Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis
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 the United States Gasoline Fund, LP (“UGA”) included elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K.
Forward-Looking Information
This annual report on Form 10-K, including this “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” contains forward-looking statements regarding the plans and objectives of management for future operations. This information may involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause UGA’s actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by any forward-looking statements. UGA believes these factors include, but are not limited to, the following: changes in inflation in the United States; movements in U.S. and foreign currencies; market volatility in the oil markets and futures markets, in part attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, uncertainties associated with the impact from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, including: its impact on the global and U.S. capital markets and the global and U.S. economy, the length and duration of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States as well as worldwide and the magnitude of the economic impact of that outbreak, the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on UGA’s business prospects, including its ability to achieve its objectives, and the effect of the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on our
48
Table of Contents
ability to continue to effectively manage our business. Forward-looking statements, which involve assumptions and describe UGA’s future plans, strategies and expectations, are generally identifiable by use of the words “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “believe,” “intend” or “project,” the negative of these words, other variations on these words or comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions that may be incorrect, and UGA cannot assure investors that the projections included in these forward-looking statements will come to pass. UGA’s actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors.
UGA has based the forward-looking statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K on information available to it on the date of this annual report on Form 10-K, and UGA assumes no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. Although UGA undertakes no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, investors are advised to consult any additional disclosures that UGA may make directly to them or through reports that UGA files in the future with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K.
Introduction
UGA, a Delaware limited partnership, is a commodity pool that issues shares that may be purchased and sold on the NYSE Arca. The investment objective of UGA is for the daily changes, in percentage terms, of its shares’ per share NAV to reflect the daily changes, in percentage terms, of the spot price of gasoline (also known as reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygen blending, or “RBOB”, for delivery to the New York harbor), as measured by the daily changes in the price of the futures contract for gasoline traded on the 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 the futures contract that is the next month contract to expire (the “Benchmark Futures Contract”), plus interest earned on UGA’s collateral holdings, less UGA’s expenses. “Near month contract” means the next contract traded on the NYMEX due to expire. “Next month contract” means the first contract traded on the NYMEX due to expire after the near month contract. UGA seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing so that the average daily percentage change in UGA’s NAV for any period of 30 successive valuation days will be within plus/minus ten percent (10%) of the average daily percentage change in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract over the same period.
UGA’s investment objective is not for its NAV or market price of shares to equal, in dollar terms, the spot price of gasoline or any particular futures contract based on gasoline, nor is UGA’s investment objective for the percentage change in its NAV to reflect the percentage change of the price of any particular futures contract as measured over a time period greater than one day . The general partner of UGA, United States Commodity Funds LLC (“USCF”) believes that it is not practical to manage the portfolio to achieve such an investment goal when investing in Futures Contracts (as defined below) and Other Gasoline-Related Investments (as defined below).
UGA invests primarily in futures contracts for gasoline, crude oil, natural gas, heating oil and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the NYMEX, ICE Futures or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Futures Contracts”) and to a lesser extent, in order to comply with regulatory requirements or in view of market conditions, other gasoline-related investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for gasoline, cleared swap contracts and over-the-counter (“OTC”) swaps that are based on the price of gasoline, crude oil and other petroleum-based fuels, Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Gasoline-Related Investments”). For convenience and unless otherwise specified, Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments collectively are referred to as “Gasoline Interests” in this annual report on Form 10-K.
USCF believes that market arbitrage opportunities will cause daily changes in UGA’s share price on the NYSE Arca on a percentage basis to closely track daily changes in UGA’s per share NAV on a percentage basis. USCF further believes that daily changes in prices of the Benchmark Futures Contract have historically closely tracked the daily changes in spot prices of gasoline. USCF believes that the net effect of these relationships will be that the daily changes in the price of UGA’s shares on the NYSE Arca on a percentage basis will closely track, the daily changes in the spot price of gasoline on a percentage basis, plus interest earned on UGA’s collateral holdings, less UGA’s expenses.
UGA seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing so that the average daily percentage change in UGA’s NAV for any period of 30 successive valuation days will be within plus/minus ten percent (10%) of the average daily percentage change in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract over the same period.
On any valuation day, the Benchmark Futures Contract is the near month futures contract for gasoline traded on the NYMEX unless the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration in which case the Benchmark Futures Contract is the next month contract for
49
Table of Contents
gasoline traded on the NYMEX. The regulation of commodity interest trading in the United States and other countries is an evolving area of the law. The various statements made in this summary are subject to modification by legislative action and changes in the rules and regulations of the SEC, FINRA, CFTC, the NFA, the futures exchanges, clearing organizations and other regulatory bodies. Pending final resolution of all applicable regulatory requirements, some examples of how new rules and regulations could impact UGA are discussed in “Item 1. Business” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this annual report on Form 10-K.
Regulatory Disclosure
Accountability Levels, Position Limits and Price Fluctuation Limits. Designated contract markets (“DCMs”), such as the NYMEX and ICE Futures, have established accountability levels and position limits on the maximum net long or net short futures contracts in commodity interests that any person or group of persons under common trading control (other than as a hedge, which an investment by UGA is not) may hold, own or control. These levels and position limits apply to the futures contracts that UGA invests in to meet its investment objective. In addition to accountability levels and position limits, the NYMEX and ICE Futures also set daily price fluctuation limits on futures contracts. The daily price fluctuation limit establishes the maximum amount that the price of a futures contract may vary either up or down from the previous day’s settlement price. Once the daily price fluctuation limit has been reached in a particular futures contract, no trades may be made at a price beyond that limit.
The accountability levels for the Benchmark Futures Contract and other Futures Contracts traded on U.S.-based futures exchanges, such as 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 investments for any one month in the Benchmark Futures Contract is 5,000 contracts. In addition, the NYMEX imposes an accountability level for all months of 7,000 net futures contracts for investments in futures contracts for gasoline. In addition, the ICE Futures maintains accountability levels, position limits and monitoring authority for its unleaded gasoline futures contracts. If UGA and the Related Public Funds (as defined below) exceed these accountability levels for investments in the futures contract for gasoline, the NYMEX and ICE Futures will monitor UGA’s and the Related Public Funds’ exposure and may 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 UGA and the Related Public Funds. If deemed necessary by the NYMEX and/or ICE Futures, UGA could be ordered to reduce its aggregate net position back to the accountability level. As of December 31, 2021, UGA held 769 futures contracts for gasoline traded on the NYMEX. As of December 31, 2021, UGA did not hold any Futures Contracts traded on ICE Futures. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, UGA did not exceed any accountability levels on the NYMEX or ICE Futures.
Position limits differ from accountability levels in that they represent fixed limits on the maximum number of futures contracts that any person may hold and cannot allow such limits to be exceeded without express CFTC authority to do so. In addition to accountability levels and position limits that may apply at any time, the NYMEX and 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 UGA will run up against such position limits because UGA’s investment strategy is to close out its positions and “roll” from the near month contract to expire to the next month contract beginning two weeks from expiration of the contract. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, UGA did not exceed any position limits imposed by the NYMEX and ICE Futures.
Futures Contracts and Position Limits
On October 15, 2020, the CFTC approved the Position Limits Rule. The Position Limits Rule establishes federal position limits for 25 core referenced futures contracts (comprised of agricultural, energy and metals futures contracts), futures and options linked to the core referenced futures contracts, and swaps that are economically equivalent to the core referenced futures contracts.
The Benchmark Futures Contract will be subject to position limits under the Position Limits Rule, and UGA’s trading does not qualify for an exemption therefrom. Accordingly, the Position Limits Rule could negatively impact the ability of UGA to meet its investment objective by inhibiting USCF’s ability to effectively invest the proceeds from sales of Creation Baskets of UGA in particular amounts and types of its permitted investments.
OTC Swaps
In October 2015, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, the Farm Credit Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (each an “Agency” and, collectively, the “Agencies”) jointly adopted final rules to establish minimum margin and capital requirements for registered swap dealers, major swap participants, security-
50
Table of Contents
based swap dealers, and major security-based swap participants (“Swap Entities”) that are subject to the jurisdiction of one of the Agencies (such entities, “Covered Swap Entities”, and the joint final rules, the “Final Margin Rules”).
The Final Margin Rules will subject non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps between Covered Swap Entities and Swap Entities, and between Covered Swap Entities and financial end users that have material swaps exposure (i.e., an average daily aggregate notional of $8 billion or more in non-cleared swaps calculated in accordance with the Final Margin Rules), to a mandatory two-way minimum initial margin requirement. The minimum amount of the initial margin required to be posted or collected would be either the amount calculated by the Covered Swap Entity using a standardized schedule set forth as an appendix to the Final Margin Rules, which provides the gross initial margin (as a percentage of total notional exposure) for certain asset classes, or an internal margin model of the Covered Swap Entity conforming to the requirements of the Final Margin Rules that is approved by the Agency having jurisdiction over the particular Covered Swap Entity. The Final Margin Rules specify the types of collateral that may be posted or collected as initial margin for non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps with financial end users (generally cash, certain government, government-sponsored enterprise securities, certain liquid debt, certain equity securities, certain eligible publicly traded debt, and gold); and sets forth haircuts for certain collateral asset classes.
The Final Margin Rules require minimum variation margin to be exchanged daily for non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security- based swaps between Covered Swap Entities and Swap Entities and between Covered Swap Entities and all financial end-users (without regard to the swaps exposure of the particular financial end-user). The minimum variation margin amount is the daily mark- to-market change in the value of the swap to the Covered Swap Entity, taking into account variation margin previously posted or collected. For non-cleared swaps and security-based swaps between Covered Swap Entities and financial end-users, variation margin may be posted or collected in cash or non-cash collateral that is considered eligible for initial margin purposes. Variation margin is not subject to segregation with an independent, third-party custodian, and may, if permitted by contract, be rehypothecated.
The initial margin requirements of the Final Margin Rules are being phased in over time, and the variation margin requirements of the Final Margin Rules are currently in effect. The Fund is not a Covered Swap Entity under the Final Margin Rules, but it is a financial end-user. Accordingly, the Fund is currently subject to the variation margin requirements of the Final Margin Rules. However, the Fund does not have material swaps exposure and, accordingly, the Fund will not be subject to the initial margin requirements of the Final Margin Rules.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) required the CFTC and the SEC to adopt their own margin rules to apply to a limited number of registered swap dealers, security-based swap dealers, major swap participants, and major security-based swap participants that are not subject to the jurisdiction of one of the Agencies. On December 16, 2015 the CFTC finalized its margin rules, which are substantially the same as the Final Margin Rules and have the same implementation timeline. The SEC adopted margin rules for security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants on June 21, 2019. The SEC’s margin rules are generally aligned with the Final Margin Rules and the CFTC’s margin rules, but they differ in a few key respects relating to timing for compliance and the manner in which initial margin must be segregated. UGA does not currently engage in security-based swap transactions and, therefore, the SEC’s margin rules are not expected to apply to UGA.
Mandatory Trading and Clearing of Swaps
CFTC regulations require that certain swap transactions be executed on organized exchanges or “swap execution facilities” and cleared through regulated clearing organizations (“derivative clearing organizations” (“DCOs”)), if the CFTC mandates the central clearing of a particular class of swap and such swap is “made available to trade” on a swap execution facility. Currently, swap dealers, major swap participants, commodity pools, certain private funds and entities predominantly engaged in activities that are financial in nature are required to execute on a swap execution facility, and clear, certain interest rate swaps and index-based credit default swaps. As a result, if UGA enters into an interest rate or index-based credit default swap that is subject to these requirements, such swap will be required to be executed on a swap execution facility and centrally cleared. Mandatory clearing and “made available to trade” determinations with respect to additional types of swaps may be issued in the future, and, when finalized, could require UGA to electronically execute and centrally clear certain OTC instruments presently entered into and settled on a bi-lateral basis. If a swap is required to be cleared, initial and variation margin requirements are set by the relevant clearing organization, subject to certain regulatory requirements and guidelines. Additional margin may be required and held by UGA’s FCM.
51
Table of Contents
Other Requirements for Swaps
In addition to the margin requirements described above, swaps that are not required to be cleared and executed on a SEF but that are executed bilaterally are also subject to various requirements pursuant to CFTC regulations, including, among other things, reporting and recordkeeping requirements and, depending on the status of the counterparties, trading documentation requirements and dispute resolution requirements.
Derivatives Regulations in Non-U.S. Jurisdictions
In addition to U.S. laws and regulations, UGA may be subject to non-U.S. derivatives laws and regulations if it engages in futures and/or swap transactions with non-U.S. persons. For example, UGA may be impacted by European laws and regulations to the extent that it engages in futures transactions on European exchanges or derivatives transactions with European entities. Other jurisdictions impose requirements applicable to futures and derivatives that are similar to those imposed by the U.S., including position limits, margin, clearing and trade execution requirements.
The CFTC is generally 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 on non-U.S. exchanges to be offered and sold in the United States.
Money Market Funds
The SEC adopted amendments to Rule 2a-7 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (“1940 Act”), which became effective in 2016, to reform money market funds (“MMFs”). While the rule applies only to MMFs, it may indirectly affect institutional investors such as UGA. A portion of UGA’s assets that are not used for margin or collateral in the Futures Contracts currently are invested in government MMFs. UGA does not hold any non-government MMFs and does not anticipate investing in any non- government MMFs. However, if UGA invests in other types of MMFs besides government MMFs in the future, UGA could be negatively impacted by investing in an MMF that does not maintain a stable $1.00 NAV or that has the potential to impose redemption fees and gates (temporary suspension of redemptions).
Although such government MMFs seek to preserve the value of an investment at $1.00 per share, there is no guarantee that they will be able to do so and UGA may lose money by investing in a government MMF. An investment in a government MMF is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) or any other government agency. The share price of a government MMF can fall below the $1.00 share price. UGA cannot rely on or expect a government MMF’s adviser or its affiliates to enter into support agreements or take other actions to maintain the government MMF’s $1.00 share price. The credit quality of a government MMF’s holdings can change rapidly in certain markets, and the default of a single holding could have an adverse impact on the government MMF’s share price. Due to fluctuations in interest rates, the market value of securities held by a government MMF may vary. A government MMF’s share price can also be negatively affected during periods of high redemption pressures and/or illiquid markets.
Price Movements
Gasoline futures prices were volatile during the year ended December 31, 2021. The price of the Benchmark Futures Contract started the year at $1.4101 per gallon. The high of the year was on October 15, 2021when the price reached $2.4864 per gallon. The low for the year was on January 4, 2021, which was $1.3729 per gallon. The year ended with the Benchmark Futures Contract at $2.2246 per gallon, an increase of approximately 57.76% over the year (investors are cautioned that these represent prices for gasoline on a wholesale basis and should not be directly compared to retail prices at a gasoline service station). UGA’s per share NAV began the year at $24.29 and ended the year at $41.04 on December 31, 2021, an increase of approximate 68.96% over the year. The Benchmark Futures Contract prices listed above began with the February 2021contracts and ended with the February 2022 contracts. The increase of approximately 57.76% on the Benchmark Futures Contract listed above is a hypothetical return only and could not actually be achieved by an investor holding Futures Contracts. An investment in Futures Contracts would need to be rolled forward during the time period described in order to simulate such a result. Furthermore, the change in the nominal price of these differing Futures Contracts, measured from the start of the year to the end of the year, does not represent the actual benchmark results that UGA seeks to track, which are more fully described below in the section titled “ Tracking UGA’s Benchmark .”
52
Table of Contents
During the year ended December 31, 2021, the gasoline futures market alternated between periods of contango and backwardation as represented by the front month gasoline futures contract and the next to expire gasoline futures contract. During periods of contango, the price of the near month gasoline Futures Contract was lower than the price of the next month gasoline Futures Contract or contracts further away from expiration. On days when the market was in backwardation, the price of the near month gasoline Futures Contract is higher than the price of the next month gasoline Futures Contract, or contracts further away from expiration. For a discussion of the impact of backwardation and contango on total returns, see “ Term Structure of Gasoline Prices and the Impact on Total Returns ” below.
Valuation of Futures Contracts and the Computation of the Per Share NAV
The per share NAV of UGA’s shares is calculated once each NYSE Arca trading day. The per share NAV for a particular trading day is released after 4:00 p.m. New York time. Trading during the core trading session on the NYSE Arca typically closes at 4:00 p.m. New York time. The Administrator uses the NYMEX closing price (determined at the earlier of the close of the NYMEX or 2:30 p.m. New York time) for the contracts held on the NYMEX, but calculates or determines the value of all other UGA investments, including ICE Futures contracts or other futures contracts, as of the earlier of the close of the NYSE Arca or 4:00 p.m. New York time.
Results of Operations and the Gasoline Market
Results of Operations. On February 26, 2008, UGA listed its shares on the AMEX under the ticker symbol “UGA.” On that day, UGA established its initial offering price at $50.00 per share and issued 300,000 shares to the initial Authorized Participant in exchange for $15,001,000 in cash. As a result of the acquisition of the AMEX by NYSE Euronext, UGA’s shares ceased trading on the AMEX and commenced trading on the NYSE Arca on November 25, 2008.
As of December 31, 2021, UGA had issued 24,100,000 shares, 1,750,000 of which were outstanding. As of December 31, 2021, there were 55,900,000 shares registered but not yet issued. UGA has registered 80,000,000 shares since inception.
More shares may have been issued by UGA than are outstanding due to the redemption of shares. Unlike funds that are registered under the 1940 Act, shares that have been redeemed by UGA cannot be resold by UGA. As a result, UGA contemplates that additional offerings of its shares will be registered with the SEC in the future in anticipation of additional issuances and redemptions.
As of December 31, 2021, UGA had the following Authorized Participants: Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., JP Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and Virtu Americas LLC.
53
Table of Contents
For the Year Ended December 31, 2021 Compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2020
Year ended
Year ended
December 31,
December 31,
2021
2020
Per share net asset value, end of year
$
41.04
$
24.29
Average daily total net assets
$
98,396,880
$
71,975,291
Dividend and interest income earned on Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents
$
39,836
$
206,012
Annualized yield based on average daily total net assets
0.04
%
0.29
%
Management fee
$
590,381
$
431,847
Total fees and other expenses excluding management fees
$
356,719
$
303,850
Total amount of the expense waiver
$
58,573
$
195,888
Expenses before the allowance of the expense waiver
$
947,100
$
735,697
Expenses after the allowance of the expense waiver
$
888,527
$
539,809
Total commissions accrued to brokers
$
99,596
$
137,982
Total commissions as annualized percentage of average total net assets
0.10
%
0.19
%
Commissions accrued as a result of rebalancing
$
93,744
$
122,376
Percentage of commissions accrued as a result of rebalancing
94.12
%
88.69
%
Commissions accrued as a result of creation and redemption activity
$
5,852
$
15,606
Percentage of commissions accrued as a result of creation and redemption activity
5.88
%
11.31
%
Portfolio Expenses. UGA’s expenses consist of investment management fees, brokerage fees and commissions, certain offering costs, licensing fees, registration fees, the fees and expenses of the independent directors of USCF and expenses relating to tax accounting and reporting requirements. The management fee that UGA pays to USCF is calculated as a percentage of the total net assets of UGA. The fee is accrued daily and paid monthly.
The increase in the per share NAV for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to the year ended December 31, 2020, was due primarily to higher prices for gasoline and the related increase in the value of the Gasoline Futures Contracts in which UGA held and traded.
Average interest rates earned on short-term investments held by UGA, including cash, cash equivalents and Treasuries, were lower during the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to the year ended December 31, 2020. As a result, the amount of income earned by UGA as a percentage of average daily total net assets was lower during the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to the year ended December 31, 2020. To the degree that the aggregate yield is lower, the net expense ratio, inclusive of income, will be higher.
The increase in total fees and other expenses excluding management fees for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to the year ended December 31, 2020 was due primarily to an increase in professional fees and directors’ fees and insurance partially offset by a decrease in commissions.
The decrease in total commissions accrued to brokers for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to the year ended December 31, 2020, was due primarily to a lower number of Gasoline Futures Contracts being held and traded.
Tracking UGA’s Benchmark
USCF seeks to manage UGA's portfolio such that changes in its average daily per share NAV, on a percentage basis, closely track the daily changes in the average price of the Benchmark Futures Contract, also on a percentage basis. Specifically, USCF seeks to manage the portfolio such that over any rolling period of 30-valuation days, the average daily change in UGA's per share NAV is within a range of 90% to 110% (0.9 to 1.1) of the average daily change in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. As an example, if the average daily movement of the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract for a particular 30-valuation day time period was 0.50% per day, USCF would attempt to manage the portfolio such that the average daily movement of the per share NAV during that same time period fell between 0.45% and 0.55% (i.e., between 0.9 and 1.1 of the benchmark’s results). UGA's portfolio management goals do not include trying to make the nominal price of UGA's per share NAV equal to the nominal price of the current Benchmark Futures Contract or the
54
Table of Contents
spot price for gasoline. USCF believes that it is not practical to manage the portfolio to achieve such an investment goal when investing in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments.
For the 30-valuation days ended December 31, 2021, the average daily change in the Benchmark Futures Contract was 0.057%, while the average daily change in the per share NAV of UGA over the same time period was 0.054%. The average daily difference was (0.003)% (or (0.3) basis points, where 1 basis point equals 1/100 of 1%), meaning that over this time period UGA’s NAV performed within the plus or minus 10% range established as its benchmark tracking goal.
Since the commencement of the offering of UGA’s shares to the public on February 26, 2008 to December 31, 2021, the average daily change in the Benchmark Futures Contract was 0.026%, while the average daily change in the per share NAV of UGA over the same time period was 0.025%. The average daily difference was (0.001)% (or (0.1) basis points, where 1 basis point equals 1/100 of 1%), meaning that over this time period UGA’s NAV performed within the plus or minus 10% range established as its benchmark tracking goal.
The following two graphs demonstrate the correlation between the changes in UGA’s NAV and the changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract. The first graph exhibits the daily changes in the last 30-valuation days ended December 31, 2021. The second graph measures monthly changes since December 31, 2016 through December 31, 2021.
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
55
Table of Contents
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
An alternative tracking measurement of the return performance of UGA versus the return of its Benchmark Futures Contract can be calculated by comparing the actual return of UGA, measured by changes in its per share NAV, versus the expected changes in its per share NAV under the assumption that UGA’s returns had been exactly the same as the daily changes in its Benchmark Futures Contract.
For the year ended December 31, 2021, the actual total return of UGA as measured by changes in its per share NAV was 68.96%. This is based on an initial per share NAV of $24.29 as of December 31, 2020 and an ending per share NAV as of December 31, 2021 of $41.04. During this time period, UGA made no distributions to its shareholders. However, if UGA’s daily changes in its per share NAV had instead exactly tracked the changes in the daily total return of the Benchmark Futures Contract, UGA would have had an estimated per share NAV of $41.36 as of December 31, 2021, for a total return over the relevant time period of 70.28%. The difference between the actual per share NAV total return of UGA of 68.96% and the expected total return based on the Benchmark Futures Contract of 70.28% was a difference over the time period of (1.320)%, which is to say that UGA’s actual total return underperformed its benchmark by that percentage. UGA incurs expenses primarily composed of the management fee, brokerage commissions for the buying and selling of futures contracts, and other expenses. The impact of these expenses, offset by interest and dividend income, and net of positive or negative execution, tends to cause daily changes in the per share NAV of UGA to track slightly lower than daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.
By comparison, for the year ended December 31, 2020, the actual total return of UGA as measured by changes in its per share NAV was (24.82)%. This was based on an initial per share NAV of $32.31 as of December 31, 2019 and an ending per share NAV as of December 31, 2020 of $24.29. During this time period, UGA made no distributions to its shareholders. However, if UGA’s daily changes in its per share NAV had instead exactly tracked the changes in the daily total return of the Benchmark Futures Contract, UGA would have had an estimated per share NAV of $24.32 as of December 31, 2020, for a total return over the relevant time period of (24.73)%. The difference between the actual per share NAV total return of UGA of (24.82)% and the expected total return based on the Benchmark Futures Contract of (24.73)% was a difference over the time period of (0.093)%, which is to say that UGA’s actual total return outperformed its benchmark by that percentage. UGA incurred expenses primarily composed of the management fee, brokerage commissions for the buying and selling of futures contracts, and other expenses. The impact of these expenses, offset by interest and dividend income, and net of positive or negative execution, tended to cause daily changes in the per share NAV of UGA to track slightly lower than daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.
56
Table of Contents
There are currently three factors that have impacted or are most likely to impact UGA’s ability to accurately track Benchmark Futures Contract.
First, UGA may buy or sell its holdings in the then current Benchmark Futures Contract at a price other than the closing settlement price of that contract on the day during which UGA executes the trade. In that case, UGA may pay a price that is higher, or lower, than that of the Benchmark Futures Contract, which could cause the changes in the daily per share NAV of UGA to either be too high or too low relative to the daily changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract. During the year ended December 31, 2021, USCF attempted to minimize the effect of these transactions by seeking to execute its purchase or sale of the Benchmark Futures Contract at, or as close as possible to, the end of the day settlement price. However, it may not always be possible for UGA to obtain the closing settlement price and there is no assurance that failure to obtain the closing settlement price in the future will not adversely impact UGA’s attempt to track the Benchmark Futures Contract.
Second, UGA incurs expenses primarily composed of the management fee, brokerage commissions for the buying and selling of futures contracts, and other expenses. The impact of these expenses tends to cause daily changes in the per share NAV of UGA to track slightly lower than daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. At the same time, UGA earns dividend and interest income on its cash, cash equivalents and Treasuries. UGA is not required to distribute any portion of its income to its shareholders and did not make any distributions to shareholders during the year ended December 31, 2021. Interest payments, and any other income, were retained within the portfolio and added to UGA’s NAV. When this income exceeds the level of UGA’s expenses for its management fee, brokerage commissions and other expenses (including ongoing registration fees, licensing fees and the fees and expenses of the independent directors of USCF), UGA will realize a net yield that will tend to cause daily changes in the per share NAV of UGA to track slightly higher than daily changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract. If short-term interest rates rise above these levels, the level of deviation created by the yield would increase. Conversely, if short-term interest rates were to decline, the amount of error created by the yield would decrease. When short-term yields drop to a level lower than the combined expenses of the management fee and the brokerage commissions, then the tracking error becomes a negative number and would tend to cause the daily returns of the per share NAV to underperform the daily returns of the Benchmark Futures Contract. USCF anticipates that interest rates may rise over the near future from historical lows. It is anticipated that fees and expenses paid by UGA may be higher than interest earned by UGA. As such, USCF anticipates that UGA could possibly underperform its benchmark so long as interest earned is lower than the fees and expenses paid by UGA.
Third, UGA may hold Other Gasoline-Related Investments in its portfolio that may fail to closely track the Benchmark Futures Contract’s total return movements. In that case, the error in tracking the Benchmark Futures Contract could result in daily changes in the per share NAV of UGA that are either too high, or too low, relative to the daily changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract. During the year ended December 31, 2021, UGA did not hold any Other Gasoline-Related Investments. If UGA increases in size, and due to its obligations to comply with market conditions and regulatory limits, UGA may invest in Other Gasoline- Related Investments which may have the effect of increasing transaction related expenses and may result in increased tracking error.
Term Structure of Gasoline Futures Prices and the Impact on Total Returns . Several factors determine the total return from investing in futures contracts. One factor arises from “rolling” futures contracts that will expire at the end of the current month (the “near” or “front” month contract) forward each month prior to expiration. For a strategy that entails holding the near month contract, the price relationship between that futures contract and the next month futures contract will impact returns. For example, if the price of the near month futures contract is higher than the next futures month contract (a situation referred to as “backwardation”), then absent any other change, the price of a next month futures contract tends to rise in value as it becomes the near month futures contract and approaches expiration. Conversely, if the price of a near month futures contract is lower than the next month futures contract (a situation referred to as “contango”), then absent any other change, the price of a next month futures contract tends to decline in value as it becomes the near month futures contract and approaches expiration.
As an example, assume that the price of gasoline for immediate delivery, is $1.50 per gallon, and the value of a position in the near month futures contract is also $1.50. Over time, the price of gasoline will fluctuate based on a number of market factors, including demand for oil relative to supply. The value of the near month futures contract will likewise fluctuate in reaction to a number of market factors. If an investor seeks to maintain a position in a near month futures contract and not take delivery of physical gallons of gasoline, the investor must sell the current near month futures contract as it approaches expiration and invest in the next month futures contract. In order to continue holding a position in the current near month futures contract, this “roll” forward of the futures contract must be executed every month.
57
Table of Contents
Contango and backwardation are natural market forces that have impacted the total return on an investment in UGA’s shares during the past year relative to a hypothetical direct investment in gasoline. In the future, it is likely that the relationship between the market price of UGA’s shares and changes in the spot prices of gasoline will continue to be impacted by contango and backwardation. It is important to note that this comparison ignores the potential costs associated with physically owning and storing gasoline, which could be substantial.
If the futures market is in backwardation, e.g., when the price of the near month futures contract is higher than the price of the next month futures contract, the investor would buy a next month futures contract for a lower price than the current near month futures contract. Assuming the price of the next month futures contract was $1.47 per gallon, or 2% cheaper than the $1.50 near month futures contract, then, hypothetically, and assuming no other changes (e.g., to either prevailing gasoline prices or the price relationship between the spot price, the near month contract and the next month contract, and, ignoring the impact of commission costs and the income earned on cash and/or cash equivalents), the value of the $1.47 next month futures contract would rise to $1.50 as it approaches expiration. In this example, the value of an investment in the next month futures contract would tend to outperform the spot price of gasoline. As a result, it would be possible for the new near month futures contract to rise 12% while the spot price of gasoline may have risen a lower amount, e.g., only 10%. Similarly, the spot price of gasoline could have fallen 10% while the value of an investment in the futures contract might have fallen another amount, e.g., only 8%. Over time, if backwardation remained constant, this difference between the spot price and the futures contract price would continue to increase.
If the futures market is in contango, an investor would be buying a next month futures contract for a higher price than the current near month futures contract. Again, assuming the near month futures contract is $1.50 per gallon, the price of the next month futures contract might be $1.53 per gallon, or 2% more expensive than the front month futures contract. Hypothetically, and assuming no other changes, the value of the $1.53 next month futures contract would fall to $1.50 as it approaches expiration. In this example, the value of an investment in the second month would tend to underperform the spot price of gasoline. As a result, it would be possible for the new near month futures contract to rise only 10% while the spot price of gasoline may have risen a higher amount, e.g., 12%. Similarly, the spot price of gasoline could have fallen 10% while the value of an investment in the second month futures contract might have fallen another amount, e.g., 12%. Over time, if contango remained constant, this difference between the spot price and the futures contract price would continue to increase.
The chart below compares the daily price of the near month gasoline futures contract to the price of 13 th month gasoline futures contract (i.e., a contract one year forward) over the last 10 years. When the price of the near month futures contract is higher than the price of the 13 th month futures contract, the market would be described as being in backwardation. When the price of the near month futures contract is lower than the 13 th month futures contract, the market would be described as being in contango. Although the price of the near month futures contract and the price of the 13 th month futures contract tend to move together, it can be seen that at times the
58
Table of Contents
near month futures contract prices are higher than the 13 th month futures contract prices (backwardation) and, at other times, the near month futures contract prices are lower than the 13 th month futures contract prices (contango).
*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 13 th month gasoline futures contract from the dollar price of the near month gasoline futures contract, as shown in the chart below. When the difference is positive, the market is in backwardation. When the difference is negative, the market is in contango. The gasoline market spent time in both backwardation and contango during the last ten years. The chart below shows the results from subtracting the next month contract price from the price of the near month contract for the 10-year period between December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2021. Investors will note that the near month gasoline futures contract spent time in both backwardation and contango.
59
Table of Contents
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
While the investment objective of UGA is not to have the market price of its shares match, dollar for dollar, changes in the spot price of gasoline, contango and backwardation have impacted the total return on an investment in UGA shares during the past year relative to a hypothetical direct investment in gasoline. For example, an investment in UGA shares made on December 31, 2020 and held until December 31, 2021 decreased based upon the changes in the NAV for UGA shares on those days, by approximately -%, while the spot price of gasoline for immediate delivery during the same period decreased by -% (note: this comparison ignores seasonal factors and the potential costs associated with physically owning and storing gasoline, which could be substantial). By comparison, an investment in UGA shares made on December 31, 2019 and held to December 31, 2020 increase based upon the changes in the NAV for UGA shares on those days, by approximately 24.82%, while the spot price of gasoline for immediate delivery during the same period increased
60
Table of Contents
by 17.05% (note: this comparison ignores the potential costs associated with physically owning and storing gasoline, which could be substantial).
Periods of contango or backwardation do not materially impact UGA’s investment objective of having the daily percentage changes in its per share NAV track the daily percentage changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract since the impact of backwardation and contango tend to equally impact the daily percentage changes in price of both UGA’s shares and the Benchmark Futures Contract. It is impossible to predict with any degree of certainty whether backwardation or contango will occur in the future. It is likely that both conditions will occur during different periods.
Gasoline Market. During the year ended December 31, 2021, the price of the front month gasoline futures contracts traded in a range between $1.3729 and $2.5168. Prices increased 57.76% from December 31, 2020 through December 31, 2021, finishing the fourth quarter of 2021 at $2.2285.
USCF believes that over both the medium-term and the long-term, changes in the price of crude oil will exert the greatest influence on the price of refined petroleum products such as gasoline. At the same time, there can be other factors that, particularly in the short term, cause the price of gasoline to rise (or fall), more (or less) than the price of crude oil. For example, higher gasoline prices cause American consumers to reduce their gasoline consumption, particularly during the high demand period of the summer driving season and gasoline prices are impacted by the availability of refining capacity. Furthermore, a slowdown or recession in the U.S. economy may have a greater impact on U.S. gasoline prices than on global crude oil prices. As a result, it is possible that changes in gasoline prices may not match the changes in crude oil prices.
Crude Oil Market . During the year ended December 31, 2021, the price of the front month WTI crude oil futures contract traded in a range between $47.62 to $84.65. Prices increased 55.01% from December 31, 2020 through December 31, 2021, finishing the year at $75.21.
The simultaneous demand and supply shocks from the COVID-19 pandemic and Saudi-Russia price war precipitated unparalleled risk and volatility in crude oil markets during the first half of 2020. Global demand for crude oil plummeted by as much as 30% in the spring of 2020 as workers around the world stopped driving, airlines cut flight schedules, and companies suspended operations. Meanwhile, U.S. crude oil supply reached 13 million barrels per day (mbd), capping a period of almost continuous growth since 2016. To offset the seemingly unstoppable U.S. production juggernaut, OPEC+ (a loose coalition between OPEC and non-member nations such as Russia and Mexico) had maintained an uneasy series of agreements to curtail their crude oil output in order to support crude oil prices. However, in early March of 2020, Russia refused Saudi Arabia’s proposal to extend cuts in response to the COVID-19 demand shock. The kingdom retaliated with a massive production increase, launching an all-out price war in the middle of a pandemic. Although the members of OPEC+ reached a record-shattering agreement in mid-April of 2020, the implementation of new supply cuts came too late to prevent crude oil prices from plummeting to historic lows, culminating in a drop into negative territory for the May WTI crude oil futures contract on April 20, 2020.
As economies reopened and OPEC+ supply cuts were absorbed by the market, WTI crude oil prices rose from all-time lows in the spring of 2020 to an average of $68.00 per barrel during calendar year 2021.
WTI crude oil inventories in the United States fell from a modern record of 541 mb in June 2020 to 418 mb by the end of the fourth quarter of 2021. Crude oil production in the United States fell below 10 mbd twice in 2020 and once in early 2021 after peaking at 13.1 mbd in March of 2020. U.S. Production rose to 11.8 mbd by December 31, 2021. Similarly, OPEC production declined from over 30 mbd pre-COVID-19 to a pandemic low of 22.5 mbd before gradually recovering to 28.1 mbd by December 31, 2021. It is uncertain how quickly OPEC, Russia, or the U.S. can or will return to pre-pandemic 2019 production levels. Meanwhile, U.S. vehicle miles traveled and jet fuel use have nearly recovered to pre-pandemic levels. The ongoing demand recovery for crude oil has resulted in higher prices. Supply constraints, worker shortages, infrastructure and manufacturing energy usage, and geopolitical tensions, all suggest potential further upside for crude oil. However, elevated risk remains in the oil markets until the full impact of past, current, and future COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures is known.
61
Table of Contents
Unleaded Gasoline Price Movements in Comparison to Other Energy Commodities and Investment Categories . USCF believes that investors frequently measure the degree to which prices or total returns of one investment or asset class move up or down in value in concert with another investment or asset class. Statistically, such a measure is usually done by measuring the correlation of the price movements of the two different investments or asset classes over some period of time. The correlation is scaled between 1 and -1, where 1 indicates that the two investment options move up or down in price or value together, known as “positive correlation,” and -1 indicates that they move in completely opposite directions, known as “negative correlation.” A correlation of 0 would mean that the movements of the two are neither positively nor negatively correlated, known as “non-correlation.” That is, the investment options sometimes move up and down together and other times move in opposite directions.
For the ten-year time period between December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2021, the table below compares the monthly movements of unleaded gasoline prices versus the monthly movements of the prices of several other energy commodities, such as natural gas, crude oil and diesel-heating oil, as well as several major non-commodity investment asset classes, such as large cap U.S. equities, U.S. government bonds and global equities. It can be seen that over this particular time period, the movement of gasoline on a monthly basis was strongly correlated with crude oil and diesel-heating oil and somewhat correlated with large cap U.S. equities, U.S. government bonds, global equities and natural gas.
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
Gasoline - 10 Years
Global
Large Cap US
US Gov’t
Equities
Equities
Bonds
(FTSE World
Unleaded
Correlation Matrix 10 Years
(S&P 500)
(BEUSG4 Index)
Index)
Crude Oil
Heating Oil
Natural Gas
Gasoline
Large Cap US Equities (S&P 500)
1.000
0.895
0.995
0.669
0.717
0.584
0.716
US Gov’t Bonds (BEUSG4 Index)
1.000
0.893
0.521
0.616
0.585
0.540
Global Equities (FTSE World Index)
1.000
0.686
0.737
0.577
0.729
Crude Oil
1.000
0.867
0.350
0.837
Heating Oil
1.000
0.419
0.807
Natural Gas
1.000
0.403
Unleaded Gasoline
1.000
Source: Bloomberg, NYMEX
The table below covers a more recent, but much shorter, range of dates than the above table. Over the one year period ended December 31, 2021, gasoline was strongly correlated with crude oil, diesel-heating oil, large cap U.S. equities, U.S. government bonds, global equities and natural gas.
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
Gasoline - 1 Year
Global
Large Cap US
US Gov’t
Equities
Equities
Bonds
(FTSE World
Unleaded
Correlation Matrix 1 Year
(S&P 500)
(BEUSG4 Index)
Index)
Crude Oil
Heating Oil
Natural Gas
Gasoline
Large Cap US Equities (S&P 500)
1.000
0.993
1.000
0.944
0.956
0.868
0.959
US Gov’t Bonds (BEUSG4 Index)
1.000
0.994
0.937
0.953
0.891
0.945
Global Equities (FTSE World Index)
1.000
0.949
0.962
0.873
0.963
Crude Oil
1.000
0.995
0.887
0.988
Heating Oil
1.000
0.896
0.989
Natural Gas
1.000
0.857
Unleaded Gasoline
1.000
Source: Bloomberg, NYMEX
62
Table of Contents
Investors are cautioned that the historical price relationships between gasoline and various other energy commodities, as well as other investment asset classes, as measured by correlation may not be reliable predictors of future price movements and correlation results. The results pictured above would have been different if a different range of dates had been selected. USCF believes that gasoline has historically not demonstrated a strong correlation with equities or bonds over long periods of time. However, USCF also believes that in the future it is possible that gasoline could have long term correlation results that indicate prices of gasoline more closely track the movements of equities or bonds. In addition, USCF believes that, when measured over time periods shorter than ten years, there will always be some periods where the correlation of gasoline to equities and bonds will be either more strongly positively correlated or more strongly negatively correlated than the long-term historical results suggest.
The correlations between gasoline, crude oil, natural gas and diesel-heating oil are relevant because USCF endeavors to invest UGA’s assets in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments so that daily changes in percentage terms in UGA’s per share NAV correlate as closely as possible with daily changes in percentage terms in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. If certain other fuel-based commodity futures contracts do not closely correlate with the gasoline Futures Contract, then their use could lead to greater tracking error. As noted above, USCF also believes that the changes in percentage terms in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract will closely correlate with changes in percentage terms in the spot price of gasoline.
For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2019
The comparison of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 can be found in UGA’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 located within Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, which is incorporated by reference herein.
Critical Accounting Policies
Preparation of the financial statements and related disclosures in compliance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires the application of appropriate accounting rules and guidance, as well as the use of estimates. UGA’s application of these policies involves judgments and actual results may differ from the estimates used.
USCF has evaluated the nature and types of estimates that it makes in preparing UGA’s financial statements and related disclosures and has determined that the valuation of its investments, which are not traded on a United States or internationally recognized futures exchange (such as forward contracts and OTC swaps) involves a critical accounting policy. The values which are used by UGA for its Futures Contracts are provided by its commodity broker who uses market prices when available, while OTC swaps are valued based on the present value of estimated future cash flows that would be received from or paid to a third party in settlement of these derivative contracts prior to their delivery date and valued on a daily basis. In addition, UGA estimates interest and dividend income on a daily basis using prevailing rates earned on its cash and cash equivalents. These estimates are adjusted to the actual amount received on a monthly basis and the difference, if any, is not considered material.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
UGA has not made, and does not anticipate making, use of borrowings or other lines of credit to meet its obligations. UGA has met, and it is anticipated that UGA will continue to meet, its liquidity needs in the normal course of business from the proceeds of the sale of its investments, or from the Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents that it intends to hold at all times. UGA’s liquidity needs include: redeeming shares, providing margin deposits for its existing Futures Contracts or the purchase of additional Futures Contracts and posting collateral for its OTC swaps, if applicable, and payment of its expenses, summarized below under “Contractual Obligations.”
UGA currently generates cash primarily from: (i) the sale of baskets consisting of 50,000 shares (“Creation Baskets”) and (ii) income earned on Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents. UGA has allocated substantially all of its net assets to trading in Gasoline Interests. UGA invests in Gasoline Interests to the fullest extent possible without being leveraged or unable to satisfy its current or potential margin or collateral obligations with respect to its investments in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments. A significant portion of UGA’s NAV is held in cash and cash equivalents that are used as margin and as collateral for its trading in Gasoline Interests. The balance of the assets is held in UGA’s account at its custodian bank and in investments in money market funds and Treasuries at the FCMs. Income received from UGA’s investments in money market funds and Treasuries is paid to UGA. During the year ended December 31, 2021, UGA’s expenses, pre and post expense waiver, exceeded the income UGA earned and the cash earned from the sale of Creation Baskets and the redemption of Redemption Baskets. During the year ended December 31, 2021, UGA used other assets to pay expenses. To the extent expenses exceed income, UGA’s NAV will be negatively impacted.
63
Table of Contents
UGA’s investments in Gasoline Interests may be subject to periods of illiquidity because of market conditions, regulatory considerations and other reasons. For example, most commodity exchanges limit the fluctuations in futures contracts prices during a single day by regulations referred to as “daily limits.” During a single day, no trades may be executed at prices beyond the daily limit. Once the price of a futures contract has increased or decreased by an amount equal to the daily limit, positions in the contracts can neither be taken nor liquidated unless the traders are willing to effect trades at or within the specified daily limit. Such market conditions could prevent UGA from promptly liquidating its positions in Futures Contracts. During the year ended December 31, 2021, UGA did not purchase or liquidate any of its positions while daily limits were in effect; however, UGA cannot predict whether such an event may occur in the future.
Since the initial offering of shares, UGA has been responsible for expenses relating to: (i) management fees, (ii) brokerage fees and commissions, (iii) licensing fees for the use of intellectual property, (iv) ongoing registration expenses in connection with offers and sales of its shares subsequent to the initial offering, (v) other expenses, including tax reporting costs, (vi) fees and expenses of the independent directors of USCF and (vii) other extraordinary expenses not in the ordinary course of business.
UGA may terminate at any time, regardless of whether UGA has incurred losses, subject to the terms of the LP Agreement. In particular, unforeseen circumstances, including, but not limited to, (i) market conditions, regulatory requirements, risk mitigation measures taken by UGA or third parties or otherwise that would lead UGA to determine that it could no longer foreseeably meet its investment objective or that UGA’s aggregate net assets in relation to its operating expenses or its margin or collateral requirements make the continued operation of UGA unreasonable or imprudent, or (ii) adjudication of incompetence, bankruptcy, dissolution, withdrawal or removal of USCF as the general partner of UGA could cause UGA, to terminate unless a majority interest of the limited partners within 90 days of the event elects to continue the partnership and appoints a successor general partner, or the affirmative vote of a majority in interest of the limited partners subject to certain conditions. UGA’s termination would cause the liquidation and potential loss of an investor’s investment. Termination could also negatively affect the overall maturity and timing of an investor’s investment portfolio.
Market Risk
Trading in Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, such as forwards, involves UGA entering into contractual commitments to purchase or sell gasoline at a specified date in the future. The aggregate market value of the contracts will significantly exceed UGA’s future cash requirements since UGA intends to close out its open positions prior to settlement. As a result, UGA is generally only subject to the risk of loss arising from the change in value of the contracts. UGA considers the “fair value” of its derivative instruments to be the unrealized gain or loss on the contracts. The market risk associated with UGA’s commitments to purchase gasoline is limited to the aggregate market value of the contracts held. However, should UGA enter into a contractual commitment to sell gasoline, it would be required to make delivery of the gasoline at the contract price, repurchase the contract at prevailing prices or settle in cash. Since there are no limits on the future price of gasoline, the market risk to UGA could be unlimited.
UGA’s exposure to market risk depends on a number of factors, including the markets for gasoline, the volatility of interest rates and foreign exchange rates, the liquidity of the Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments markets and the relationships among the contracts held by UGA. Drastic market occurrences could ultimately lead to the loss of all or substantially all of an investor’s capital.
Credit Risk
When UGA enters into Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, it is exposed to the credit risk that the counterparty will not be able to meet its obligations. The counterparty for the Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX and on most other futures exchanges is the clearinghouse associated with the particular exchange. In general, in addition to margin required to be posted by the clearinghouse in connection with cleared trades, clearinghouses are backed by their members who may be required to share in the financial burden resulting from the nonperformance of one of their members and, therefore, this additional member support should significantly reduce credit risk. UGA is not currently a member of any clearinghouse. Some foreign exchanges are not backed by their clearinghouse members but may be backed by a consortium of banks or other financial institutions. There can be no assurance that any counterparty, clearinghouse, or their members or their financial backers will satisfy their obligations to UGA in such circumstances.
USCF attempts to manage the credit risk of UGA by following various trading limitations and policies. In particular, UGA generally posts margin and/or holds liquid assets that are approximately equal to the market value of its obligations to counterparties under the Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments it holds. USCF has implemented procedures that include, but are not limited to, executing and clearing trades only with creditworthy parties and/or requiring the posting of collateral or margin by such parties for
64
Table of Contents
the benefit of UGA to limit its credit exposure. An FCM, when acting on behalf of UGA in accepting orders to purchase or sell Futures Contracts on United States exchanges, is required by CFTC regulations to separately account for and segregate as belonging to UGA, all assets of UGA relating to domestic Futures Contracts trading. These FCMs are not allowed to commingle UGA’s assets with their other assets. In addition, the CFTC requires FCMs to hold in a secure account UGA’s assets related to foreign Futures Contracts.
In the future UGA may purchase OTC swaps, see “Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” in this annual report on Form 10-K for a discussion of OTC swaps.
As of December 31, 2021, UGA held cash deposits and investments in Treasuries and money market funds in the amount of $76,840,846 with the custodian and FCMs. Some or all of these amounts held by a custodian or an FCM, as applicable, may be subject to loss should UGA’s custodian or FCMs, as applicable, cease operations.
Off Balance Sheet Financing
As of December 31, 2021, UGA had 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 UGA. While UGA’s exposure under these indemnification provisions cannot be estimated, they are not expected to have a material impact on UGA’s financial position.
Redemption Basket Obligation
In order to meet its investment objective and pay its contractual obligations described below, UGA requires liquidity to redeem shares, which redemptions must be in blocks of 50,000 shares called “Redemption Baskets.” UGA 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 shares being redeemed.
Contractual Obligations
UGA’s primary contractual obligations are with USCF. In return for its services, USCF is entitled to a management fee calculated daily and paid monthly as a fixed percentage of UGA’s NAV, currently 0.60% of NAV on its average daily total net assets.
USCF agreed to pay the start-up costs associated with the formation of UGA, primarily its legal, accounting and other costs in connection with USCF’s registration with the CFTC as a CPO and the registration and listing of UGA and its shares with the SEC, FINRA and NYSE Arca (formerly, AMEX), respectively. However, since UGA’s initial offering of shares, offering costs incurred in connection with registering and listing additional shares of UGA have been directly borne on an ongoing basis by UGA, and not by USCF.
USCF pays the fees of the Marketing Agent as well as BNY Mellon’s fees for performing administrative, custodial, and transfer agency services. BNY Mellon’s fees for performing administrative services include those in connection with the preparation of UGA’s financial statements and its SEC, NFA and CFTC reports. USCF and UGA have also entered into a licensing agreement with the NYMEX pursuant to which UGA and the Related Public Funds, other than BNO, USCI and CPER, pay a licensing fee to the NYMEX. UGA also pays the fees and expenses associated with its tax accounting and reporting requirements. USCF had voluntarily agreed to pay certain expenses typically borne by UGA to the extent that such expenses exceeded 0.15% (15 basis points) of UGA‘s NAV, on an annualized basis. USCF terminated such expense waiver as of April 30, 2021. This voluntary expense waiver was in addition to those amounts USCF is contractually obligated to pay as described in Note 4 to the Notes to Financial Statements in Item 8 of this annual report on Form 10-K and terminated on April 30, 2021.
USCF paid BBH&Co.’s fees for performing administrative services, including those in connection with the preparation of UGA’s financial statements and its SEC, NFA and CFTC reports through May 31, 2020.
In addition to USCF’s management fee, UGA pays its brokerage fees (including fees to an FCM), OTC 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 shares, 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 UGA’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 an FCM are on a contract-by-contract, or round turn,
65
Table of Contents
basis. UGA also pays a portion of the fees and expenses of the independent directors of USCF. See Note 3 to the Notes to Financial Statements in Item 8 of this annual report on Form 10-K.
The parties cannot anticipate the amount of payments that will be required under these arrangements for future periods, as UGA’s per share NAVs and trading levels to meet its investment objective 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 UGA’s existence. Either party may terminate these agreements earlier for certain reasons described in the agreements.
As of December 31, 2021, UGA’s portfolio held 769 Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX. As of December 31, 2021 UGA did not hold any Futures Contracts traded on the ICE Futures. For a list of UGA’s current holdings, please see UGA’s website at www.uscfinvestments.com.
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.