UGA 10-Q
United States Gasoline Fund, LP (UGA)
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM
Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the quarterly period ended |
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:
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
(State or other jurisdiction of | (I.R.S. Employer |
incorporation or organization) | Identification No.) |
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
(
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
N/A
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)
Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act.
Title of each class: |
| Trading Symbol(s) |
| Name of each exchange on which registered: |
|
|
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. ☒
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted 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 such files). ☒
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large Accelerated Filer | ☐ |
| ☒ | |
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Accelerated Filer | ☐ |
| Smaller Reporting Company | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Emerging Growth Company |
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided in Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.).
The registrant had
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Table of Contents
2
Part I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. Financial Statements.
Index to Financial Statements
3
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Statements of Financial Condition
At September 30, 2025 (Unaudited) and December 31, 2024
| September 30, 2025 |
| December 31, 2024 | |||
Assets | ||||||
Cash and cash equivalents (at cost $ | $ | | (a) | $ | | |
Equity in trading accounts: | ||||||
Cash and cash equivalents (at cost $ |
| |
| | ||
Unrealized gain (loss) on open commodity futures contracts |
| ( |
| | ||
Dividends receivable |
| |
| | ||
Interest receivable |
| |
| | ||
Prepaid insurance |
| |
| | ||
Total Assets | $ | | $ | | ||
Liabilities and Partners’ Capital | ||||||
$ | | $ | | |||
Professional fees payable |
| |
| | ||
Brokerage commissions payable |
| |
| | ||
Directors’ fees payable |
| |
| | ||
License fees payable | | | ||||
Total Liabilities | |
| | |||
Commitments and Contingencies (Notes 3, 4 & 5) |
|
|
|
| ||
Partners’ Capital |
|
|
|
| ||
General Partners |
| |
| | ||
Limited Partners |
| |
| | ||
Total Partners’ Capital |
| | | |||
Total Liabilities and Partners’ Capital | $ | | $ | | ||
Limited Partners’ shares outstanding | | | ||||
Net asset value per share | $ | | $ | | ||
Market value per share | $ | | $ | | ||
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
4
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Schedule of Investments (Unaudited)
At September 30, 2025
|
|
| Fair |
| ||||||
Value/Unrealized | ||||||||||
Gain (Loss) on | ||||||||||
Open | ||||||||||
Number of | Commodity | % of Partners’ | ||||||||
Notional Amount | Contracts | Contracts | Capital | |||||||
Open Commodity Futures Contracts - Long |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
United States Contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
NYMEX RBOB Gasoline Futures RB November contracts, expiring October 2025* | $ | |
| | $ | ( |
| ( | ||
| Shares/Principal |
|
| % of Partners’ | |||
Amount | Market Value | Capital | |||||
Cash Equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
United States Money Market Funds |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Dreyfus Institutional Preferred Government Money Market Fund - Institutional Shares, |
| |
| $ | |
| |
Morgan Stanley Institutional Liquidity Funds - Government Portfolio - Institutional |
| | | | |||
Total United States Money Market Funds | $ | |
| | |||
*
#
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
5
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Schedule of Investments
At December 31, 2024
|
|
| Fair |
|
| |||||
Value/Unrealized | ||||||||||
Gain (Loss) on | ||||||||||
Open | ||||||||||
Number of | Commodity | % of Partners’ | ||||||||
Notional Amount | Contracts | Contracts | Capital | |||||||
Open Commodity Futures Contracts - Long |
|
|
|
| ||||||
United States Contracts |
|
|
|
| ||||||
NYMEX RBOB Gasoline Futures RB February 2025 contracts, expiring January 2025* | $ | | | $ | | | ||||
| Shares/Principal |
|
| % of Partners’ | |||
Amount | Market Value | Capital | |||||
Cash Equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
United States Money Market Funds |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Morgan Stanley Institutional Liquidity Funds - Government Portfolio - Institutional Shares, |
| | $ | |
| | |
Total United States Money Market Funds | $ | | | ||||
*
#
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
6
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Statements of Operations (Unaudited)
For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024
| Three months ended |
| Three months ended |
| Nine months ended |
| Nine months ended | |||||
September 30, 2025 | September 30, 2024 | September 30, 2025 | September 30, 2024 | |||||||||
Income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
Gain (loss) on trading of commodity futures contracts: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
Realized gain (loss) on closed commodity futures contracts | $ | | $ | ( | $ | | $ | ( | ||||
Change in unrealized gain (loss) on open commodity futures contracts |
| |
| ( |
| ( |
| | ||||
Dividend income |
| |
| |
| |
| | ||||
Interest income |
| |
| |
| |
| | ||||
ETF transaction fees | | | | | ||||||||
Total Income (Loss) | $ | | $ | ( | $ | | $ | ( | ||||
Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
General Partner management fees (Note 3) | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | ||||
Professional fees |
| |
| |
| |
| | ||||
Brokerage commissions |
| |
| |
| |
| | ||||
Directors’ fees and insurance |
| |
| | |
| | |||||
License fees | | | | | ||||||||
Total Expenses | $ | | | $ | | | ||||||
Net Income (Loss) | $ | | $ | ( | $ | | $ | ( | ||||
Net Income (Loss) per limited partner share | $ | | $ | ( | $ | | $ | ( | ||||
Net Income (Loss) per weighted average limited partner share | $ | | $ | ( | $ | | $ | ( | ||||
Weighted average limited partner shares outstanding | |
| |
| |
| | |||||
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
7
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital (Unaudited)
For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024
| Limited Partners* | |||||||||||
| Three months ended |
| Three months ended |
| Nine months ended |
| Nine months ended | |||||
September 30, 2025 | September 30, 2024 | September 30, 2025 | September 30, 2024 | |||||||||
Balances at beginning of period | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | ||||
Addition of |
| |
| |
| |
| | ||||
Redemption of ( |
| ( |
| ( |
| ( |
| ( | ||||
Net income (loss) |
| |
| ( |
| |
| ( | ||||
Balances at end of period | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | ||||
* |
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
8
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Statements of Cash Flows (Unaudited)
For the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024
| Nine months ended |
| Nine months ended | |||
September 30, 2025 | September 30, 2024 | |||||
Cash Flows from Operating Activities: | ||||||
Net income (loss) | $ | | $ | ( | ||
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities: | ||||||
Change in unrealized (gain) loss on open commodity futures contracts |
| |
| ( | ||
(Increase) decrease in dividends receivable | ( | | ||||
(Increase) decrease in interest receivable | | ( | ||||
(Increase) decrease in prepaid insurance | ( | ( | ||||
Increase (decrease) in General Partner management fees payable |
| ( |
| | ||
Increase (decrease) in professional fees payable |
| ( |
| ( | ||
Increase (decrease) in directors’ fees payable | ( | | ||||
Increase (decrease) in license fees payable |
| |
| | ||
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities | | ( | ||||
Cash Flows from Financing Activities: |
|
|
| |||
Addition of partnership shares |
| |
| | ||
Redemption of partnership shares |
| ( |
| ( | ||
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities |
| ( |
| | ||
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents |
| ( |
| | ||
Total Cash, Cash Equivalents and Equity in Trading Accounts, beginning of period |
| |
| | ||
Total Cash, Cash Equivalents and Equity in Trading Accounts, end of period | $ | | $ | | ||
Components of Cash, Cash Equivalents and Equity in Trading Accounts: |
|
| ||||
Cash and cash equivalents | $ | | $ | | ||
Equity in Trading Accounts: |
|
|
| |||
Cash and cash equivalents |
| |
| | ||
Total Cash, Cash Equivalents and Equity in Trading Accounts | $ | | $ | | ||
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
9
United States Gasoline Fund, LP
Notes to Financial Statements (Unaudited)
For the period ended September 30, 2025
NOTE 1 — ORGANIZATION AND BUSINESS
The United States Gasoline Fund, LP (“UGA”) was organized as a limited partnership under the laws of the state of Delaware on April 13, 2007. UGA is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership interests (“shares”) traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “NYSE Arca”). UGA’s shares began trading on February 26, 2008. Prior to November 25, 2008, UGA’s shares traded on the American Stock Exchange (the “AMEX”). UGA will continue in perpetuity, unless terminated sooner upon the occurrence of one or more events as described in its Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of December 15, 2017 (the “LP Agreement”), which grants full management and control to its general partner, United States Commodity Funds LLC (“USCF”).
The investment objective of UGA is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares’ per share net asset value (“NAV”) to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of gasoline (also known as reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygen blending, or “RBOB”), for delivery to the New York harbor), as measured by the daily changes in the price of a specified short-term futures contract on gasoline called the “Benchmark Futures Contract,” plus interest earned on UGA’s collateral holdings, less UGA’s expenses. The Benchmark Futures Contract is the futures contract on gasoline 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 it will be measured by the futures contract that is the next month contract to expire. UGA seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing so that the average daily percentage change in UGA’s NAV for any period of
UGA seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in futures contracts for gasoline, other types of gasoline, crude oil, diesel-heating oil, natural gas and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the NYMEX, ICE Futures Europe and ICE Futures U.S. (together, “ICE Futures”) or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Futures Contracts”), and to a lesser extent, in order to comply with regulatory requirements, risk mitigation measures (including those that may be taken by UGA, UGA’s future commission merchants (“FCMs”), counterparties or other market participants), liquidity requirements, or in view of market conditions, other gasoline-related investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for gasoline, cleared swap contracts and non-exchange traded (“over-the-counter” or “OTC”) transactions that are based on the price of gasoline, crude oil and other petroleum-based fuels, Futures Contracts and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Gasoline-Related Investments”). Market conditions that USCF currently anticipates could cause UGA to invest in Other Gasoline-Related Investments, include, but are not limited to, those allowing UGA to obtain greater liquidity, or to execute transactions with more favorable pricing. For convenience and unless otherwise specified, Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments collectively are referred to as “Gasoline Interests” in the notes to the financial statements.
In addition, 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 the daily changes in UGA’s per share NAV on a percentage basis. USCF further believes that the daily changes in the prices of the Benchmark Futures Contract have historically tracked the daily changes in the spot price 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.
Investors should be aware that 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. This is because natural market forces called contango and backwardation may impact and have impacted the total return on an investment in UGA’s shares during the past year relative to a hypothetical direct investment in gasoline and, 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 the disclosure above ignores the potential costs associated with physically owning and storing gasoline, which could be substantial.)
10
As of September 30, 2025, UGA held 916 Futures Contracts for gasoline traded on the NYMEX and did not hold any Futures Contracts traded on the ICE Futures.
UGA commenced investment operations on February 26, 2008 and has a fiscal year ending on December 31. USCF is responsible for the management of UGA. USCF is a member of the National Futures Association (the “NFA”) and became registered as a commodity pool operator with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) effective December 1, 2005 and a swaps firm on August 8, 2013. USCF is also the general partner of the United States Oil Fund, LP (“USO”), the United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP (“USL”), the United States Natural Gas Fund, LP (“UNG”), the United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund, LP (“UNL”) and the United States Brent Oil Fund, LP (“BNO”).
USCF is also the sponsor of the United States Commodity Index Funds Trust (“USCIFT”), a Delaware statutory trust, and each of its series: the United States Commodity Index Fund (“USCI”) and the United States Copper Index Fund (“CPER”).
USO, UNG, UNL, USL, BNO, USCI and CPER are referred to collectively herein as the “Related Public Funds.”
UGA issues shares to certain authorized purchasers (“Authorized Participants”) by offering baskets consisting of
Authorized Participants pay UGA a $
In November 2007, UGA initially registered
The accompanying unaudited financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X promulgated by the SEC and, therefore, do not include all information and footnote disclosure required under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”). The financial information included herein is unaudited; however, such financial information reflects all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, which are, in the opinion of USCF, necessary for the fair presentation of the financial statements for the interim period.
11
NOTE 2 — SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Basis of Presentation
The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with U.S. GAAP as detailed in the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification. UGA is an investment company for accounting purposes and follows the accounting and reporting guidance in FASB Topic 946.
Revenue Recognition
Commodity futures contracts, forward contracts, physical commodities and related options are recorded on the trade date. All such transactions are recorded on the identified cost basis and marked to market daily. Unrealized gains or losses on open contracts are reflected in the statements of financial condition and represent the difference between the original contract amount and the market value (as determined by exchange settlement prices for futures contracts and related options and cash dealer prices at a predetermined time for swap and forward contracts, physical commodities, and their related options) as of the last business day of the year or as of the last date of the financial statements. Changes in the unrealized gains or losses between periods are reflected in the statements of operations. UGA earns income on funds held at the custodian or FCMs at prevailing market rates earned on such investments.
Brokerage Commissions
Brokerage commissions on all open commodity futures contracts are accrued on a full-turn basis.
Income Taxes
UGA is not subject to federal income taxes; each partner reports his/her allocable share of income, gain, loss, deductions or credits on his/her own income tax return.
In accordance with U.S. GAAP, UGA is required to determine whether a tax position is more likely than not to be sustained upon examination by the applicable taxing authority, including resolution of any tax related appeals or litigation processes, based on the technical merits of the position. UGA files an income tax return in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and may file income tax returns in various U.S. states. UGA is not subject to income tax return examinations by major taxing authorities for years before 2019. The tax benefit recognized is measured as the largest amount of benefit that has a greater than fifty percent likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement. De-recognition of a tax benefit previously recognized results in UGA recording a tax liability that reduces net assets. However, UGA’s conclusions regarding this policy may be subject to review and adjustment at a later date based on factors including, but not limited to, on-going analysis of and changes to tax laws, regulations and interpretations thereof. UGA recognizes interest accrued related to unrecognized tax benefits and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax fees payable, if assessed.
Creations and Redemptions
Authorized Participants may purchase Creation Baskets or redeem Redemption Baskets only in blocks of
UGA receives or pays the proceeds from shares sold or redeemed within two business days after the trade date of the purchase or redemption. The amounts due from Authorized Participants are reflected in UGA’s statements of financial condition as receivable for shares sold and amounts payable to Authorized Participants upon redemption are reflected as payable for shares redeemed.
Authorized Participants pay UGA a $
Partnership Capital and Allocation of Partnership Income and Losses
Profit or loss shall be allocated among the partners of UGA in proportion to the weighted-average number of shares each partner holds as of the close of each month. USCF may revise, alter or otherwise modify this method of allocation as described in the LP Agreement.
12
Calculation of Per Share NAV
UGA’s per share NAV is calculated on each NYSE Arca trading day by taking the current market value of its total assets, subtracting any liabilities and dividing that amount by the total number of shares outstanding. UGA uses the closing price for the contracts on the relevant exchange on that day to determine the value of contracts held on such exchange.
Net Income (Loss) Per Share
Net income (loss) per share is the difference between the per share NAV at the beginning of each period and at the end of each period. The weighted average number of shares outstanding was computed for purposes of disclosing net income (loss) per weighted average share. The weighted average shares are equal to the number of shares outstanding at the end of the period, adjusted proportionately for shares added and redeemed based on the amount of time the shares were outstanding during such period. There were
Offering Costs
Offering costs incurred in connection with the registration of additional shares after the initial registration of shares are borne by UGA. These costs include registration fees paid to regulatory agencies and all legal, accounting, printing and other expenses associated with such offerings. These costs are accounted for as a deferred charge and thereafter amortized to expense over twelve months on a straight-line basis or a shorter period if warranted.
Cash Equivalents
Cash equivalents include money market funds and overnight deposits or time deposits with original maturity dates of three months or less.
Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires USCF to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of the revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results may differ from those estimates and assumptions.
Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncement
UGA adopted FASB Accounting Standards Update 2023-07, Segment Reporting (Topic 280) -Improvements to Reportable Segment Disclosures (“ASU 2023-07”). UGA operates in one segment. The segment derives its revenues from investments made in accordance with the defined investment strategy of UGA, as prescribed in UGA’s prospectus. The Chief Operating Decision Maker (“CODM”) is the general partner, USCF. The CODM monitors the operating results of the Fund as part of making decisions for allocating resources and evaluating performance.
NOTE 3 — FEES PAID BY THE FUND AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
USCF Management Fee
Under the LP Agreement, USCF is responsible for investing the assets of UGA in accordance with the objectives and policies of UGA. In addition, USCF has arranged for one or more third parties to provide administrative, custody, accounting, transfer agency and other necessary services to UGA. For these services,
Ongoing Registration Fees and Other Offering Expenses
UGA pays all costs and expenses associated with the ongoing registration of its shares subsequent to the initial offering. These costs include registration or other fees paid to regulatory agencies in connection with the offer and sale of shares, and all legal, accounting,
13
printing and other expenses associated with such offer and sale. For the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, UGA did not incur registration fees and other offering expenses.
Independent Directors’ and Officers’ Expenses
UGA is responsible for paying its portion of the directors’ and officers’ liability insurance for UGA and the Related Public Funds and the fees and expenses of the independent directors who also serve as audit committee members of UGA and the Related Public Funds. UGA shares the fees and expenses on a pro rata basis with each Related Public Fund, as described above, based on the relative assets of each Related Public Fund computed on a daily basis. These fees and expenses for the year ending December 31, 2025 are estimated to be a total of $
Licensing Fees
As discussed in Note 4 below, UGA entered into a licensing agreement with the NYMEX on April 10, 2006, as amended on October 20, 2011. Pursuant to the agreement, UGA and the Related Public Funds, other than BNO, USCI and CPER, pay a licensing fee that is equal to
Investor Tax Reporting Cost
The fees and expenses associated with UGA’s audit expenses and tax accounting and reporting requirements are paid by UGA. These costs are estimated to be $
Other Expenses and Fees
In addition to the fees described above, UGA pays all brokerage fees and other expenses in connection with the operation of UGA, excluding costs and expenses paid by USCF as outlined in Note 4 – Contracts and Agreements below.
NOTE 4 — CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
Marketing Agent Agreement
UGA is party to a marketing agent agreement, dated as of February 15, 2008, as amended from time to time, with the Marketing Agent and USCF, whereby the Marketing Agent provides certain marketing services for UGA as outlined in the agreement. The agreement with the Marketing Agent was amended and, commencing October 1, 2022, the fee of the Marketing Agent, which is calculated daily and payable monthly by USCF, is equal to
The above fee does not include website construction and development, which are also borne by USCF.
Custody, Transfer Agency and Fund Administration and Accounting Services Agreements
USCF engaged The Bank of New York Mellon, a New York corporation authorized to conduct a banking business (“BNY Mellon”), to provide UGA and each of the Related Public Funds with certain custodial, administrative and accounting, and transfer agency services, pursuant to the following agreements with BNY Mellon dated as of March 20, 2020 (together, the “BNY Mellon Agreements”), which were effective as of April 1, 2020: (i) a Custody Agreement; (ii) a Fund Administration and Accounting Agreement; and (iii) a Transfer Agency and Service Agreement. USCF pays the fees of BNY Mellon for its services under the BNY Mellon Agreements and such fees are determined by the parties from time to time.
14
Brokerage and Futures Commission Merchant Agreements
UGA entered into a brokerage agreement with RBC Capital Markets LLC (“RBC”) to serve as UGA’s FCM effective October 10, 2013. UGA has engaged each of Marex North America, LLC, formerly RCG Division of Marex Spectron (“MNA”), Marex Capital Markets Inc., formerly E D & F Man Capital Markets, Inc. (“MCM”), Macquarie Futures USA LLC (“MFUSA”), and ADM Investor Services, Inc. (“ADMIS”) to serve as additional FCMs to UGA effective on May 28, 2020, June 5, 2020, December 3, 2020, and August 8, 2023, respectively. The agreements with UGA’s FCMs require the FCMs to provide services to UGA in connection with the purchase and sale of Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments that may be purchased and sold by or through the applicable FCM for UGA’s account. In accordance with the FCM agreements, UGA pays each FCM commissions of approximately $
Nine months ended | Nine months ended | ||||||
| September 30, 2025 | September 30, 2024 | |||||
Total commissions accrued to brokers | $ | | $ | | |||
Total commissions as annualized percentage of average total net assets |
| | % |
| | % | |
The decrease in total commissions accrued to brokers for the nine months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2024, was due primarily to a lower number of Futures Contracts being held and traded.
NYMEX Licensing Agreement
UGA and the NYMEX entered into a licensing agreement on April 10, 2006, as amended on October 20, 2011, whereby UGA was granted a non-exclusive license to use certain of the NYMEX’s settlement prices and service marks. Under the licensing agreement, UGA and the Related Public Funds, other than BNO, USCI, and CPER, pay the NYMEX an asset-based fee for the license, the terms of which are described in Note 3. UGA expressly disclaims any association with the NYMEX or endorsement of UGA by the NYMEX and acknowledges that “NYMEX” and “New York Mercantile Exchange” are registered trademarks of the NYMEX.
NOTE 5 — FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS, OFF-BALANCE SHEET RISKS AND CONTINGENCIES
UGA may engage in the trading of futures contracts, options on futures contracts, cleared swaps and OTC swaps (collectively, “derivatives”). UGA is exposed to both market risk, which is the risk arising from changes in the market value of the contracts, and credit risk, which is the risk of failure by another party to perform according to the terms of a contract.
UGA may enter into futures contracts, options on futures contracts, cleared swaps, and OTC swaps to gain exposure to changes in the value of an underlying commodity. A futures contract obligates the seller to deliver (and the purchaser to accept) the future delivery of a specified quantity and type of a commodity at a specified time and place. Some futures contracts may call for physical delivery of the asset, while others are settled in cash. The contractual obligations of a buyer or seller may generally be satisfied by taking or making physical delivery of the underlying commodity or by making an offsetting sale or purchase of an identical futures contract on the same or linked exchange before the designated date of delivery. Cleared swaps are agreements that are eligible to be cleared by a clearinghouse, e.g., ICE Clear Europe, and provide the efficiencies and benefits that centralized clearing on an exchange offers to traders of futures contracts, including credit risk intermediation and the ability to offset positions initiated with different counterparties. OTC swaps are entered into between two parties in private contracts. In an OTC swap, each party bears credit risk to the other party, i.e., the risk that the other party may not be able to perform its obligations under the OTC swap.
15
The purchase and sale of futures contracts, options on futures contracts and cleared swaps require margin deposits with an FCM. Additional deposits may be necessary for any loss on contract value. The Commodity Exchange Act requires FCMs to segregate all customer transactions and assets from the FCM’s proprietary transactions and assets. To reduce the credit risk that arises in connection with OTC swaps, UGA will generally enter into an agreement with each counterparty based on the Master Agreement published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc., which provides for the netting of its overall exposure to its counterparty. The Master Agreement is negotiated as between the parties and would address, among other things, the exchange of margin between the parties.
Futures contracts, options on futures contracts and cleared swaps involve, to varying degrees, elements of market risk (specifically commodity price risk) and exposure to loss in excess of the amount of variation margin. The face or contract amounts reflect the extent of the total exposure UGA has in the particular classes of instruments. Additional risks associated with the use of futures contracts are an imperfect correlation between movements in the price of the futures contracts and the market value of the underlying securities and the possibility of an illiquid market for a futures contract. Buying and selling options on futures contracts exposes investors to the risks of purchasing or selling futures contracts.
As to OTC swaps, valuing OTC derivatives is less certain than valuing actively traded financial instruments such as exchange-traded futures contracts and securities or cleared swaps, because the price and terms on which such OTC derivatives are entered into or can be terminated are individually negotiated, and those prices and terms may not reflect the best price or terms available from other sources. In addition, while market makers and dealers generally quote indicative prices or terms for entering into or terminating OTC contracts, they typically are not contractually obligated to do so, particularly if they are not a party to the transaction. As a result, it may be difficult to obtain an independent value for an outstanding OTC derivatives transaction.
Market volatility is attributable to things like the COVID-19 pandemic and related supply chain disruptions, war (such as the Russia-Ukraine war), continuing disputes among natural gas-producing countries, the introduction of or changes in tariffs or trade barriers, and trade wars between nations. Events such as these, and other, could cause volatility in the future, which may affect the value, pricing and liquidity of some investments or other assets, including those held by or invested in by UGA and the impact of which could limit UGA’s ability to have a substantial portion of its assets invested in the Benchmark Futures Contract. In such a circumstance, UGA could, if it determined it appropriate to do so in light of market conditions and regulatory requirements, invest in other Futures Contracts and/or Other Gasoline-Related Investments.
All of the futures contracts held by UGA through September 30, 2025, were exchange-traded. The risks associated with exchange-traded contracts are generally perceived to be less than those associated with OTC swaps since, in OTC swaps, a party must rely solely on the credit of its respective individual counterparties. However, in the future, if UGA 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, on the transaction. UGA has credit risk under its futures contracts since the sole counterparty to all domestic and foreign futures contracts is the clearinghouse for the exchange on which the relevant contracts are traded. In addition, UGA bears the risk of financial failure by the clearing broker.
UGA’s cash and other property, such as Treasuries, deposited with its FCMs are considered commingled with all other customer funds, subject to such FCM’s segregation requirements. In the event of an FCM’s insolvency, recovery may be limited to a pro rata share of segregated funds available. It is possible that the recovered amount could be less than the total of cash and other property deposited. The insolvency of an FCM could result in the complete loss of UGA’s assets posted with that FCM; however, the majority of UGA’s assets are held in investments in Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents with UGA’s custodian and would not be impacted by the insolvency of an FCM. The failure or insolvency of UGA’s custodian, however, could result in a substantial loss of UGA’s assets.
USCF invests a portion of UGA’s cash in money market funds that seek to maintain a stable per share NAV. UGA is exposed to any risk of loss associated with an investment in such money market funds. As of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, UGA held investments in money market funds in the amounts of $
16
For derivatives, risks arise from changes in the market value of the contracts. Theoretically, UGA is exposed to market risk equal to the value of futures contracts purchased and unlimited liability on such contracts sold short or that the value of the futures contract could fall below zero. As both a buyer and a seller of options, UGA pays or receives a premium at the outset and then bears the risk of unfavorable changes in the price of the contract underlying the option.
UGA’s policy is to continuously monitor its exposure to market and counterparty risk through the use of a variety of financial, position and credit exposure reporting controls and procedures. In addition, UGA has a policy of requiring review of the credit standing of each broker or counterparty with which it conducts business.
The financial instruments held by UGA are reported in its statements of financial condition at market or fair value, or at carrying amounts that approximate fair value, because of their highly liquid nature and short-term maturity.
For the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, the monthly average volume of open future contract notional value was $
NOTE 6 — FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
The following table presents per share performance data and other supplemental financial data for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024 for the shareholders. This information has been derived from information presented in the financial statements.
| Three months ended |
| Three months ended |
| Nine months ended |
| Nine months ended | ||||||
September 30, 2025 | September 30, 2024 | September 30, 2025 | September 30, 2024 | ||||||||||
(Unaudited) |
| (Unaudited) |
| (Unaudited) |
| (Unaudited) | |||||||
Per Share Operating Performance: | |||||||||||||
Net asset value, beginning of period | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | |||||
Total income (loss) | | ( |
| |
| ( | |||||||
Total expenses | ( | ( |
| ( |
| ( | |||||||
Net increase (decrease) in net asset value | | ( |
| |
| ( | |||||||
Net asset value, end of period | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | |||||
Total Return | | % | ( | % |
| | % |
| ( | % | |||
Ratios to Average Net Assets |
|
| |||||||||||
Total income (loss) | | % | ( | % |
| | % |
| ( | % | |||
Management fees# | | % | | % |
| | % |
| | % | |||
Total expenses excluding management fees# | | % | | % |
| | % |
| | % | |||
Net income (loss) | | % | ( | % |
| | % |
| ( | % | |||
| # |
Total returns are calculated based on the change in value during the period. An individual shareholder’s total return and ratio may vary from the above total returns and ratios based on the timing of contributions to and withdrawals from UGA. Additionally, only Authorized Participants purchase and redeem shares from the Fund at the NAV per share. Most shareholders will purchase and sell shares in the secondary market at market prices, which may differ from the NAV per share and result in a higher or lower total return.
17
NOTE 7 — FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
UGA values its investments in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 820 – Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (“ASC 820”). ASC 820 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles, and expands disclosures about fair value measurement. ASC 820 establishes a fair value hierarchy that distinguishes between: (1) market participant assumptions developed based on market data obtained from sources independent of UGA (observable inputs) and (2) UGA’s own assumptions about market participant assumptions developed based on the best information available under the circumstances (unobservable inputs). The three levels defined by the ASC 820 hierarchy are as follows:
Level I – Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the reporting entity has the ability to access at the measurement date.
Level II – Inputs other than quoted prices included within Level I that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. Level II assets include the following: quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability, and inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data by correlation or other means (market-corroborated inputs).
Level III – Unobservable pricing input at the measurement date for the asset or liability. Unobservable inputs shall be used to measure fair value to the extent that observable inputs are not available.
In some instances, the inputs used to measure fair value might fall within different levels of the fair value hierarchy. The level in the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement in its entirety falls shall be determined based on the lowest input level that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety.
The following table summarizes the valuation of UGA’s securities at September 30, 2025 using the fair value hierarchy:
At September 30, 2025 |
| Total |
| Level I |
| Level II |
| Level III | ||||
Short-Term Investments | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | ||||
Exchange-Traded Futures Contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
United States Contracts |
| ( |
| ( |
| |
| | ||||
The following table summarizes the valuation of UGA’s securities at December 31, 2024 using the fair value hierarchy:
At December 31, 2024 |
| Total |
| Level I |
| Level II |
| Level III | ||||
Short-Term Investments | $ | | $ | | $ | $ | ||||||
Exchange-Traded Futures Contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
United States Contracts |
| |
| |
| |
| | ||||
Effective January 1, 2009, UGA adopted the provisions of Accounting Standards Codification 815 — Derivatives and Hedging, which require presentation of qualitative disclosures about objectives and strategies for using derivatives, quantitative disclosures about fair value amounts and gains and losses on derivatives.
18
Fair Value of Derivative Instruments
Statements of | ||||||||
Financial | Fair Value at | Fair Value at | ||||||
Condition | September 30, | December 31, | ||||||
Derivatives not Accounted for as Hedging Instruments |
| Location |
| 2025 |
| 2024 | ||
Futures - Commodity Contracts | Unrealized gain (loss) on open commodity futures contracts | $ | ( | $ | | |||
The Effect of Derivative Instruments on the Statements of Operations
|
|
| For the nine months ended |
| For the nine months ended | |||||||||
September 30, 2025 | September 30, 2024 | |||||||||||||
Change in Unrealized | Change in Unrealized | |||||||||||||
Derivatives not | Location of Gain | Realized Gain (Loss) | Gain (Loss) on | Realized Gain (Loss) | Gain (Loss) on | |||||||||
Accounted for as | (Loss) on Derivatives | on Derivatives | Derivatives | in Derivatives | Derivatives | |||||||||
Hedging Instruments |
| Recognized in Income |
| Recognized in Income |
| Recognized in Income |
| Recognized in Income |
| Recognized in Income | ||||
Futures - Commodity Contracts |
| Realized gain (loss) on closed commodity futures contracts | $ | |
| | $ | ( |
| — | ||||
| Change in unrealized gain (loss) on open commodity futures contracts | | $ | ( | — | $ | | |||||||
NOTE 8 — SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
UGA has performed an evaluation of subsequent events through the date the financial statements were issued. This evaluation did not result in any subsequent events that necessitated disclosures and/or adjustments.
19
Item 2. 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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q.
Forward-Looking Information
This quarterly report on Form 10-Q, including this “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” contains “forward-looking statements” which generally relate to future events or future performance. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. All statements (other than statements of historical fact) included in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q that address activities, events or developments that will or may occur in the future, including such matters as changes in inflation in the United States, movements in the stock market, movements in U.S. and foreign currencies, and market volatility in the commodities markets and futures markets and indexes that track such movements, the Russia-Ukraine war and conflicts in the Middle East, UGA’s operations, USCF’s plans and references to UGA’s future success and other similar matters, are forward-looking statements. These statements are only predictions. Actual events or results may differ materially. These statements are based upon certain assumptions and analyses USCF has made based on its perception of historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments, as well as other factors appropriate in the circumstances. Whether or not actual results and developments will conform to USCF’s expectations and predictions, however, is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including the special considerations discussed in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, general economic, market and business conditions, changes in laws or regulations, including those concerning taxes, made by governmental authorities or regulatory bodies, and other world economic and political developments. Consequently, all the forward-looking statements made in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q are qualified by these cautionary statements, and there can be no assurance that the actual results or developments USCF anticipates will be realized or, even if substantially realized, that they will result in the expected consequences to, or have the expected effects on, UGA’s operations or the value of its shares.
UGA has based the forward-looking statements included in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q on information available to it on the date of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, 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 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 are traded 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 changes 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. As a result, investors should be aware that UGA would meet its investment objective even if there are significant deviations between changes in its daily NAV and changes in the daily price of the Benchmark Futures Contract, provided that the average daily percentage change in UGA’s NAV over 30 successive valuation days is within plus/minus ten percent (10%) of the average daily percentage change in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contracts 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).
20
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, risk mitigation measures (including those that may be taken by UGA, UGA’s FCMs, counterparties or other market participants), liquidity 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 (“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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q.
In addition, 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.
On any valuation day, the Benchmark Futures Contract is the near month futures contract for gasoline traded on the NYMEX unless the near month contract is within two weeks of expiration in which case the Benchmark Futures Contract is the next month contract for gasoline traded on the NYMEX.
Regulatory Disclosure
The regulation of commodity interest trading in the United States and other countries is an evolving area of the law. Below are certain key regulatory requirements that are, or may be, relevant to UGA. The various statements made in this summary are subject to modification by legislative action and changes in the rules and regulations of the SEC, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), CFTC, 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” in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q.
Exchange 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 may 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 exceed these accountability levels for investments in the futures contract for gasoline, the NYMEX and ICE Futures will monitor such exposure and may ask for further information on UGA’s and the Related Public Funds’ 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 September 30, 2025, UGA held 916 futures contracts for gasoline traded on the NYMEX. As September 30, 2025, UGA did not Futures Contracts traded on ICE Futures. For the nine months ended September 30, 2025, UGA did not exceed any accountability levels on the NYMEX or ICE Futures.
21
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. Investors should note that the foregoing accountability levels and position limits are subject to change, which in turn could change the amount and type of permitted investments in which UGA invests. For the nine months ended September 30, 2025, UGA did not exceed any position limits imposed by the NYMEX and ICE Futures.
Federal Position Limits
Part 150 of the CFTC’s regulations (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 that all market participants must comply with, with certain exemptions. The Benchmark Futures Contract is 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 inhibit UGA’s ability to invest in the relevant Benchmark Futures Contract and thereby could negatively impact the ability of UGA to meet its investment objective.
UGA has not limited the size of its offering and intends to utilize substantially all of its proceeds to purchase Benchmark Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments to the extent possible. If UGA encounters accountability levels, position limits, or price fluctuation limits for gasoline Futures Contracts on the NYMEX or ICE Futures, it may then, if permitted under applicable regulatory requirements, purchase gasoline Futures Contracts on other exchanges that trade listed gasoline futures or enter into swaps or other transactions to meet its investment objective. In addition, if UGA exceeds accountability levels on either the NYMEX or ICE Futures, and is required by such exchanges to reduce its holdings, such reduction could potentially cause a tracking error between the price of UGA’s shares and the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.
Margin for OTC Swaps
Rules put in place by U.S. federal banking regulators, the CFTC and the SEC require the daily exchange of variation margin and initial margin for swaps between swap dealers, major swap participants, security-based swap dealers, and major security-based swap participants (“Swap Entities”) and swaps between Swap Entities and their counterparties that are “financial end-users” (such rules, the “Margin Rules”). The Margin Rules require Swap Entities to exchange variation margin with all of their counterparties who are financial end-users. The minimum variation margin amount is the daily mark-to-market change in the value of the swap, taking into account the amount of variation margin previously posted or collected. Swap Entities are required to exchange initial margin with their financial end-users who 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 Margin Rules). The Margin Rules specify the types of collateral that may be posted or collected as initial margin or variation margin (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.
UGA is not a Swap Entity under the Margin Rules, but it is a financial end-user. Accordingly, UGA will be subject to the variation margin requirements of the Margin Rules for any swaps that it enters into. However, UGA does not have material swaps exposure under the Margin Rules, and accordingly, UGA will not be subject to the initial margin requirements of the Margin Rules.
22
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 FCMs.
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.
Natural disasters, public health disruptions (such as the COVID-19 pandemic), and international armed conflicts could impact the price of commodities and/or the value, pricing and liquidity of UGA’s investments or assets which, in turn, could cause the loss of your investment in UGA.
Natural or environmental disasters, such as earthquakes, fires, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis and other severe weather-related phenomena generally, and widespread disease, including public health disruptions, pandemics and epidemics (for example, the COVID-19 pandemic), can be highly disruptive to economies and markets. Such events can, directly or indirectly, negatively impact, and/or cause volatility in, the price of commodities such as unleaded gasoline and the value, pricing, and liquidity of the investments or other assets held by UGA.
Geopolitical conflict, including war and armed conflicts (such as the Russia-Ukraine war, conflicts in the Middle East, and the expansion of such conflicts in surrounding areas), sanctions, the introduction of or changes in tariffs or trade barriers, global or local recessions, and acts of terrorism, can also, directly or indirectly, negatively impact, and/or cause volatility in, the price of commodities such as unleaded gasoline and the value, pricing, and liquidity of the investments or other assets held by UGA.
A negative impact on, or volatility in, the price of gasoline or the value, pricing and liquidity of UGA’s investments or other assets resulting from the occurrence of any of the aforementioned events, or similar events, could cause you to lose all, or substantially all, of your investment in UGA.
23
UGA may be subject to interest rate risk, which may prevent UGA from investing fully at prevailing rates until any current investments in Treasuries mature in order to avoid selling those investments at a loss.
Interest rate risk is the risk that fixed income securities and other investments in UGA’s portfolio will fluctuate in value because of a change in interest rates. Interest rate changes can be sudden and unpredictable, and UGA may lose money because of movements in interest rates. When interest rates rise, the value of fixed income securities typically falls. In a rising interest rate environment, UGA may not be able to fully invest at prevailing rates until any current investments in Treasuries mature in order to avoid selling those investments at a loss. Interest rate risk is generally lower for shorter term investments and higher for longer term investments. In addition, in rising interest rate environments, it is possible that the Treasuries held by UGA will decline in value. When interest rates fall, UGA may be required to reinvest the proceeds from the sale, redemption or early prepayment of a Treasuries or money market security at a lower interest rate.
As inflation increases, the present value of UGA’s assets may decline.
Inflation is a general increase in the overall price level of goods and services in the economy. The United States Federal Reserve has a stated goal of maintaining a two percent increase in inflation over the long run, as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States experienced inflation above the Federal Reserve’s stated two-percent goal. Other world economies similarly experienced elevated inflation rates. The Federal Reserve increased interest rates and successfully reduced inflation so that it is close to the stated two percent goal. As a result, in 2024, the Federal Reserve began reducing interest rates. However, the rate of inflation in the United States is still above the stated two percent goal. Inflation has the effect of eroding the value of cash or bonds. In a high inflation environment the value of UGA’s cash and Treasury investments may decline.
UGA may potentially lose money by investing in government money market funds.
UGA invests in government money market funds. Although such government money market funds 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 money market fund. An investment in a government money market fund is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”), or any other government agency. The share price of a government money market fund can fall below the $1.00 share price. UGA cannot rely on or expect a government money market fund’s adviser or its affiliates to enter into support agreements or take other actions to maintain the government money market fund’s $1.00 share price. The credit quality of a government money market fund’s holdings can change rapidly in certain markets, and the default of a single holding could have an adverse impact on the government money market fund’s share price. Due to fluctuations in interest rates, the market value of securities held by a government money market fund may vary. A government money market fund’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 nine months ended September 30, 2025. The price of the Benchmark Futures Contract started the period at $2.0092 per gallon. The high of the period was on April 2, 2025 when the price reached $2.3310 per gallon. The low for the period was on September 19, 2025, which was $1.9126 per gallon. The period ended with the Benchmark Futures Contract at $1.9223 per gallon, a decrease of approximately (4.33)% over the period (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 period at $62.94 and ended the period at $64.30 on September 30, 2025, an increase of approximately 2.16% over the period. The Benchmark Futures Contract prices listed above began with the February 2025 contracts and ended with the November 2025 contracts. A decrease of approximately (4.33)% on the Benchmark Futures Contract listed above is a hypothetical return only and would not actually be realized 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.”
During the nine months ended September 30, 2025, the gasoline futures market experienced states of both 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. During periods of backwardation, the price of the near month gasoline Futures Contract is higher than the
24
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. UGA 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. As of September 30, 2025, UGA had 1,150,000 shares outstanding. On January 27, 2023, the SEC declared effective a registration statement filed by UGA that registered an unlimited number of shares. As a result, UGA has an unlimited number of shares that can be issued in the form of Creation Baskets. More shares may have been issued by UGA than are outstanding due to the redemption of shares.
As of September 30, 2025, UGA had the following Authorized Participants: Citadel Securities, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., Jane Street Capital, LLC, JP Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., Morgan Stanley & Co LLC, RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and Virtu Americas LLC.
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025 Compared to the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2024
Nine months ended | Nine months ended | ||||||
| September 30, 2025 | September 30, 2024 |
| ||||
Average daily total net assets | $ | 81,104,751 | $ | 100,182,770 | |||
Dividend and interest income earned on Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents | $ | 2,483,908 | $ | 3,804,675 | |||
Annualized yield based on average daily total net assets |
| 4.09 | % |
| 5.07 | % | |
Management fee | $ | 364,012 | $ | 449,938 | |||
Total fees and other expenses excluding management fees | $ | 262,985 | $ | 283,258 | |||
Total commissions accrued to brokers | $ | 51,523 | $ | 55,451 | |||
Total commissions as annualized percentage of average total net assets | 0.08 | % |
| 0.07 | % | ||
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.
Average interest rates earned on short-term investments held by UGA, including cash, cash equivalents and Treasuries, were lower during the nine months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2024. As a result, the amount of income earned by UGA as a percentage of average daily total net assets was lower during the nine months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2024. To the degree that the aggregate yield is lower, the net expense ratio, inclusive of income, will be higher.
The decrease in total fees and other expenses excluding management fees for the nine months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2024, was due primarily to a decrease in professional fees, directors’ fees and insurance, and commission.
The decrease in total commissions accrued to brokers for the nine months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2024, was due primarily to a lower number of Gasoline Futures Contracts being held and traded.
25
For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2025 Compared to the Three Months Ended September 30, 2024
| Three months |
| Three months | ||||
ended | ended | ||||||
September 30, 2025 | September 30, 2024 | ||||||
Average daily total net assets | $ | 75,625,635 | $ | 99,196,474 | |||
Dividend and interest income earned on Treasuries, cash and/or cash equivalents | $ | 778,359 | $ | 1,259,532 | |||
Annualized yield based on average daily total net assets |
| 4.08 | % |
| 5.05 | % | |
Management fee | $ | 114,399 | $ | 149,619 | |||
Total fees and other expenses excluding management fees | $ | 98,157 | $ | 135,410 | |||
Total commissions accrued to brokers | $ | 16,156 | $ | 18,884 | |||
Total commissions as annualized percentage of average total net assets | 0.08 | % | 0.08 | % | |||
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.
Average interest rates earned on short-term investments held by UGA, including cash, cash equivalents and Treasuries, were lower during the three months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the three months ended September 30, 2024. As a result, the amount of income earned by UGA as a percentage of average daily total net assets was lower during the three months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the three months ended September 30, 2024. To the degree that the aggregate yield is lower, the net expense ratio, inclusive of income, will be higher.
The decrease in total fees and other expenses excluding management fees for the three months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the three months ended September 30, 2024, was due primarily to a decrease in professional fees and directors’ fees and insurance.
The decrease in total commissions accrued to brokers for the three months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the three months ended September 30, 2024, 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 daily per share NAV, on a percentage basis, closely track the daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract, also on a percentage basis. Specifically, USCF seeks to manage the portfolio such that over any rolling period of 30-valuation days, the average daily change in UGA’s per share NAV is within a range of 90% to 110% (0.9 to 1.1) of the average daily change in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract. As an example, if the average daily movement of the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract for a particular 30-valuation day time period was 0.50% 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 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.
26
For the 30-valuation days ended September 30, 2025, the average daily change in the Benchmark Futures Contract was 0.087%, while the average daily change in the per share NAV of UGA over the same time period was 0.098%. The average daily difference was 0.011% (or 1.1 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.
Since the commencement of the offering of UGA’s shares to the public on February 26, 2008 to September 30, 2025, the average daily change in the Benchmark Futures Contract was 0.033%, while the average daily change in the per share NAV of UGA over the same time period was 0.035%. The average daily difference was 0.002% (or 0.2 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 charts demonstrate the correlation between the changes in UGA’s NAV and the changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract. The first chart below shows the daily movement of UGA’s per share NAV versus the daily movement of the Benchmark Futures Contract for the 30 valuation day period ended September 30, 2025, the last trading day in September. The second chart below shows the monthly total returns of UGA as compared to the monthly value of the Benchmark Futures Contract for the five years ended September 30, 2025.
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
27
*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 nine months ended September 30, 2025, the actual total return of UGA as measured by changes in its per share NAV was 2.16%. This is based on an initial per share NAV of $62.94 as of December 31, 2024 and an ending per share NAV as of September 30, 2025 of $64.30. 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 $62.84 as of September 30, 2025, for a total return over the relevant time period of (0.17)%. The difference between the actual per share NAV total return of UGA of 2.16% and the expected total return based on the Benchmark Futures Contract of (0.17)% was a difference over the time period of 2.33%, which is to say that UGA’s actual total return outperformed 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 higher than daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.
By comparison, for the nine months ended September 30, 2024, the actual total return of UGA as measured by changes in its per share NAV was (3.51)%. This is based on an initial per share NAV of $60.64 as of December 31, 2023 and an ending per share NAV as of September 30, 2024 of $58.51. 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 $56.74 as of September 30, 2024, for a total return over the relevant time period of (6.43)%. The difference between the actual per share NAV total return of UGA of (3.51)% and the expected total return based on the Benchmark Futures Contract of (6.43)% was a difference over the time period of 2.92%, which is to say that UGA’s actual total return outperformed 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 higher than daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract.
There are three factors that typically have impacted or are most likely to impact UGA’s ability to accurately track its Benchmark Futures Contract in addition to the foregoing.
28
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 the closing settlement price of the Benchmark Futures Contract, which could cause the changes in the daily per share NAV of UGA to either be higher or lower relative to the daily changes in the Benchmark Futures Contract. During the nine months ended September 30, 2025, 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 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 or higher 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 nine months ended September 30, 2025. 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 or lower 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 continue to stagnate over the near future. It is anticipated that fees and expenses paid by UGA may be lower than interest earned by UGA. As such, USCF anticipates that UGA could possibly outperform its benchmark so long as interest earned is greater 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 nine months ended September 30, 2025, UGA did not hold any Other Gasoline-Related Investments. If UGA increases in size, and due to its obligations to comply with market conditions, regulatory limits, and risk mitigation measures imposed by its FCMs, UGA may invest in Other Gasoline-Related Investments, such as OTC swaps, which may have the effect of increasing transaction related expenses and may result in increased tracking error. OTC swaps increase transaction-related expenses due to the fact that UGA must pay to the swap counterparty certain fees that UGA does not have to pay for transactions executed on an exchange.
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.
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
29
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 the 13th 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 13th 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 13th 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 13th month futures contract tend to move together, it can be seen that at times the near month futures contract prices are higher than the 13th month futures contract prices (backwardation) and, at other times, the near month futures contract prices are lower than the 13th month futures contract prices (contango).
30
*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 13th 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 September 30, 2015 and September 30, 2025. Investors will note that the near month gasoline futures contract spent time in both backwardation and contango.
31
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, 2024 and held until September 30, 2025 increased based upon the changes in the NAV for UGA shares on those days, by approximately 2.16%, while the front month futures contract of gasoline during the same period decreased by (0.17)% (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, 2023 and held to September 30, 2024 decreased based upon the changes in the NAV for UGA shares on those days, by approximately (3.51)%, while the front month futures contract of gasoline during the same period increased by (6.43)% (note: this comparison ignores the potential costs associated with physically owning and storing gasoline, which could be substantial).
Periods of contango or backwardation have not materially impacted 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. This is because the impact of backwardation and contango tended 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 nine months ended September 30, 2025, the price of the front RBOB month gasoline futures contract traded in a range between $1.9489 and $2.3310. Prices decreased (1.43)% from the end of 2024 through September 30, 2025, finishing the quarter at $1.9729.
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.
The early 2020’s witnessed extraordinary events in global financial markets, and crude oil offered no exception. During the first half of 2020, simultaneous demand and supply shocks led to unparalleled risk and volatility in oil futures markets. The oil demand shock was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the oil supply shock was caused by a Saudi-Russia price war. These twin shocks, which had never occurred at the same time before, caused several unprecedented effects. First, the front month WTI Oil Futures Contract traded at negative prices for the first and only time in history. Crude oil hit an all-time closing low of $(37.63) on April 20, 2020. Second, annualized volatility of front month WTI crude oil futures prices reached 984% in May 2020 after averaging 25% in the first two months of 2020 and 35% in 2019. The volatility includes several record-breaking returns that occurred between March and May of 2020. Third, WTI Oil Futures Contracts, which typically move together (i.e., increase or decrease) about 99% of the time, often moved in opposite directions, with daily correlation dropping to (24%). Fourth, futures curves, which can exhibit conditions known as “contango” and “backwardation” (as discussed above), moved into an extreme formation that some market experts referred to as “super contango.” This was a result of extreme bearishness in spot prices, which saw the front month WTI Oil Futures Contract detach from the rest of the futures curve and fall to an extreme position relative to later dated futures contracts.
As economies reopened and OPEC+ supply cuts were absorbed by the market, WTI crude oil prices rose from all-time lows and conditions for a new bull market emerged. Bullish fundamentals for crude oil prices were already in place when Russia invaded Ukraine in February of 2022. The war led to another round of heightened volatility and higher prices. Crude oil peaked in May 2022, then declined for the remainder of the year. Since early 2023, crude oil prices have traded mostly between approximately $65 to $80, with several prominent price reversals.
33
In the third quarter of 2025, U.S. crude oil production averaged 13.4 mbd. U.S. production rose significantly over the last five years. OPEC crude production declined from late 2022 through the third quarter of 2024 as the cartel supported prices with overall quotas and voluntary output cuts by certain countries, particularly Saudi Arabia. OPEC output rose during the nine months ending September 30, 2025, but remained below pre-and post-pandemic highs. OPEC fiercely supported prices with voluntary cuts and production quotas from mid-2022 to late 2024. The cartel announced plans to begin unwinding voluntary cuts and increasing quotas in 2024 and has begun to do so after delaying and adjusting these plans several times. While OPEC has steadily increased output several times in 2025, it has also reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining oil market stability and retains the flexibility to change plans as market conditions warrant. Nevertheless, the long-expected and repeatedly delayed reduction of quotas and voluntary cuts is finally underway. While not a complete policy reversal, the “OPEC put” which kept a floor on prices over the last several years has likely moved lower. Russia and OPEC have still not returned to pre-pandemic production levels, while the U.S. has become the world’s largest crude oil producing nation and other oil producing nations have also increased their output. In the U.S., the Trump administration has aggressively called for increased domestic production and its actions have and will make more drilling possible. However, U.S. drillers have shown restraint in recent years, and production may not rise as much in the future as it has in the recent past. Technology, geology, and economics tend to be larger determinants of U.S. production levels than political policy.
In April of 2025, the Trump administration announced large and widespread tariffs on trading partners. While no tariffs on crude oil itself were announced, and the administration later paused tariff implementation and announced changing tariff levels on a country-by-country basis, the overall impact of the administration’s actions may increase the risk of a global economic slowdown or recession, which would reduce demand for crude oil. As negotiations with trading partners continue, final trade policy remains elusive and crude oil prices may be volatile as a result.
The current geopolitical situation adds complexity to the supply-demand equation. In June of 2025, Israel and the United States attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities, raising speculation that Iran might attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz. As approximately 20% of global petroleum consumption transits the Strait daily, this could have a significant effect on prices. As it stands, Iran did not close the Strait, and prices fell back to the mid-$65 range after briefly topping $75. Global tensions, with existing and potential conflicts in various regions, remain a flash point for risk to crude oil supply, which could raise prices. Conversely, any resolution of geopolitical conflicts could ease supply disruptions, sanctions, and price volatility, which could lower prices.
Unleaded Gasoline Price Movements in Comparison to Other Energy Commodities and Investment Categories. USCF believes that investors frequently measure the degree to which prices or total returns of one investment or asset class move up or down in value in concert with another investment or asset class. Statistically, such a measure is usually done by measuring the correlation of the price movements of the two different investments or asset classes over some period of time. The correlation is scaled between 1 and -1, where 1 indicates that the two investment options move up or down in price or value together, known as “positive correlation,” and -1 indicates that they move in completely opposite directions, known as “negative correlation.” A correlation of 0 would mean that the movements of the two are neither positively nor negatively correlated, known as “non-correlation.” That is, the investment options sometimes move up and down together and other times move in opposite directions.
34
For the ten-year time period between September 30, 2015 and September 30, 2025, 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.
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
Gasoline - 10 Years
|
| US Gov’t |
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
Large Cap US | Bonds | Global | ||||||||||||
Equities (S&P | (BEUSG4 | Equities (FTSE | Unleaded | |||||||||||
Correlation Matrix 10 Years | 600) | Index) | World Index) | Crude Oil | Heating Oil | Natural Gas | Gasoline | |||||||
Large Cap US Equities (S&P 500) |
| 1.000 |
| 0.148 |
| 0.979 |
| 0.360 |
| 0.189 |
| 0.097 |
| 0.414 |
US Gov’t Bonds (BEUSG4 Index) |
|
|
| 1.000 |
| 0.169 |
| (0.247) |
| (0.371) |
| (0.135) |
| (0.172) |
Global Equities (FTSE World Index) |
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 |
| 0.392 |
| 0.219 |
| 0.048 |
| 0.446 |
Crude Oil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 |
| 0.767 |
| 0.007 |
| 0.749 |
Heating Oil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 |
| 0.039 |
| 0.616 |
Natural Gas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 |
| (0.001) |
Unleaded Gasoline |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 |
Source: Bloomberg, NYMEX |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The table below covers a more recent, but much shorter, range of dates than the above table.
*PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
Gasoline - 1 Year
Large Cap US | Global | |||||||||||||
Equities (S&P | US Gov’t Bonds | Equities (FTSE | Unleaded | |||||||||||
Correlation Matrix 1 Year | 500) | (BEUSG4 Index) | World Index) | Crude Oil | Heating Oil | Natural Gas | Gasoline | |||||||
Large Cap US Equities (S&P 500) |
| 1.000 |
| 0.164 |
| 0.962 |
| 0.129 |
| 0.268 |
| 0.058 |
| (0.398) |
US Gov’t Bonds (BEUSG4 Index) |
|
|
| 1.000 |
| 0.304 |
| (0.448) |
| (0.286) |
| 0.323 |
| (0.340) |
Global Equities (FTSE World Index) |
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 |
| (0.012) |
| 0.172 |
| (0.045) |
| (0.444) |
Crude Oil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 |
| 0.802 |
| (0.009) |
| 0.690 |
Heating Oil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 |
| (0.171) |
| 0.392 |
Natural Gas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 |
| (0.262) | |
Unleaded Gasoline |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 |
Source: Bloomberg, NYMEX |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
35
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 Benchmark 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.
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 nine months ended September 30, 2025, UGA’s expenses did not exceed the income UGA earned and the cash earned from the sale of Creation Baskets and the redemption of Redemption Baskets. During the nine months ended September 30, 2025, UGA did not use other assets to pay expenses. To the extent income exceed expenses, UGA’s NAV will be positively impacted.
Although permitted to do so under its LP Agreement, UGA has not leveraged, and does not intend to leverage, its assets through borrowings or otherwise, and UGA makes its investments accordingly. Consistent with the foregoing, UGA’s investments will take into account the need for UGA to maintain adequate liquidity to meet its margin and collateral requirements and to avoid, to the extent reasonably possible, UGA becoming leveraged. If market conditions require it, these risk reduction procedures, including changes to UGA’s investments, may occur on short notice.
UGA does not and will not borrow money or use debt to satisfy its margin or collateral obligations in respect of its investments, but it could become leveraged if UGA were to hold insufficient assets that would allow it to meet not only the current, but also future, margin or collateral obligations required for such investments. Such a circumstance could occur if UGA were to hold assets that have a value of less than zero.
USCF endeavors to have the value of UGA’s Treasuries, cash and cash equivalents, whether held by UGA or posted as margin or other collateral, at all times approximate the aggregate market value of its obligations under its Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments.
36
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 nine months ended September 30, 2025, 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 (including those that may be taken by UGA, UGA’s FCMs, counterparties or other market participants) 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. However, no level of losses will require USCF to terminate UGA. UGA’s termination would cause the liquidation and potential loss of an investor’s investment. Termination could also negatively affect the overall maturity and timing of an investor’s investment portfolio.
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.
37
USCF attempts to manage the credit risk of UGA by following various trading limitations and policies. In particular, UGA generally posts margin and/or holds liquid assets that are approximately equal to the market value of its obligations to counterparties under the Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments it holds. USCF has implemented procedures that include, but are not limited to, executing and clearing trades only with creditworthy parties and/or requiring the posting of collateral or margin by such parties for the benefit of UGA to limit its credit exposure. An FCM, when acting on behalf of UGA in accepting orders to purchase or sell Futures Contracts on United States exchanges, is required by CFTC regulations to separately account for and segregate as belonging to UGA, all assets of UGA relating to domestic Futures Contracts trading. These FCMs are not allowed to commingle UGA’s assets with their other assets. In addition, the CFTC requires 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 3.Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for a discussion of OTC swaps.
As of September 30, 2025, UGA held cash deposits and short-term investments in the amount of $ 76,088,371 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 September 30, 2025, 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.
In addition to USCF’s management fee, UGA pays its brokerage fees (including fees to FCMs), 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 FCMs are on a contract-by-contract, or round turn, 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 (Unaudited) in Item 1 of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q.
38
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 September 30, 2025, UGA’s portfolio held 916 Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX. As of September 30, 2025, 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. The end of day portfolio disclosed on UGA’s website would reflect any investments in Futures Contracts beyond the Benchmark Gasoline Futures Contract, and Other Gasoline-Related Investments, including any made in light of market conditions, regulatory requirements, risk mitigation measures (including those that may be taken by UGA, UGA’s FCMs, counterparties or other market participants), liquidity requirements, and other factors. Independent of the UGA website UGA may make available portfolio holdings to Authorized Participants that reflects UGA’s anticipated holdings.
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
Commodity Price Risk.
UGA is exposed to commodity price risk. In particular, UGA is exposed to gasoline price risk through its holdings of Futures Contracts together with any other derivatives in which it may invest, which are discussed below. As a result, fluctuations in the value of the Futures Contracts that UGA holds in its portfolio, as described in “Contractual Obligations” under “Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” above, are expected to directly affect the value of UGA’s shares.
OTC Contract Risk
UGA may purchase OTC contracts, such as forward contracts or swap or spot contracts. Unlike most exchange-traded futures contracts or exchange- traded options on such futures, each party to an OTC swap bears the credit risk that the other party may not be able to perform its obligations under its contract.
UGA may enter into certain transactions where an OTC component is exchanged for a corresponding futures contract (“Exchange for Related Position” or “EFRP” transactions). In the most common type of EFRP transaction entered into by UGA, the OTC component is the purchase or sale of one or more baskets of UGA shares. These EFRP transactions may expose UGA to counterparty risk during the interim period between the execution of the OTC component and the exchange for a corresponding futures contract. Generally, the counterparty risk from the EFRP transaction will exist only on the day of execution.
Swap transactions, like other financial transactions, involve a variety of significant risks. The specific risks presented by a particular swap transaction necessarily depend upon the terms and circumstances of the transaction. In general, however, all swap transactions involve some combination of market risk, credit risk, counterparty credit risk, funding risk, liquidity risk and operational risk.
Highly customized swap transactions in particular may increase liquidity risk, which may result in a suspension of redemptions. Highly leveraged transactions may experience substantial gains or losses in value as a result of relatively small changes in the value or level of an underlying or related market factor.
In evaluating the risks and contractual obligations associated with a particular swap transaction, it is important to consider that a swap transaction may be modified or terminated only by mutual consent of the original parties and subject to agreement on individually negotiated terms. Therefore, it may not be possible for USCF to modify, terminate or offset UGA’s obligations or its exposure to the risks associated with a transaction prior to its scheduled termination date.
To reduce the credit risk that arises in connection with such contracts, UGA will generally enter into an agreement with each counterparty based on the Master Agreement published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”) that provides for the netting of its overall exposure to its counterparty, and, consistent with the applicable regulatory requirements, the posting by each party to cover the mark-to-market exposure of a counterparty to the other counterparty is required.
USCF assesses or reviews, as appropriate, the creditworthiness of each potential or existing counterparty to an OTC swap pursuant to guidelines approved by the Board. Furthermore, USCF on behalf of UGA only enters into OTC swaps 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
39
companies domiciled in the United States, or (d) producers, users or traders of energy, whether or not regulated by the CFTC. Any entity acting as a counterparty shall be regulated in either the United States or the United Kingdom unless otherwise approved by the Board after consultation with its legal counsel. Existing counterparties are also reviewed periodically by USCF. UGA will also require that the counterparty be highly rated and/or provide collateral or other credit support. Even if collateral is used to reduce counterparty credit risk, sudden changes in the value of OTC transactions may leave a party open to financial risk due to a counterparty default since the collateral held may not cover a party’s exposure on the transaction in such situations.
In general, valuing OTC derivatives is less certain than valuing actively traded financial instruments such as exchange-traded futures contracts and securities or cleared swaps because the price and terms on which such OTC derivatives are entered into or can be terminated are individually negotiated, and those prices and terms may not reflect the best price or terms available from other sources. In addition, while market makers and dealers generally quote indicative prices or terms for entering into or terminating OTC swaps, they typically are not contractually obligated to do so, particularly if they are not a party to the transaction. As a result, it may be difficult to obtain an independent value for an outstanding OTC derivatives transaction.
During the nine month reporting period ended September 30, 2025, UGA limited its OTC activities to EFRP transactions.
UGA anticipates that the use of Other Gasoline-Related Investments together with its investments in Futures Contracts will produce price and total return results that closely track the investment goals of UGA. However, there can be no assurance of this. OTC swaps may result in higher transaction-related expenses than the brokerage commissions paid in connection with the purchase of Futures Contracts, which may impact UGA’s ability to successfully track the Benchmark Futures Contract.
Item 4. Controls and Procedures.
Disclosure Controls and Procedures.
UGA maintains disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in UGA’s periodic reports filed or submitted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time period specified in the SEC’s rules and forms.
The duly appointed officers of USCF, including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, who perform functions equivalent to those of a principal executive officer and principal financial officer of UGA if UGA had any officers, have evaluated the effectiveness of UGA’s disclosure controls and procedures and have concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures of UGA have been effective as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report on Form 10-Q.
Change in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There were no changes in UGA’s internal control over financial reporting during UGA’s last fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, UGA’s internal control over financial reporting.
40
Part II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings.
From time to time, UGA may be involved in legal proceedings arising primarily from the ordinary course of its business. UGA is not currently party to any material legal proceedings. In addition, USCF, as the general partner of UGA and the Related Public Funds may, from time to time, be involved in litigation arising out of its operations in the ordinary course of business. Except as described herein, USCF is not currently party to any material legal proceedings.
Optimum Strategies Action
On April 6, 2022, USO and USCF were named as defendants in an action filed by Optimum Strategies Fund I, LP, a purported investor in call option contracts on USO (the “Optimum Strategies Action”). The action was in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut at Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00511.
The Optimum Strategies Action asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “1934 Act”), Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act (“CUSA”). It purported to challenge statements in registration statements that became effective in February 2020, March 2020, and on April 20, 2020, as well as public statements between February 2020 and May 2020, in connection with certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The complaint was seeking damages, interest, costs, attorney’s fees, and equitable relief.
On March 15, 2023, the court granted the USO defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. In its ruling, the court granted the USO defendants’ motion to dismiss, with prejudice, the plaintiff’s claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and a claim for control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Having dismissed all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claim under CUSA and dismissed the claim without prejudice. No notice of appeal was filed.
Settlement of SEC and CFTC Investigations
On November 8, 2021, USCF and USO announced a resolution with each of the SEC and the CFTC relating to matters set forth in certain Wells Notices issued by the staffs of each of the SEC and CFTC as more fully described below. On August 17, 2020, USCF, USO, and John Love received a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the SEC (the “SEC Wells Notice”). The SEC Wells Notice stated that the SEC staff made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against USCF, USO, and Mr. Love alleging violations of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”), and Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Subsequently, on August 19, 2020, USCF, USO, and Mr. Love received a Wells Notice from the staff of the CFTC (the “CFTC Wells Notice”). The CFTC Wells Notice stated that the CFTC staff made a preliminary determination to recommend that the CFTC file an enforcement action against USCF, USO, and Mr. Love alleging violations of Sections 4o(1)(A) and (B) and 6(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended (the “CEA”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6o(1)(A) and (B) and 9(1) (2018), and CFTC Regulations 4.26, 4.41, and 180.1(a), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.26, 4.41, 180.1(a) (2019).
On November 8, 2021, acting pursuant to an offer of settlement submitted by USCF and USO, the SEC issued an order instituting cease-and-desist proceedings, making findings, and imposing a cease-and-desist order pursuant to Section 8A of the 1933 Act, directing USCF and USO to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the 1933 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3) (the “SEC Order”). In the SEC Order, the SEC made findings that, from April 24, 2020 to May 21, 2020, USCF and USO violated Section 17(a)(3) of 1933 Act, which provides that it is “unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.” USCF and USO consented to entry of the SEC Order without admitting or denying the findings contained therein, except as to jurisdiction.
41
Separately, on November 8, 2021, acting pursuant to an offer of settlement submitted by USCF, the CFTC issued an order instituting cease-and-desist proceedings, making findings, and imposing a cease-and-desist order pursuant to Section 6(c) and (d) of the CEA, directing USCF to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of Section 4o(1)(B) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) (B), and CFTC Regulation 4.41(a)(2), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a)(2) (the “CFTC Order”). In the CFTC Order, the CFTC made findings that, from on or about April 22, 2020 to June 12, 2020, USCF violated Section 4o(1)(B) of the CEA and CFTC Regulation 4.41(a)(2), which make it unlawful for any commodity pool operator (“CPO”) to engage in “any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or participant or prospective client or participant” and prohibit a CPO from advertising in a manner which “operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or participant or prospective client or participant,” respectively. USCF consented to entry of the CFTC Order without admitting or denying the findings contained therein, except as to jurisdiction.
Pursuant to the SEC Order and the CFTC Order, in addition to the command to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of Section 17(a)(3) of the 1933 Act, Section 4o(1)(B) of the CEA, and CFTC Regulation 4.14(a)(2), civil monetary penalties totaling two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) in the aggregate were required to be paid to the SEC and CFTC, of which one million two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($1,250,000) was paid by USCF to each of the SEC and the CFTC, respectively, pursuant to the offsets permitted under the orders.
In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation
On June 19, 2020, USCF, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas (the “Lucas Class Action”). The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740.
On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Lucas Class Complaint”). The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the 1933 Act, the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID- 19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020 and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration statements. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial as well as costs and attorney’s fees. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation, Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC.
The lead plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC.
The remaining defendants in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation filed a motion to dismiss the claims in January 2021. On September 29, 2025, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the class action complaint in its entirety without prejudice and granting plaintiff leave to move to amend the complaint by November 26, 2025. USCF, USO, and the individual defendants intend to continue vigorously contesting any such claims.
42
Wang Class Action
On July 10, 2020, purported shareholder Momo Wang filed a putative class action complaint, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against defendants USO, USCF, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, Malcolm R. Fobes, III, ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, JP Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-4596 (the “Wang Class Action”).
The Wang Class Action asserted federal securities claims under the 1933 Act, challenging disclosures in a March 19, 2020 registration statement. It alleged that the defendants failed to disclose to investors in USO certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The Wang Class Action was voluntarily dismissed on August 4, 2020.
Mehan Action
On August 10, 2020, purported shareholder Darshan Mehan filed a derivative action on behalf of nominal defendant USO, against defendants USCF, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes, III (the “Mehan Action”). The action is pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda as Case No. RG20070732.
The Mehan Action alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to USO and failed to act in good faith in connection with a March 19, 2020 registration statement and offering and disclosures regarding certain extraordinary market conditions that caused demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The complaint seeks, on behalf of USO, compensatory damages, restitution, equitable relief, attorney’s fees, and costs. All proceedings in the Mehan Action are stayed pending final disposition of the motion(s) to dismiss in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation.
USCF, USO, and the other defendants intend to vigorously contest such claims.
In re United States Oil Fund, LP Derivative Litigation
On August 27, 2020, purported shareholders Michael Cantrell and AML Pharm. Inc. DBA Golden International filed two separate derivative actions on behalf of nominal defendant USO, against defendants USCF, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Andrew F Ngim, Gordon L. Ellis, Malcolm R. Fobes, III, Nicholas D. Gerber, Robert L. Nguyen, and Peter M. Robinson in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York at Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06974 (the “Cantrell Action”) and Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06981 (the “AML Action”), respectively.
The complaints in the Cantrell and AML Actions are nearly identical. They each allege violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 21D of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and common law claims of breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. These allegations stem from USO’s disclosures and defendants’ alleged actions in light of the extraordinary market conditions in 2020 that caused demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The complaints seek, on behalf of USO, compensatory damages, restitution, equitable relief, attorney’s fees, and costs. The plaintiffs in the Cantrell and AML Actions have marked their actions as related to the Lucas Class Action.
The Court consolidated the Cantrell and AML Actions under the caption In re United States Oil Fund, LP Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06974 and appointed co-lead counsel. All proceedings in In re United States Oil Fund, LP Derivative Litigation are stayed pending final disposition of the motion(s) to dismiss in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation.
USCF, USO, and the other defendants intend to vigorously contest the claims in In re United States Oil Fund, LP Derivative Litigation.
43
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
There have been no material changes to the risk factors previously disclosed in UGA’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed on February 28, 2025 (the “Form 10-K”), except for the following:
The impact of changes in U.S. federal income tax laws on UGA is uncertain.
In general, legislative or other actions relating to U.S. federal income taxes could have a negative effect on UGA or its investors. Matters pertaining to U.S. federal income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department. The Trump Administration has proposed significant changes to the Code and existing U.S. federal income tax regulations and there are a number of proposals in Congress that, if enacted, would similarly modify the Code. The likelihood of any such legislation being enacted is uncertain, but new legislation and any U.S. Treasury regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions interpreting such legislation could result in adverse tax consequences to UGA and its investors. Investors are urged to consult with their tax advisor with respect to the status of legislative, regulatory or administrative developments and proposals and their potential effect on an investment in UGA shares.
As inflation increases, the present value of UGA’s assets may decline.
Inflation is a general increase in the overall price level of goods and services in the economy. The United States Federal Reserve has a stated goal of maintaining a two percent increase in inflation over the long run, as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States experienced inflation above the Federal Reserve’s stated two-percent goal. Other world economies similarly experienced elevated inflation rates. The Federal Reserve increased interest rates and successfully reduced inflation so that it is close to the stated two percent goal. As a result, in 2024, the Federal Reserve began reducing interest rates. However, the rate of inflation in the United States is still above the stated two percent goal. Inflation has the effect of eroding the value of cash or bonds. In a high inflation environment, the value of UGA’s cash and Treasury investments may decline.
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds.
| (a) | None. |
| (b) | Not applicable. |
| (c) | UGA does not purchase shares directly from its shareholders. In connection with its redemption of baskets held by Authorized Participants, UGA redeemed 2 baskets (comprising 100,000 shares) during the third quarter of the year ending December 31, 2025. The following table summarizes the redemptions by Authorized Participants during the three months ended September 30, 2025: |
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
| Total |
| |||
Number of | |||||
Shares | Average Price Per | ||||
Period | Redeemed | Share | |||
7/1/25 to 7/31/25 |
| — | $ | — | |
8/1/25 to 8/31/25 |
| 50,000 | $ | 62.52 | |
9/1/25 to 9/30/25 |
| 50,000 | $ | 65.06 | |
Total |
| 100,000 |
|
| |
44
Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities.
Not applicable.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Not applicable.
Item 5. Other Information.
No officers or directors of the Company have
Monthly Account Statements
Pursuant to the requirement under Rule 4.22 under the Commodity Exchange Act, each month UGA publishes an account statement for its shareholders, which includes a Statement of Income (Loss) and a Statement of Changes in Net Asset Value. The account statement is furnished to the SEC on a current report on Form 8-K pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and posted each month on UGA’s website at www.uscfinvestments.com.
45
Item 6. Exhibits.
Listed below are the exhibits, which are filed as part of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (according to the number assigned to them in Item 601 of Regulation S-K):
Exhibit Number |
| Description of Document |
31.1(1) | ||
31.2(1) | ||
32.1(1) | ||
32.2(1) | ||
101.INS | XBRL Instance Document. | |
101.SCH | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema. | |
101.CAL | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase. | |
101.DEF | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase. | |
101.LAB | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase. | |
101.PRE | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase. | |
104 | Cover Page Interactive Data File (formatted as Inline XBRL and contained in Exhibit 101) |
| (1) | Filed herewith. |
46
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
United States Gasoline Fund, LP (Registrant) | ||
By: United States Commodity Funds LLC, its general partner | ||
By: | /s/ John P. Love | |
John P. Love | ||
President and Chief Executive Officer | ||
(Principal executive officer) | ||
Date: November 7, 2025 | ||
By: | /s/ Stuart P. Crumbaugh | |
Stuart P. Crumbaugh | ||
Chief Financial Officer | ||
(Principal financial and accounting officer) | ||
Date: November 7, 2025 | ||
47