated from
Dartmouth College in 1979 and Oxford University in 1982. Mr. Robinson received
an MBA from the Stanford University Graduate School of Business. Mr. Robinson
has also written three books and has been published in the
New York Times
,
Red Herring
, and
Forbes ASAP
and he is the
editor of
Can Congress Be
Fixed?: Five Essays on Congressional Reform
(Hoover Institution Press,
1995). Mr. Robinson is 52 years old.
In
concluding that Mr. Robinson should serve as Independent Director of the General
Partner, the General Partner considered his broad experience in the United
States government, including his employment at the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and his knowledge of and insight into public policy.
Gordon L.
Ellis
has been an Independent Director of the General Partner since
September 30, 2005 and, as such, serves on the board of directors of the General
Partner, which acts on behalf of USOF, and the Related Public Funds and will
serve on behalf of USBO and USCI, if such funds commence operations. He has been
listed with the CFTC as a Principal of the General Partner since November 2005.
Mr. Ellis has been Chairman of International Absorbents, Inc., a holding company
of Absorption Corp., since July 1988, President and Chief Executive Officer
since November 1996 and a Class I Director of the company since July 1985. Mr.
Ellis is also a director of Absorption Corp., International Absorbents, Inc.’s
wholly-owned subsidiary which is engaged in developing, manufacturing and
marketing a wide range of animal care and industrial absorbent products. Mr.
Ellis is a director/trustee of Polymer Solutions, Inc., a former publicly-held
company that sold all of its assets effective as of February 3, 2004 and is
currently winding down its operations and liquidating following such sale.
Polymer Solutions previously manufactured paints, coatings, stains and primers
for wood furniture manufacturers. Mr. Ellis is a professional engineer with an
MBA in international finance. Mr. Ellis is 63 years old.
In
concluding that Mr. Ellis should serve as Independent Director of the General
Partner, the General Partner considered his experience serving as the Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer of a former publicly-traded corporation as well as
his experience as an entrepreneur.
Malcolm R. Fobes
III
has been an Independent Director of the General Partner since
September 30, 2005 and, as such, serves on the board of directors of the General
Partner, which acts on behalf of USOF and the Related Public Funds and will
serve on behalf of USBO and USCI, if such funds commence operations. He has been
listed with the CFTC as a Principal of the General Partner since November 2005.
Mr. Fobes is the founder, 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. Since June 1997,
Mr. Fobes has been the Chairman and President of The Berkshire Funds, a mutual
fund investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Mr.
Fobes also serves 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. From April 2000 to July 2006,
Mr. Fobes also served as co-portfolio manager of The Wireless Fund, a mutual
fund registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, which concentrates its
investments in companies engaged in the development, production, or distribution
of wireless-related products or services. In these roles, Mr. Fobes has gained
extensive experience in evaluating and retaining third-party service providers,
including custodians, accountants, transfer agents, and distributors. Mr. Fobes
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 holds a B.S. degree in Finance and Economics from San Jose State
University in California. Mr. Fobes is 45 years old.
108
In
concluding that Mr. Fobes should serve as Independent Director of the General
Partner, the General Partner considered his background as founder, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of a registered investment adviser as well as
Chairman, President, Chief Financial Officer and Portfolio Manager of a
mutual fund investment company.
The
following are individual Principals, as that term is defined in CFTC Rule 3.1,
for the General Partner: Melinda Gerber, the Gerber Family Trust, the Nicholas
and Melinda Gerber Living Trust, Howard Mah, Andrew Ngim, Robert Nguyen, Peter
Robinson, Gordon Ellis, Malcolm Fobes, John Love, John Hyland, Ray Allen and
Wainwright Holdings Inc. 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 USOF. Nicholas Gerber and John Hyland make trading
and investment decisions for USOF. John Love and John Hyland execute trades on
behalf of USOF. In addition, Nicholas Gerber, John Hyland, Robert Nguyen and Ray
Allen are registered with the CFTC as Associated Persons of the General Partner
and are NFA Associate Members.
Audit
Committee
The Board
of the General Partner has an audit committee which is made up of the three
independent directors (Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes
III). The audit committee is governed by an audit committee charter that is
posted on USOF’s website at www.unitedstatesoilfund.com. Any unitholder of USOF
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 USOF are not compensated by USOF, but
instead by the General Partner. USOF does not have a compensation committee.
Similarly, since the Directors noted above serve on the board of directors of
the General Partner, there is no nominating committee of the board of directors
that acts on behalf of USOF. The General Partner believes that it is necessary
for each member of the Board of Directors to posess many qualities and skills.
The General Partner further believes that all directors should possess a
considerable amount of business management and educational
experience. There have not been any vacancies on the General
Partner’s Board of Directors since the commencement of operations of USOF in
April 2006; however, if such a vacancy were to occur, the members of the Board
of Directors 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 of Directors 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 of Directors does not have a formal policy with respect to
diversity; however, the Board of Directors believes that it is essential that
the Board members represent diverse viewpoints.
Corporate
Governance Policy
The Board
of the General Partner has adopted a Corporate Governance Policy that applies to
USOF, US12OF, USNG, UGA, USHO, USSO, US12NG, USBO, and USCI. USOF has posted the
text of the Corporate Governance Policy on its website at
www.unitedstatesoilfund.com. Any unitholder of USOF may also obtain a
printed copy of the Corporate Governance Policy, free of charge, by calling
1-800-920-0259.
109
Code
of Ethics
The
General Partner of USOF 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 USOF. USOF has posted the text of
the Code of Ethics on its website at www.unitedstatesoilfund.com. Any
unitholder of USOF may also obtain a printed copy of the Code of Ethics, free of
charge, by calling 1-800-920-0259. USOF intends to disclose any amendments or
waivers to the Code of Ethics applicable to the General Partner’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 the General Partner, 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 the General Partner. The non-management directors have
designated Malcolm R. Fobes III 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. Fobes 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 the General Partner is led by a Chairman, Nicholas Gerber, who is also the
President and CEO of the General Partner. 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 USOF’s independent auditors and
the oversight of USOF’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 the General Partner’s and USOF’s customers, employees,
suppliers and the communities impacted by USOF. The non-management directors
have designated Malcolm R. Fobes III as the presiding independent
director. Mr. Fobes’s 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 USOF’s Corporate Governance
Policy.
The Board
believes that Mr. Gerber is best situated to serve as Chairman of the General
Partner because he is the director most familiar with the business of the
General Partner, including investing in the futures contracts and other
commodity interests in order to track the benchmark futures contracts of USOF
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 the General Partner are
actively involved in the oversight of the General Partner and, because of their
varied backgrounds, provide different perspectives in connection with the
oversight of the General Partner, USOF and the Related Public Funds. The General
Partner’s independent directors bring expertise from outside the General Partner
and the commodities industry, while Mr. Gerber brings company-specific and
industry-specific experience and expertise. The Board of Directors believes that
the combined role of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer facilitates
information flow between management and the Board of Directors, including the
independent directors, which is essential to effective governance.
Risk
Management
The full
Board of Directors is actively involved in overseeing the management and
operation of the General Partner, including oversight of the risks that face
USOF and the Related Public Funds. For example, the Board of
Directors has adopted an Investment Policy and a Policy for Use of
Derivatives. The policies are intended to ensure that the General
Partner take prudent and careful action while entering into and managing
investments taken by USOF including Oil Futures Contracts or Other Oil Interests
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
USOF. The policies, among other things, limit USOF’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 of
Directors. Existing counterparties are reviewed periodically by the
Board of Directors to ensure that they continue to meet the criteria outlined in
the policies. The Board of Directors tasks management with assessing
risks, including market risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, cash flow risk, basis
risk, legal and tax risk, settlement risk, and operational
risk.
110
The Board
of Directors also determines compensation payable to employees of the General
Partner, including the portfolio managers of each of USOF and the Related Public
Funds. The compensation of certain employees of the General Partner
is, in part, based on the amount of assets under management by USOF and the
Related Public Funds. The Board of Directors 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 USOF and
the assets under management continue to increase, then USOF 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 Oil Interests as it seeks to track its
benchmark. Other Oil Futures Contracts in which USOF may invest may
not track changes in the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures
Contract. Other Oil Interests, including over-the-counter swap
contracts, may also expose USOF to increased counterparty credit risk and may be
less liquid and more difficult to value than Oil Futures
Contracts. USOF 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. The Board of
Directors in making compensation decisions consider whether a compensation
arrangement would expose USOF or the Related Public Funds to additional risks
and whether the risks posed by such arrangement are consistent with the best
interests of USOF
’s
investors.
Other
Information
In
addition to the certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the General Partner filed or furnished with this annual
report on Form 10-K regarding the quality of USOF’s public disclosure, USOF 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 the General Partner
certifying that he is not aware of any violation by USOF of NYSE Arca corporate
governance listing standards.
Section 16(a)
Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a)
of the Exchange Act requires directors and executive officers of the General
Partner and persons who are beneficial owners of at least 10% of USOF’s units to
file with the SEC an Initial Statement of Beneficial Ownership of Securities on
Form 3 within 10 calendar days of first becoming a director, executive officer
or beneficial owner of at least 10% of USOF’s units and a Statement of Changes
of Beneficial Ownership of Securities on Form 4 within 2 business days of a
subsequent acquisition or disposition of units of USOF. To USOF’s
knowledge, based upon a review of copies of reports furnished to USOF with
respect to the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 and upon the written
representations of the directors and executive officers of the General Partner,
all of such persons have filed all required reports. However, Mr. John Hyland
did not timely file an Initial Statement of Beneficial Ownership of Securities
on Form 3 upon becoming an executive officer of the General Partner in
compliance with the applicable reporting deadline. Mr. Hyland has since filed an
Initial Statement of Beneficial Ownership of Securities on Form 3. As
of the date of this annual report on Form 10-K, Mr. Hyland does not own any
units of USOF.
Compensation
to the General Partner and Other Compensation.
USOF does
not directly compensate any of the executive officers noted above. The
executive officers noted above are compensated by the General Partner for
the work they perform on behalf of USOF and other entities controlled by the
General Partner. USOF does not reimburse the General Partner for, nor does it
set the amount or form of any portion of, the compensation paid to the executive
officers by the General Partner. USOF pays fees to the General Partner pursuant
to the LP Agreement under which it is obligated to pay the General Partner
an annualized fee of 0.45% of its average daily net assets. For 2009, USOF paid
the General Partner aggregate management fees of $11,700,716.
111
Director
Compensation
The
following table sets forth compensation earned during the year ended
December 31, 2009, by the directors of the General Partner. USOF’s
portion of the aggregate fees paid to the Directors for the calendar year 2009
was $164,984.
|
Change in
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pension
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fees
|
Value and
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Earned
|
Nonqualified
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
or
|
Non-Equity
|
Deferred
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Paid in
|
Stock
|
Option
|
Incentive Plan
|
Compensation
|
All Other
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Name
|
Cash
|
Awards
|
Awards
|
Compensation
|
Plan
|
Compensation
|
Total
|
||||||||||||||
|
Management
Directors
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nicholas
Gerber
|
$ | 0 |
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
$ | 0 | $ | 0 | $ | 0 | ||||||||||
|
Andrew
F. Ngim
|
$ | 0 |
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
$ | 0 | $ | 0 | $ | 0 | ||||||||||
|
Howard
Mah
|
$ | 0 |
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
$ | 0 | $ | 0 | $ | 0 | ||||||||||
|
Robert
L. Nguyen
|
$ | 0 |
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
$ | 0 | $ | 0 | $ | 0 | ||||||||||
|
Independent
Directors
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Peter
M. Robinson
|
$ | 100,000 |
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
$ | 0 | $ | 0 | $ | 100,000 | ||||||||||
|
Gordon
L. Ellis
|
$ | 101,000 |
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
$ | 0 | $ | 0 | $ | 101,000 | ||||||||||
|
Malcolm
R. Fobes III(1)
|
$ | 121,000 |
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
$ | 0 | $ | 0 | $ | 121,000 | ||||||||||
|
(1)
|
Mr.
Fobes serves as chairman of the audit committee of the General Partner and
receives additional compensation in recognition of the additional
responsibilities he has undertaken in this
role.
|
None of
the directors or executive officers of the General Partner, nor the employees of
USOF own any units of USOF. In addition, USOF is not aware of any 5% holder
of its units.
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions
USOF has
and will continue to have certain relationships with the General Partner and its
affiliates. However, there have been no direct financial transactions
between USOF and the directors or officers of the General Partner 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 USOF with directors or executive officers of the General Partner
or holders of beneficial interests in the General Partner or USOF 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 the General
Partner.
Director
Independence
In
February 2010, the Board undertook a review of the independence of the directors
of the General Partner and considered whether any director has a material
relationship or other arrangement with the General Partner, USOF 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.
112
The fees
for services billed to USOF by its independent auditors for the last two fiscal
years are as follows:
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||
|
Audit
fees
|
$ | 160,000 | * | $ | 160,000 | |||
|
Audit-related
fees
|
- | - | ||||||
|
Tax
fees
|
- | - | ||||||
|
All
other fees
|
- | - | ||||||
| $ | 160,000 | * | $ | 160,000 | ||||
_________________________
* Amount expected to be billed for
2009 services.
Audit
fees consist of fees paid to Spicer Jeffries LLP for (i) the audit of
USOF’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 USOF’s current reports on Form 8-K; (ii) the audit of
USOF’s internal control over financial reporting included in the annual report
on Form 10-K; and (iii) 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 USOF’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 USOF’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.
|
1.
|
See
Index to Financial Statements on page 88.
|
|
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.
|
113
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*
|
Fifth
Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership.
|
|
3.2**
|
Certificate
of Limited Partnership of the Registrant.
|
|
3.4*
|
Fourth
Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of the General
Partn
er.
|
|
10.1***
|
Form
of Initial Authorized Purchaser
Agreement.
|
|
10.2*
|
Marketing
Agent Agreement
.
|
|
10.3****
|
License
Agreement.
|
|
10.4*
|
Custodian
Agreement.
|
|
10.5*
|
Amendment
Agreement to the Custodian Agreement.
|
|
10.6*
|
Administrative
Agency Agreement.
|
|
10.7*
|
Amendment
Agreement to the Administrative Agency
Agreement.
|
|
10.8*
|
Amendment
Agreement to the Marketing Agent
Agreement.
|
|
14.1*****
|
Code
of Ethics.
|
|
23.1****
*
*
|
Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm.
|
|
31.1****
*
*
|
Certification
of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|
|
31.2****
*
*
|
Certification
of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|
|
32.1****
*
*
|
Certification
of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U. S. C.
1350).
|
|
32.2****
*
*
|
Certification
of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U. S. C.
1350).
|
|
*
|
Incorporated
by reference to Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
Quarter ended September 30, 2009, filed on November 16,
2009.
|
|
**
|
Incorporated
by reference to Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No.
333-124950) filed on May 16, 2005.
|
|
***
|
Incorporated
by reference to Registrant’s Pre-Effective Amendment No. 5 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-124950) filed on March
13, 2006.
|
|
****
|
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.
|
|
*****
|
Incorporated
by reference to Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2008, filed on March 2, 2009.
|
|
******
|
Filed
herewith.
|
114
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 Oil Fund, LP (Registrant)
|
||
|
By:
|
United
States Commodity Funds LLC, its general partner
|
|
|
(formerly
known as Victoria Bay Asset Management, LLC)
|
||
|
By:
|
/s/
Nicholas
D. Gerber
|
|
|
Nicholas
D. Gerber
|
||
|
President
and Chief Executive Officer
|
||
|
(Principal
executive officer)
|
||
|
Date:
March 1, 2010
|
||
|
By:
|
/s/
Howard
Mah
|
|
|
Howard
Mah
|
||
|
Chief
Financial Officer
|
||
|
(Principal
financial and accounting officer)
|
||
|
Date:
March 1, 2010
|
||
115
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
1, 2010
|
||
|
Nicholas
D. Gerber
|
||||
|
/s/
Howard
Mah
|
Management
Director
|
March
1, 2010
|
||
|
Howard
Mah
|
||||
|
/s/
Andrew
Ngim
|
Management
Director
|
March
1, 2010
|
||
|
Andrew
Ngim
|
||||
|
/s/
Robert Nguyen
|
Management
Director
|
March
1, 2010
|
||
|
Robert
Nguyen
|
||||
|
/s/
Peter
M. Robinson
|
Independent
Director
|
March
1, 2010
|
||
|
Peter
M. Robinson
|
||||
|
/s/
Gordon L. Ellis
|
Independent
Director
|
March
1, 2010
|
||
|
Gordon
L. Ellis
|
||||
|
/s/
Malcolm R. Fobes III
|
Independent
Director
|
March
1, 2010
|
||
|
Malcolm
R. Fobes III
|
|
|
116
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part IItem 1. BusinessItem 1A. Risk FactorsItem 1B. Unresolved Staff CommentsItem 2. PropertiesItem 3. Legal ProceedingsItem 4. ReservedPart IIItem 5. Market For Registrant S Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases Of Equity SecuritiesItem 6. Selected Financial DataItem 7. Management S Discussion and Analysis Of Financial Condition and Results Of OperationsItem 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure About Market RiskItem 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary DataNote 1 - Organization and BusinessNote 2 - Summary Of Significant Accounting PoliciesNote 3 - Fees Paid By The Fund and Related Party TransactionsNote 4 - Contracts and AgreementsNote 5 - Financial Instruments, Off-balance Sheet Risks and ContingenciesNote 6 - Financial HighlightsNote 7 Quarterly Financial Data (unaudited)Note 8 - Fair Value Of Financial InstrumentsNote 9 Recent Accounting PronouncementsNote 10 Subsequent EventsItem 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial DisclosureItem 9A. Controls and ProceduresItem 9B. Other InformationPart IIIItem 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate GovernanceItem 11. Executive CompensationItem 12. Security Ownership Of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder MattersItem 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director IndependenceItem 14. Principal Accountant Fees and ServicesPart IVItem 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules