Item 1. Business
General
World Monitor Trust II (the “Trust”) is a business trust organized under the laws of Delaware on April 22, 1999. The Trust consists of three separate and distinct series (“Series”): Series D, Series E and Series F. Series D, E and F commenced trading operations on March 13, 2000, April 6, 2000 and March 1, 2000, respectively, and each Series will continue to exist until terminated pursuant to the provisions of Article XIII of the Third Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust and Trust Agreement (the “Trust Agreement”). The assets of each Series are segregated from those of the other Series, separately valued and independently managed. Each Series was formed to engage in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of futures, forward and options contracts, and may, from time to time, engage in cash and spot transactions. The trustee of the Trust is Wilmington Trust Company. Preferred Investment Solutions Corp (“Preferred” or the “Managing Owner”) serves as the managing owner of the Trust and each Series, including World Monitor Trust II-Series E (“Registrant”). Registrant was formed to engage in the speculative trading of commodity futures and forward contracts. Registrant’s fiscal year for book and tax purposes ends on December 31.
Registrant is engaged solely in the business of commodity futures and forward trading; therefore, presentation of industry segment information is not applicable.
Managing Owner and its Affiliates
Preferred has been the managing owner of Registrant since October 1, 2004. Prior to that date, Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. served as managing owner of Registrant. The term Managing Owner, as used herein, refers either to Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. or Preferred, depending upon the applicable period discussed.
The Managing Owner is required to maintain at least a 1% interest in Registrant so long as it is acting as Registrant’s Managing Owner.
The Trading Advisor
Registrant has entered into an advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with Graham Capital Management, L.P. (the “Trading Advisor” or “Graham”) to make the trading decisions for Registrant. Graham trades 100% of Registrant’s assets pursuant to Graham’s Global Diversified Program. The Advisory Agreement may be terminated for various reasons, including at the discretion of Registrant. Registrant pays a weekly management fee equal to approximately 0.038% (2% annually) of the assets allocated to the Trading Advisor. Registrant also pays the Trading Advisor an incentive fee of 22% of New High Net Trading Profits (as defined in the Advisory Agreement) generated by Registrant. Incentive fees, if any, accrue weekly and are paid quarterly in arrears.
Competition
The Managing Owner and its affiliates have formed, and may continue to form, various entities to engage in the speculative trading of futures and forward contracts that have certain of the same investment policies as Registrant.
Registrant does not currently, and does not intend in the future to, solicit the sale of additional Interests. As such, Registrant does not compete with other entities to attract new fund participants. However, to the extent that a Trading Advisor recommends similar or identical trades to Registrant and other accounts that it manages, Registrant may compete with those accounts, as well as with other market participants, for the execution of the same or similar trades.
Employees
Registrant has no employees. Management and administrative services for Registrant are performed by the Managing Owner or third parties pursuant to the Trust Agreement, as further discussed in Notes 3 and 4 to Registrant’s financial statements included in its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2007 (“Registrant’s 2007 Annual Report”), which is filed as an exhibit hereto.
Item 1A.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
THE RISKS YOU FACE
You Should Not Rely on Past Performance in Deciding Whether to Buy Interests
The Trading Advisor selected by the Managing Owner to manage the assets of Registrant has a performance history through the date of its selection by the Managing Owner. You must consider, however, the uncertain significance of past performance, and you should not rely on the Trading Advisor’s or the Managing Owner’s records to date for predictive purposes. You should not assume that the Trading Advisor’s future trading decisions will create profit, avoid substantial losses or result in performance for Registrant that is comparable to the Trading Advisor’s or to the Managing Owner’s past performance. In fact, as a significant amount of academic study has shown, futures funds more frequently than not underperforms the past performance records included in their prospectuses.
Price Volatility May Possibly Cause the Total Loss of Your Investment
Futures and forward contracts have a high degree of price variability and are subject to occasional rapid and substantial changes. Consequently, you could lose all or substantially all of your investment in the Trust.
Speculative and Volatile Markets Combined With Highly Leveraged Trading May Cause the Trust to Incur Substantial Losses.
The markets in which Registrant trades are speculative, highly leveraged and involve a high degree of risk. The Trading Advisor’s trading considered individually involves a significant risk of incurring large losses, and there can be no assurance that Registrant will not incur such losses. Futures and forward prices are volatile. Volatility increases risk, particularly when trading with leverage. Trading on a highly leveraged basis, as does Registrant, even in stable markets involves risk; doing so in volatile markets necessarily involves a substantial risk of sudden, significant losses. Due to such leverage, even a small movement in price could cause large losses for Registrant. Market volatility will increase the potential for large losses. Market volatility and leverage mean that Registrant could incur substantial losses, potentially impairing its equity base and ability to achieve its long-term profit objectives even if favorable market conditions subsequently develop.
Fees and Commissions are Charged Regardless of Profitability and May Result in Depletion of Trust Assets
Registrant is subject to the fees and expenses which are payable irrespective of profitability in addition to performance fees which, are payable based on the profitability of Registrant. Consequently, the expenses of Registrant could, over time, result in significant losses to your investment therein.
Market Conditions May Impair Profitability
The trading system used by the Trading Advisor uses technical, trend-following methods. The profitability of trading under these systems depends on, among other things, the occurrence of significant price trends, which are sustained movements, up or down, in futures and forward prices. Such trends may not develop; there have been periods in the past without price trends. The likelihood of the Interests being profitable could be materially diminished during periods when events external to the markets themselves have an important impact on prices. During such periods, the Trading Advisor’s historic price analysis could establish positions on the wrong side of the price movements caused by such events.
Discretionary Trading Strategies May Incur Substantial Losses
Discretionary traders, while they may utilize market charts, computer programs and compilations of quantifiable fundamental information to assist them in making trading decisions, make such decisions on the basis of their own judgment and “trading instinct,” not on the basis of trading signals generated by any program or model. Such traders may be more prone to subjective judgments, which may have greater potentially adverse effects on their performance than systematic traders, which emphasize eliminating the effects of “emotionalism” on their trading. Reliance on trading judgment may, over time, produce less consistent trading results than implementing a systematic approach. Discretionary traders, like trend-following traders, are unlikely to be profitable unless major price movements occur. Discretionary traders are highly unpredictable, and can incur substantial losses even in apparently favorable markets.
Systematic Trading Strategies May Incur Substantial Losses
A systematic trader will generally rely to some degree on judgmental decisions concerning, for example, what markets to follow and commodities to trade, when to liquidate a position in a contract which is about to expire and how large a position to take in a particular commodity. Although these judgmental decisions may have a substantial effect on a systematic trader’s performance, such trader’s primary reliance is on trading programs or models that generate trading signals. The systems utilized to generate trading signals are changed from time to time (although generally infrequently), but the trading instructions generated by the systems being used are followed without significant additional analysis or interpretation. Therefore, systematic trading may incur substantial losses by failing to capitalize on market trends that their systems would otherwise have exploited by applying their
generally mechanical trading systems by judgmental decisions of employees. Furthermore, any trading system or trader may suffer substantial losses by misjudging the market. Systematic traders tend to rely on computerized programs, and some consider the prospect of disciplined trading, which largely removes the emotion of the individual trader from the trading process, advantageous. Due to their reliance upon computers, systematic traders are generally able to incorporate a significant amount of data into a particular trading decision. However, when fundamental factors dominate the market, trading systems may suffer rapid and severe losses due to their inability to respond to such factors until such factors have had a sufficient effect on the market to create a trend of enough magnitude to generate a reversal of trading signals, by which time a precipitous price change may already be in progress, preventing liquidation at anything but substantial losses.
Decisions Based Upon Fundamental Analysis May Not Result in Profitable Trading
Traders that utilize fundamental trading strategies attempt to examine factors external to the trading market that affect the supply and demand for a particular futures and forward contracts in order to predict future prices. Such analysis may not result in profitable trading because the analyst may not have knowledge of all factors affecting supply and demand, prices may often be affected by unrelated factors, and purely fundamental analysis may not enable the trader to determine quickly that previous trading decisions were incorrect. In addition, because of the breadth of fundamental data that exists, a fundamental trader may not be able to follow developments in all such data, but instead may specialize in analyzing a narrow set of data, requiring trading in fewer markets. Consequently, a fundamental trader may have less flexibility in adverse markets to trade other futures and forward markets than traders that do not limit the number of markets traded as a result of a specialized focus.
Increase in Assets Under Management May Affect Trading Decisions
The more equity the Trading Advisor manages, the more difficult it may be for the Trading Advisor to trade profitably because of the difficulty of trading larger positions without adversely affecting prices and performance. Accordingly, such increases in equity under management may require the Trading Advisor to modify trading decisions for Registrant, which could have a detrimental effect on your investment.
You Cannot be Assured of the Trading Advisors’ Continued Services Which May Be Detrimental to Registrant
You cannot be assured that the Trading Advisor will be willing or able to continue to provide advisory services to Registrant for any length of time. There is severe competition for the services of qualified trading advisors, and Registrant may not be able to retain satisfactory replacement or additional trading advisors on acceptable terms or the Trading Advisor may require Registrant to pay higher fees in order to be able to retain such Trading Advisor. The Managing Owner may either terminate the Trading Advisor upon 30 days’ prior written notice, or upon shorter notice, if for cause. The Trading Advisor has the right to terminate the Advisory Agreement in its discretion at any time for cause.
Limited Ability to Liquidate Your Investment
There is no secondary market for the Units. While the Units have redemption rights, there are restrictions, and possible fees assessed. Transfers of Units are subject to limitations, and the Managing Owner may deny a request to transfer if it determines that the transfer may result in adverse legal or tax consequences for Registrant.
Possible Illiquid Markets May Exacerbate Losses
Futures and forward positions cannot always be liquidated at the desired price. It is difficult to execute a trade at a specific price when there is a relatively small volume of buy and sell orders in a market. A market disruption, such as when foreign governments may take or be subject to political actions, which disrupt the markets in their currency or major exports, can also make it difficult to liquidate a position. Such periods of illiquidity and the events that trigger them are difficult to predict and there can be no assurance that the Trading Advisor will be able to do so. There can be no assurance that market illiquidity will not cause losses for Registrant. The large size of the positions which the Trading Advisor is expected to acquire for Registrant increases the risk of illiquidity by both making its positions more difficult to liquidate and increasing the losses incurred while trying to do so.
The risk of loss due to potentially illiquid markets is more acute in respect of over-the-counter instruments than in respect of exchange-traded instruments because the performance of those contracts is not guaranteed by an exchange or clearinghouse and the Trust will be at risk to the ability of the counterparty to the instrument to perform its obligations thereunder. Because these markets are not regulated, there are no specific standards or regulatory supervision of trade pricing and other trading activities that occur in those markets.
Because No Trust Acquires Any Asset with Intrinsic Value, the Positive Performance of Your Investment Is Wholly Dependent Upon an Equal and Offsetting Loss
Futures trading is a risk transfer economic activity. For every gain there is an equal and offsetting loss rather than an opportunity to participate over time in general economic growth. Unlike most alternative investments, an investment in Registrant does not involve acquiring any asset with intrinsic value. Overall stock and bond prices could rise significantly and the economy as a whole prospers; while Registrant trades unprofitably.
Failure of Futures Trading to be Non-Correlated to General Financial Markets Will Eliminate Benefits of Diversification
Historically, managed futures generally have been non-correlated to the performance of other asset classes such as stocks and bonds. Non-correlation means that there is no statistically valid relationship between the past performance of futures and forward contracts on the one hand and stocks or bonds on the other hand. Non-correlation should not be confused with negative correlation, where the performance would be exactly opposite between two asset classes. Because of this non-correlation, Registrant cannot be expected to be automatically profitable during unfavorable periods for the stock market, or vice-versa. The futures and forward markets are fundamentally different from the securities markets in that for every gain in futures and forward trading, there is an equal and offsetting loss. If Registrant does not perform in a manner non-correlated with the general financial markets or does not perform successfully, you will obtain no diversification benefits by investing in the Units and Registrant may have no gains to offset your losses from other investments.
Trading on Commodity Exchanges Outside the United States is Not Subject to U.S. Regulation
The Trading Advisor may engage in some or all of its trading on behalf of Registrant on commodity exchanges outside the United States. Trading on such exchanges is not regulated by any United States governmental agency and may involve certain risks not applicable to trading on United States exchanges. In trading contracts denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars, Registrant will be subject to the risk of adverse exchange-rate movements between the dollar and the functional currencies of such contracts. Investors could incur substantial losses from trading on foreign exchanges by Registrant to which such investors would not have been subject had the Trading Advisor limited its trading to U.S. markets.
Various Actual and Potential Conflicts of Interest May Be Detrimental to Unitholders
Registrant is subject to actual and potential conflicts of interests involving the Managing Owner, the Trading Advisor, and various brokers and servicing agents. The Managing Owner, the Trading Advisor, and their respective principals, all of which are engaged in other investment activities, are not required to devote substantially all of their time to Registrant’s business, which also presents the potential for numerous conflicts of interest with Registrant. As a result of these and other relationships, parties involved with Registrant has a financial incentive to act in a manner other than in the best interests of Registrant and its Unit. The Managing Owner has not established any formal procedure to resolve conflicts of interest. Consequently, investors will be dependent on the good faith of the respective parties subject to such conflicts to resolve them equitably. Although the Managing Owner attempts to monitor these conflicts, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Managing Owner to ensure that these conflicts do not, in fact, result in adverse consequences to the various Trust.
Registrant may be subject to certain conflicts with respect to its clearing broker, its futures broker, and any executing broker including, but not limited to, conflicts that result from receiving greater amounts of compensation from other clients, purchasing opposite or competing positions on behalf of third party accounts traded through the clearing broker, the futures broker and executing brokers.
Unitholders Taxed Currently
Unitholders are subject to tax each year on their allocable share of the income or gains (if any) of Registrant, whether or not they receive distributions. Moreover, the Managing Owner does not intend to make any distributions to Unitholders in respect of Series. Consequently, unitholders will be required either to redeem Units or to make use of other sources of funds to discharge their tax liabilities in respect of any profits earned by Registrant.
In comparing the profit objectives of Registrant with the performance of more familiar securities in which one might invest, prospective investors must recognize that if they purchased equity or debt, there probably would be no tax due on the appreciation in the value of such holdings until disposition. In the case of Registrant, on the other hand, a significant portion of any appreciation in the net asset value per Unit must be paid in taxes by the unitholders every year, resulting in a substantial cumulative reduction in their net after-tax returns. Because unitholders will be taxed currently on their allocable share of the income or gains of Registrant, if any, Registrant may trade successfully but investors nevertheless would have recognized significantly greater gains on an after-tax basis had they invested in conventional stocks with comparable performance.
Limitation on Deductibility of “Investment Advisory Fees”
Non-corporate unitholders may be required to treat the amount of Incentive Fees and other expenses of Registrant as “investment advisory fees” which may be subject to substantial restrictions on deductibility for federal income tax purposes. In the absence of further regulatory or statutory clarification, the Managing Owner is not classifying these expenses as “investment advisory fees,” but this is a position to which the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) may object. If a substantial portion of the fees and other expenses of Registrant were characterized as “investment advisory fees,” an investment in Registrant might no longer be economically viable.
Taxation of Interest Income Irrespective of Trading Losses
With respect to Registrant, the net asset value per Unit reflects the trading profits and losses as well as the interest income earned and expenses incurred by Registrant. However, losses on Registrant’s trading will be almost exclusively capital losses, and capital losses are deductible against ordinary income only to the extent of $3,000 per year in the case of non-corporate taxpayers. Consequently, if a non-corporate unitholder had, for example, an allocable trading (i.e., capital) loss of $10,000 in a given fiscal year and allocable interest (i.e., ordinary) income (after reduction for expenses) of $5,000, the unitholder would have incurred a net loss in the net asset value of such unitholder’s Units equal to $5,000 but would recognize taxable income of $2,000 (assuming a 40% tax rate). The limited deductibility of capital losses for non-corporate unitholders could result in such unitholders having a tax liability in respect of their investment in Registrant despite incurring a financial loss on their Units.
Possibility of a Tax Audit of Both Registrant and the Unitholders
There can be no assurance that the tax returns of Registrant will not be audited by the IRS. If such an audit results in an adjustment, unitholders could themselves be audited as well as being required to pay additional taxes, interest and possibly penalties.
Failure or Lack of Segregation of Assets May Increase Losses
The Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) requires a clearing broker to segregate all funds received from customers from such broker’s proprietary assets. If the clearing broker fails to do so, the assets of Registrant might not be fully protected in the event of their bankruptcy. Furthermore, in the event of the clearing broker’s bankruptcy, Registrant could be limited to recovering only a pro rata share of all available funds segregated on behalf of the clearing broker’s combined customer accounts, even though certain property specifically traceable to Registrant (for example, Treasury bills deposited by Registrant with the clearing broker as margin) was held by the clearing broker.
Default by Counterparty and Credit Risk Could Cause Substantial Losses
Dealers in forward contracts are not regulated by the CEA and are not obligated to segregate customer assets. As a result, unitholders do not have such basic protections with respect to the trading in forward contracts by Registrant. This lack of regulation in these markets could expose Registrant in certain circumstances to significant losses in the event of trading abuses or financial failure by the counterparties. Registrant also faces the risk of non-performance by the counterparties to the over-the-counter contracts. Unlike in futures contracts, the counterparty to these contracts is generally a single bank or other financial institution, rather than a clearing organization backed by a group of financial institutions. As a result, there will be greater counterparty credit risk in these transactions. The clearing member, clearing organization or other counterparty may not be able to meet its obligations, in which case Registrant could suffer significant losses on these contracts.
Regulatory Changes or Actions May Alter the Nature of an Investment in the Trust
Considerable regulatory attention has been focused on non-traditional investment pools, in particular commodity pools such as Registrant, publicly distributed in the United States. There has been significant international governmental concern expressed regarding, for example, (i) the disruptive effects of speculative trading on the central banks’ attempts to influence exchange rates and (ii) the need to regulate the derivatives markets in general. There is a possibility of future regulatory changes altering, perhaps to a material extent, the nature of an investment in Registrant.
The futures markets are subject to comprehensive statutes, regulations, and margin requirements. In addition, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the exchanges are authorized to take extraordinary actions in the event of a market emergency, including, for example, the retroactive implementation of speculative position limits or higher margin requirements, the establishment of daily price limits and the suspension of trading. The regulation of futures and forward transactions in the United States is a rapidly changing area of law and is subject to modification by government and judicial action. The effect of any future regulatory change on Registrant is impossible to predict, but could be substantial and adverse.
Trust Trading is Not Transparent
Trading decisions in respect of Registrant, are made by the Trading Advisor. While the Managing Owner receives daily trade confirmations from the clearing broker and foreign exchange dealers, such information is not provided to unitholders and Registrant’s trading results are reported to the unitholders. Accordingly, an investment in Registrant does not offer you the same transparency, i.e., an ability to review all investment positions daily that a personal trading account offers.
Lack of Independent Experts Representing Investors
The Managing Owner has consulted with counsel, accountants and other experts regarding the formation and operation of Registrant. Accordingly, you should consult your own legal, tax and financial advisers regarding the desirability of an investment in Registrant.
Forwards, Swaps, Hybrids and Other Derivatives are Not Subject to CFTC Regulation
Registrant may trade foreign exchange contracts in the interbank market. Since forward contracts are traded in unregulated markets between principals, the commodity pools also assume the risk of loss from counterparty nonperformance. In the future, Registrant may also trade swap agreements, hybrid instruments and other off-exchange contracts. Swap agreements involve trading income streams such as fixed rate or floating rate interest. Hybrids are instruments, which combine features of a security with those of a futures contract. Because there is no exchange or clearing- house for these contracts, Registrant will be subject to the credit risk and nonperformance of the counterparty. Additionally, because these off-exchange contracts are not regulated by the CFTC, Registrant will not receive the protections, which are provided by the CFTC’s regulatory scheme.
Possibility of Termination of the Trust or any Trust Before Expiration of its Stated Term
As Managing Owner, the Managing Owner may withdraw from the Trust or Registrant, which would cause the Trust or Registrant, as appropriate, to terminate unless a Substitute Managing Owner was appointed. Other events, such as a long-term substantial loss suffered by Registrant, could also cause Registrant to terminate before the expiration of its stated term. This could cause you to liquidate your investments and upset the overall maturity and timing of your investment portfolio. If the registrations with the CFTC or memberships in the NFA of the Managing Owner or the clearing broker were revoked or suspended, such entity would no longer be able to provide services to Registrant.
Item 1B.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None
Item 2.
Item 2. Properties
Registrant does not own or use any physical properties in the conduct of its business. Registrant’s only place of business is the place of business of the Managing Owner.
Certain administrative services are provided by Spectrum Global Fund Administration, L.L.C., Registrant’s administrator (the “Administrator”), which is located at 33 West Monroe, Suite 1000, Chicago, IL 60601.
Item 3.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
There are no material proceedings pending by or against Registrant or the Managing Owner.
Item 4.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holder
None
PART II
Item 5.
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Information with respect to the offering of Limited Interests and the use of proceeds is incorporated by reference to Note 1 to Registrant’s 2007 Annual Report, which is filed as an exhibit hereto.
A significant secondary market for the Limited Interests has not developed, and is not expected to develop in the future. There are also certain restrictions set forth in the Trust Agreement limiting the ability of a Unitholder to transfer Interests. However, Limited Interests may be redeemed on a weekly basis. Additionally, Interests owned in one series of the Trust (Registrant, Series D or Series F) were exchangeable, without any charge, for the Interests of one or more other Series on a weekly basis for as long as Limited Interests in those Series were being offered to the public. World Monitor Trust II - Registrant and Series F are no longer offered to the public as those Series substantially achieved their subscription maximums during June 2003 and July 2003, respectively. In addition, since July 2003, the offering of interests in Series D has been suspended. Accordingly, at this time, Interests may not be exchanged. Future redemptions will impact the amount of funds available for investment in commodity contracts in subsequent periods. Redemptions are calculated based on Registrant’s then current net asset value per Interest as of the close of business on the Friday immediately preceding the week in which the exchange or redemption request is effected.
As of January 31, 2008, there were 1,092 holders of record owning 103,191.0174 Interests, which include 1,078 Managing Owner or General Interests owned by the Managing Owner.
There are no material restrictions upon Registrant’s present or future ability to make dividends or distributions in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Agreement. No dividends or distributions have been made since inception and no dividends or distributions are anticipated in the future.
No equity compensation plans under which Units of Registrant are authorized for issuance have been proposed or approved by Unitholders.
Item 6.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data
The following table presents selected financial data of Registrant. This data should be read in conjunction with the financial statements of Registrant and the notes thereto on pages 8 through 15 of Registrant’s 2007 Annual Report, which is filed as an exhibit hereto.
Item 7.
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation
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. Applying these policies requires the Managing Owner to make judgments, estimates and assumptions in connection with the preparation of Registrant’s financial statements. Actual results may differ from the estimates used.
The Managing Owner has evaluated Registrant’s financial statements and related disclosures and has determined that the policies discussed below are critical accounting policies because they involve estimates, judgments and assumptions that are particularly complex, subjective or uncertain. For further discussion of Registrant’s significant accounting policies, see Note 2 to of the financial statements to Registrant’s 2007 Annual Report, which is filed herewith.
The valuation of Registrant’s investments that are not traded on a United States or internationally recognized futures exchange is a critical accounting policy. The market value of futures (exchange traded) contracts is verified by Registrant’s Administrator, which obtains valuation data from third party data providers such as Bloomberg and Reuters and compares those prices with Registrant’s clearing broker. The market value of currency swap and forward (non-exchange traded) contracts is extrapolated on a forward basis from the spot prices quoted as of 4 PM on the last business day of the reporting period. All values assigned by the administrator and confirmed by the Managing Owner are final and conclusive as to all of Registrant’s Unitholders.
As such, if actual results vary from estimates used, they are not anticipated to have a material impact on the financial statements and related disclosures.
The Registrant records all investments at fair value in its financial statements, with changes in fair value reported as a component of Trading Profits (Losses) in the Statements of Operations. Generally, fair values are based on quoted market prices; however, in certain circumstances, significant judgments and estimates are involved in determining fair value in the absence of an active market closing price.
In July 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes-an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109” (“FIN 48”), which clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in tax positions. FIN 48 requires that Series E recognize in its financial statements, the impact of a tax position if that position is more likely than not of being sustained on audit, based on the technical merits of the position. The provisions of FIN 48 were effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006, with the cumulative effect of the change in accounting principle recorded as an adjustment to opening retained earnings. In connection with the adoption of FIN 48, Series E has elected an accounting policy to classify interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits as interest expense. The Managing Owner evaluated the impact of adopting FIN 48 on Registrant’s financial statements. In the Managing Owner’s opinion, the adoption of FIN 48 had no material impact on Registrant, as Registrant’s tax position is based on established tax precedence for the tax treatment of investment partnerships as flow through tax entities.
In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued SFAS No. 157 (“SFAS 157”), “Fair Value Measurements”. SFAS 157 requires use of a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into
three levels: quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities (Level 1), inputs other than quoted market prices that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly (Level 2), and unobservable inputs for the asset or liability (Level 3). SFAS 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007.
The Registrant adopted SFAS 157 in the first quarter of 2008. The Managing Owner evaluated the impact that adoption of SFAS 157 will have on the Registrant’s financial statements. Based on an analysis by the Managing Owner, the effect of applying SFAS 157 to the investment portfolio included in the Registrant’s financial statements will not result in a change to the fair value of the Registrant’s investments. Of its unrealized gains, approximately $47,346 or 0.25% of the Registrant’s trust capital at December 31, 2007 is classified as Level 1 and $0 or 0.00% are Levels 2 or 3, and of its unrealized losses, approximately $0 or 0.00% are Level 1, $62,555 or 0.33% are Level 2 and $0 or 0.00% are Level 3 using the fair value hierarchy of SFAS 157.
In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities”, including an amendment of SFAS 115, or SFAS 159. This statement provides companies with an option to report selected financial assets and liabilities at fair value. This statement is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 with early adoption permitted. The Registrant adopted SFAS 159 in the first quarter of 2008. The Managing Owner evaluated the impact that adoption of SFAS 159 will have on the Registrants financial statements. In the Managing Owner’s opinion, the adoption of SFAS 159 had no material effect on the Registrant’s financial statements.
The SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 108 (“SAB 108”) “Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements When Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements”, provides guidance on quantifying and evaluating the materiality of unrecorded misstatements. It is effective for the first annual period ending after November 15, 2006. The Managing Owner evaluated the impact, if any, the implementation of SAB 108 may have on the Registrant’s financial statements. In the Managing Owner’s opinion, no material unrecorded misstatements are in existence as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 that would require a cumulative effect adjustment to the financial statements.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
The Registrant commenced operations on April 6, 2000 with gross proceeds of $5,157,459 allocated to commodities trading. Additional contributions raised through the continuous offering of limited interests (“Limited Interests”) and general interests (“Managing Owner or General Interests” and, together with the Limited Interests, “Interests”) of beneficial ownership in Registrant for the period from April 6, 2000 (commencement of operations) to June 30, 2003 resulted in additional gross proceeds to Registrant of $45,279,587. Registrant’s Interests were offered until it substantially achieved its subscription maximum of $50,000,000 Limited Interests in June 2003.
For the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 there were no subscriptions of Limited Interests. For the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 there were no subscriptions of General Interests.
Limited Interests in Registrant may be redeemed on a weekly basis. Redemptions of Limited Interests for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 were $6,522,665, $7,037,382 and $6,343,040, respectively. Redemptions of General Interests for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 were $63,470, $85,357 and $66,792, respectively. Redemptions of Limited and General Interests for the period April 6, 2000 to December 31, 2007 were $38,291,171 and $447,919, respectively. Additionally, Interests owned in any series of World Monitor Trust II (Registrant, Series D or Series F) were exchangeable, without any charge, for Interests of one or more other Series of World Monitor Trust II on a weekly basis for as long as Interests in those Series were being offered to the public. World Monitor Trust II - Registrant and Series F are no longer offered to the public as those Series substantially achieved their subscription maximums during June 2003 and July 2003, respectively. In addition, since July 2003, the offering of interests in Series D has been suspended. Accordingly, at this time, Interests may not be exchanged. Future redemptions will impact the amount of funds available for investment in commodity contracts in subsequent periods.
At December 31, 2007, 100% of Registrant’s net assets were allocated to commodities trading. A significant portion of the net assets was held in cash, which was used as margin for trading in commodities. In as much as the sole business of Registrant is to trade in commodities, Registrant continues to own such liquid assets to be used as margin. The clearing broker credits Registrant with interest income on 100% of its average daily equity maintained in its accounts with the clearing broker during each month at competitive interest rates.
The commodities contracts may be subject to periods of illiquidity because of market conditions, regulatory considerations and other reasons. For example, commodity exchanges limit fluctuations in certain commodity futures contract 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 for a particular commodity has increased or decreased by an amount equal to the daily limit, positions in the commodity can neither be taken nor liquidated unless traders are willing to effect trades at or within the limit. Commodity futures prices have occasionally moved the daily limit for several consecutive days with little or no trading. Such market conditions could prevent Registrant from promptly liquidating its commodity futures positions.
Since Registrant’s business is to trade futures and forward contracts, its capital is at risk due to changes in the value of these contracts (market risk) or the inability of counterparties to perform under the terms of the contracts (credit risk). Registrant’s exposure to market risk is influenced by a number of factors including the volatility of interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates, the liquidity of the markets in which the contracts are traded and the relationships among the contracts held. The inherent uncertainty of
Registrant’s speculative trading as well as the development of drastic market occurrences could result in losses considerably beyond Registrant’s experience to date and could ultimately lead to a loss of all of substantially all of investors’ capital. The Managing Owner attempts to minimize these risks by requiring Registrant and the Trading Advisor to abide by various trading limitations and policies, which include limiting margin amounts, trading only in liquid markets and permitting the use of stop loss provisions. For a further discussion of the credit and market risks associated with Registrant’s futures and forward contracts, see Note 6 to Registrant’s financial statements attached hereto.
Registrant does not have, nor does it expect to have, any capital assets.
Market Overview
Following is a market overview for the years ended December 31, 2007, December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005:
The Year Ended December 31, 2007
The global economy endured the unfolding of the subprime credit crisis for most of 2007. August 2007 will forever be etched in the financial pantheon alongside 1998 and 1987 as defining events of their respective decades. The US economy has cooled considerably since the beginning of the year and many economists are signifying a “recessionary like” outlook at best in the coming months, not the “soft landing” that was anticipated. While the US economy proved volatile throughout the year, the rest of the world appeared to be going strong.
During 2007, single-family housing starts and permits hit sixteen-year lows as starts fell over 5% and are approximately 24% below 2006. The Home Builders Confidence Index witnessed the lowest drawdown in nineteen years. In November, UK housing prices showed their greatest monthly dive in twelve years as the subprime crisis clearly impacted non-US markets. Inflation concerns led to the Bank of England (“BOE”) to cut rates late in 2007.
In the US, the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 5.0% during the fourth quarter as private sector payrolls fell, signaling the first decline in four years. For the first time since September 2003, fewer than half of the industries surveyed added jobs.
Currencies
While the US dollar managed periodic strength during December, the dollar ended 2007 with staggering losses to major rivals. The final 2007 tally saw the euro, pound and yen gaining over 10%, 6% and 2%, respectively. After witnessing a record monthly low in November, the Dollar Index ended the year over 76.5. Throughout the year, emerging nations gained greater confidence in their domestic economic strength. Many, especially in Asia, slowly abandoned the managed dollar peg.
The pound finished the year with gains on the dollar, despite losses in December as a result of a BOE rate decrease. The euro had a strong year and benefited from perceptions that the European Central Bank (“ECB”) would not be lowering rates any time soon as ECB President Jean Claude Trichet issued a series of hawkish comments, mainly as related to inflation concerns. European Union economic data was mixed to weak, including a twenty-two month low reading of the German IFO Business Confidence Index.
The yen closed out 2007 up 2% for the year on the US dollar. Japanese economic data persisted as lackluster and those calling for a rate increase have now mostly backed away from that forecast. The yuan extended its yearlong gradual advance in December as the Peoples Bank of China continued to contract. Since abandonment of the US dollar peg in January 2005, the yuan has risen 12% to the dollar. The Canadian, Australian and New Zealand dollars posted gains on the year against the US dollar.
Energies
It was a tremendous year for the petroleum sector as crude oil prices rose more than 40% within the Dow Jones AIG Index and closed 2007 over $95. Crude briefly reached the ominous $100 level but the market failed to hold that level in initial efforts. Geopolitical events were supportive during the year, encouraging the high volatility patterns. Supply/demand fundamentals have been trending weaker and the market saw periodic selling as related to concerns surrounding slowing US and global growth. The US dollar remained a key influence and the dollar’s demise was a key factor in crude’s run. Overall demand for commodities as an asset class was supportive, particularly in the Peoples Republic of China and in India.
Reformulated gasoline soared throughout the year and topped off with a year-to-date gain of over 45% within the Dow Jones AIG Index. Heating oil performed well in 2007 and closed up 5.5% within the same index. Distillate inventories remained below the five-year average and Department of Energy inventories ran 6% under last year despite relatively moderate weather conditions.
Agriculturals
Clearly, 2007 was a superior year for commodities as evidence by stronger readings in the major indices. The 19-component Dow Jones AIG Index witnessed a yearly gain of over 11%. Commodities attracted significant interest as an alternative asset class throughout 2007. Corn closed the year at prices that have not been seen since the summer of 1996. One key fundamental factor contributing to corn’s growth, besides the evident global demand for ethanol, is the increased quality of living in developing countries such as China and India. On the production side, perhaps with the exception of soybeans, wherever crop interchangeability allows, corn will continue to steal acres from competing agricultural products.
Soybean prices finished the year over $12.50, which is second to historical highs set in June of 1973. The fundamentals for soybeans remain demand driven. China’s need for beans, bean oil and bean meal is so massive that all importation taxes and tariffs on all three have been dropped, which is a rare move. On the supply side, the battle for global acreage will hinge on the relative value of competing crops. In 2007, the wheat market realized an outstanding 87% increase in prices from 2006, setting new all time record prices. This gain is despite the historic drought in Australia, one of the world’s largest producers of the grain. On the whole, cotton improved in 2007 ending the year with over a 22% increase, at a level that has not been seen since early 2004.
Indices
The major US equity indices slumped in the fourth quarter under the weight of the subprime credit crisis but still tallied gains for the year. For 2007, the Dow Jones rose over 6%, the S&P 500 added 3.5%, while the tech heavy NASDAQ was the leading performer with a 10% gain. The fourth quarter sell-off was a result of traders becoming increasingly concerned about the economy in general and housing in particular. Some doubted the Federal Reserves (“Fed”) resolve to address the economic issues in the face of growing inflation concerns. Also, interest and demand for commodities as an alternative asset class weighed on the equity sector.
To a lesser extent, European equities echoed the weak tone of the US during the fourth quarter. However, the German DAX showed strong gains of 22% during 2007. The CAC and FTSE scored much lower gains of 1% and 4%. The broad based Pan-European Dow Jones STOXX 600 suffered minor losses as markets outside of the big three struggled.
Equities soared in Asia with the Hang Seng Index, Shanghai Composite, Kospi Index and Australian All Ordinaries setting record highs during 2007. During the fourth quarter, volatility was rampant across Asian equities. While the Hang Seng performed extremely well, with almost a 40% gain on the year, it was a different story for Japan as the NIKKEI lost over 11%, resulting in the first decline in the past five years. Despite the International Monetary Fund lowering Japan’s growth rate in November, business investment remained expansionary and many market participants view a Japanese recession as unlikely.
Interest Rates
With inflation concerns and the global credit crisis taking center stage during the second half of the year, the Fed reacted aggressively on September 18 and cut both the Fed Funds rate by 50 basis points from 5.25% to 4.75% and the discount rate to 5.25%. After this action, the yield curve showed significant steepening. The 2 and 10 year benchmark notes ended the year lower than 2006. The Federal Reserve indicated possible future US rate hikes in the coming months. The TED spread continued to rise through November.
After a pair of rate hikes in the first half of the year, the ECB held steady at 4.00% through year-end and the euro benefited from perceptions that the ECB seems to be in a holding pattern. The BOE issued three quarter-point rate increases in the first half of 2007. Forced to deal with the Northern Rock Crisis, declines in consumer confidence, housing declines and weakness in the service sector during the second half of the year, the BOE slashed their rate by a quarter-point in December to end the year at 5.50%.
The Bank of Japan (“BOJ”) raised rates in the first quarter of the year and held the rate steady through the end of the year. A rash of lackluster economic data weighed on BOJ officials but they kept the rates unchanged. The Peoples Bank of China drained liquidity and gradually hiked interest rates throughout 2007.
Metals
Base metals had a rather difficult 2007. The dismal housing market, poor construction data in the US and UK and the sliding US dollar had a significant impact. Zinc was the worst performer among the nineteen components of the Dow Jones AIG Index, with annual losses over 43%. Aluminum and nickel witnessed steep losses over 18% and 16% within the Dow Jones AIG Index, respectively. In December, copper had a rough month but still posted an annual gain of over 4.5%.
Precious metals, on the other hand, recorded tremendous gains during 2007. Gold sky rocketed to a near twenty-eight year high and finished 2007 up over 32%. This trend was fueled by the weak dollar, soaring oil prices, subprime credit woes and several geopolitical events, including the recent developments in Pakistan. Gold saw spotty selling per the yen carry trade and other margin needs during the second half of the year. Silver traded with more volatility than gold and experienced less flight-to-safety demand and ended the year topping a 9% profit. Platinum had a positive year as Asian demand for the metal held strong.
Softs and Livestock
Citrus finished up 2007 on the rally side following forecasts of freezing temperatures in the sunshine state. However, this rally could not offset losses realized throughout the year. Sugar and coffee had a rather difficult year as well. Within the Dow Jones AIG Index sugar and coffee were down more than 14% and 6%, respectively. Following negative 2006 performance, cocoa rebounded in 2007, achieving a 17% return on the year.
2007 proved less than kind to livestock prices as both cattle and hogs suffered losses. Live cattle were down more than 6% within the Dow Jones AIG Index. Korea rejected a series of shipments of US beef on trepidation of mad-cow disease concerns. Hogs were the second worst performer within the Dow Jones AIG Index with a 30% loss.
The Year Ended December 31, 2006
The U.S. Federal Reserve (“Fed”) ceased raising rates in the fourth quarter. The perception remains that although the economy is slowing, there is no danger of a recession and that a soft landing is the most likely scenario. Range trading may be the dominant pattern for the next few months as prices react to the economic data. The yield on the benchmark U.S. 10-Year note finished November at an 11-month low. A weaker U.S. dollar failed to dampen enthusiasm for U.S. Treasuries. The latest data available shows capital flows to the U.S. rose in October.
On the employment front, job growth accelerated in December as non-farm payrolls rose while the unemployment rate held steady at 4.5%. This is down from 4.9% at the start of 2006. Of some concern was a 0.5% jump in average hourly earnings, taking them up 4.2% over the past 12 months. Overall, the employment picture persists as healthy but the construction, manufacturing and retail sectors all lost jobs in December.
Regarding U.S. inflation, the November Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) was unchanged and the Core CPI, which factors out the more volatile food and energy prices, was also flat. This is the lowest reading for the core rate since November 2005. There were clearly no inflation worries in this data. The Producer Price Index (“PPI”) was not as controlled, climbing 2.0%, the most since 1974. The surge was caused by a jump in energy, car and truck prices.
Housing has been a major economic concern in 2006. November Housing Starts rose following a big drop in October. November Housing Permits, however, fell slightly. Over the past 11 months, Housing Starts were 12.5% below 2005 levels while Housing Permits were off 14.1%. Homebuilders’ confidence, as indicated by the NAHB/Wells Fargo Index fell in December.
The overall consumer confidence picture remained mixed with the high end and electronics sectors doing well. November Retail Sales rose 1.0%. The unusually warm weather hurt clothing and Department Store Sales. Third quarter Gross Domestic Product, a measure of economic growth, was revised downwards to the lowest level since the fourth quarter of 2005. Home building remains the main drag on growth.
While the Fed was on hold with respect to interest rate policy, the European Central Bank (“ECB”), the Bank of England (“BOE”) and the Peoples Bank of China (“PBC”) all raised interest rates. British housing prices and CPI growth continue to be high. Germany continues to exhibit growth, and leads the increasingly strong Eurozone. The Bank of Japan (“BOJ”) remained cautious, with no additional rate hikes following the July increase to 0.25%. The economy appears mixed, with consumer spending still less than the economy requires. The Bank of Canada, Reserve Bank of Australia and New Zealand central bank all remained on hold in December.
Currencies
The euro strengthened versus the U.S. dollar in 2006, reversing the pattern from 2005. The euro also strengthened against the Japanese yen, achieving record levels in December. Germany, the engine of Eurozone growth, has been the strongest European economy this year. Interest rate differential factors supported the euro through much of the fourth quarter of 2006. Of great significance, central banks around the globe have initiated a policy of diversification out of the U.S. dollar and into the euro, the British pound, and to a lesser extent, the Japanese yen.
The British pound ended the year slightly off its high, after rising approximately 14% versus the U.S. dollar. British housing prices have been surging and the CPI came in above the BOE’s target.
The Japanese yen fell against the U.S. dollar, euro and British pound during the fourth quarter of 2006. Japan exited its deflationary era in 2006, although the fourth quarter saw less than robust growth on the consumer side. Other Asian currencies were better performers, with the Korean won having a particularly solid December and fourth quarter.
The Peoples Bank of China continues to tighten the reins on the economy. Most recently, the PBC increased the reserve requirement ratio for banks and raised the base interest rate 50 points to 6.72%. The yuan has shown an accumulative appreciation of about 3.7% since the July 2005 revaluation.
Energies
Crude oil was strong during the first half of the year and weakened during the second half, with the exception of a brief respite during November. Crude ended December around $60 per barrel, which contrasts to its mid-July peak of nearly $78 per barrel. Record warm weather in key consuming regions in the U.S. put pressure on the market during the quarter, as did a generally benign geopolitical scene and poor member compliance with OPEC’s announced production cuts.
The unusually warm weather kept heating oil under pressure during December. Heating oil will be dependent on a general recovery in commodity prices and a sudden weather shift in coming weeks. Department of Energy gasoline inventories are 0.5% below last season. The driving season was extended by the warm weather conditions.
Natural gas fell during the fourth quarter with the weather weighing heavily on investor sentiment. Inventories are still burdensome and demand is slowing rather than rising during the normally strong seasonal demand time frame. What remains to be seen is whether the markets have discounted the majority of these bearish fundamentals.
Grains
While December’s performance was mixed, corn trended upwards for the fourth quarter as a whole. The last week of the month, quarter, and year saw the posting of a multi-year high, with the final price for 2006 settling at the highest weekly close on the charts since the drought-driven summer rally in July of 1996. The main drivers behind the re-awakening of corn prices were threefold: 1) an increase in overseas demand due to improving global economic conditions; 2) the expansion of the production of ethanol; and 3) the ongoing increase in hedge fund and money managers’ investing in alternative non-correlated asset classes. For the quarter as a whole, despite a large trading range, the wheat market put in somewhat disappointing, albeit upward trending performance. The uncertainty caused by ongoing drought conditions in Australia, the relatively high price for wheat and tight global
stocks had an effect on supply and demand. The trend for soybean prices was higher for the fourth quarter of 2006. Export demand for soybeans, soybean oil and soybean meal all appear to be increasing. As corn production is increasingly diverted to the production of ethanol, substitute feedstuffs, with soybeans as the closest surrogate, may also feel the upward pull of prices. As the global supply of foreign cotton sold out late in the year, prices began to move higher from mid-November through the end of the year. The lethargy that characterized most of 2006 was a product of a massive carryover of last year’s crop, along with last summer’s unfortunate elimination of a marketing program which left U.S. cotton uncompetitively priced.
Indices
U.S. equities recorded their best gains in three years during the fourth quarter of 2006. The weakness in real estate that may have caused a shift into equities, large levels of global liquidity, a drop in oil prices, a quiet geopolitical atmosphere, solid earnings and a brisk mergers and acquisitions calendar all added to the positive performance. A shift out of commodities also aided the tone of global equities. Blue chips, financials, oil and big caps did well, and at the end of the quarter technology names took a leading role.
It was also a very good December, fourth quarter and year for the European equity markets. Markets in Germany, the U.K. and France all ended higher for the fourth quarter. Heavy merger and acquisition activity was a major feature in Europe, along with a solid run of earnings and significant fund inflows. The strong U.S. market was also a psychological plus. The prospect of further rate hikes from the ECB, and to a lesser extent the BOE, failed to diminish enthusiasm.
Asian/Pacific Rim equities also recorded solid 2006 gains, despite volatile trading. Record highs were achieved in Singapore, Australia and New Zealand during the final session of the year as well as for China’s Shanghai Composite. A growing Japanese economy served to buoy enthusiasm and a modest 0.25% base interest rate was supportive. Thailand’s SET Index had a very volatile month after the central bank attempted to impose controls on capital for foreign investors in the stock market, but that was quickly reversed when the SET tumbled 15%, and prices subsequently recovered. However, Thailand has seen continuing political unrest.
Interest Rates
As expected, the Fed remained on hold at its December 12 meeting. The minutes of the most recent Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC”) meeting were virtually the same as the November meeting, indicating that the FOMC unanimously agreed that inflation persists as the primary concern to the economy. However, at the same time they stated the economy might have been a bit softer than previously thought.
In the international arena, the ECB increased rates 25 basis points in December and the BOE raised rates 25 basis points in November. The BOJ made just one move to 0.25% in 2006. Japanese consumer data has been a bit sluggish; something the BOJ will keep in focus. The Peoples Bank of China is currently engaged in a tightening process, and is actively draining liquidity by increasing reserve requirements.
Metals
A weak U.S. dollar helped support gold for most of the quarter but during late December the dollar showed signs of a consolidation rally and gold fell. Plunging energy prices had a negative impact on gold prices as well. Silver traded at its best levels in more than six months during the quarter, but ended the year off its highs. For the year, silver significantly outperformed gold. Speculative participation was heavy throughout the quarter, setting the stage for high volatility. A steady increase in inventories weighed on copper prices in the fourth quarter. A lessening of labor concerns, particularly in Chile and Canada, and the fact that China’s buying pace slowed in 2006 added to the negative tone. Zinc supplies remained tight and strong demand continued. Aluminum prices held up well in the fourth quarter in the face of a general commodity weakness. Nickel was one of the strongest performers in the metals group due to tight supply and a strong pattern of stainless steel demand.
Softs
Forecasts for a significant global supply surplus of sugar weighed on sentiment, causing prices to decline 29% on the year. This made sugar the weakest agricultural commodity in the Dow Jones/AIG Index. Coffee prices remained relatively flat for 2006 and overall global coffee demand was solid. Scaled back cocoa crop prospects for the Ivory Coast, the world’s largest producer, added to the commodity’s recent bullish tone. The political situation in the Ivory Coast continues fairly quiet but civil unrest remains a potential factor. The cattle market traded sideways for most of the fourth quarter until severe weather conditions reduced cattle supply and caused prices to rise in the second half of December. Hog supply was ample during the quarter as the US entered a seasonally slow demand period. On the bright side, the most recent USDA estimate is that US pork exports will rise in 2007 to follow the 2006 increase.
The Year Ended December 31, 2005
2005 was an eventful year in the global economic markets. The rise in global energy prices to historic highs was a primary factor that dominated the global economy, along with many other economic, geopolitical and social issues.
The U.S. equity markets lagged most foreign equity markets in 2005. The Dow Jones Industrial Index had its first annual loss since 2002, while the technology oriented Nasdaq Index had a modest 1% gain and the S&P 500 Index gained 3% for the year. Overall corporate earnings exceeded expectations for most of the year, including the third and fourth quarters. The impact of several hurricanes, high energy prices and rising interest rates were among the negative factors for the year.
European equity markets out-performed the U.S. equity markets by a significant margin for much of the year, with the fourth quarter being particularly strong. Among the three major indices, the German DAX gained 27%, the French CAC 40 gained 23% and the British FTSE 100 was up 17%. Asian equities were stronger than European equities, as South Korea’s Kospi increased 54% and Japan’s Nikkei rose 40%. The Nikkei finished the year with seven consecutive monthly gains. Australia’s All Ordinaries increased 17%.
One of the notable themes in U.S. interest rates was a flattening yield curve and a gradual trend toward inversion. The inversion finally occurred in December as the 10-year finished with a 4.39% yield versus 4.40% for the 2-year. The inversion was the first in six years. This pattern occurred in the face of 13 consecutive 25 point Federal Open Market Committee rate hikes to 4.25%. In Europe, the European Central Bank raised rates 25 points to 2.25% but this was not considered an indication of a cycle of rate hikes as European economic growth, while improved, remained fairly modest.
The U.S. dollar ended stronger in 2005, not withstanding a volatile trading pattern during the year. For the year, the U.S. dollar rose approximately 15% against the Japanese yen and the Euro. The interest rate differential was the primary factor behind the U.S. dollar’s solid performance. The British pound finished 2005 lower due to weakness in the U.K. economy. As a result of rate increases by the Bank of Canada, the Canadian dollar gradually gained versus the U.S. dollar, ending the year up 4.1%. The Australian dollar declined in 2005 despite rate hikes and strong equity markets. The Russian ruble decreased approximately 3.4% for the year. The full impact of the revaluation of the Chinese renminbi at midyear has yet to be realized.
Crude oil and related products were among the largest gainers in the commodities markets for 2005. Energy prices peaked in the summer, around the time of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and declined in October and November. Weather was a contributing influence to the decrease as above normal temperatures continued through the end of the year. Global demand, however, was ever increasing, with China and India in the forefront.
In the metals, gold prices steadily advanced in 2005, particularly in the final quarter of the year. Strong physical and investment demand, particularly from the Far East, was a yearlong feature. European central banks were reserved sellers and a number of other central banks, such as Russia and OPEC nations, increased the amount of gold in their reserve asset portfolios. Additionally, gold assumed the role as an alternative currency in 2005 as traders shied away from the U.S. dollar, Japanese yen and Euro. Silver prices tracked gold for much of the year due to strong physical demand from India in particular. In the base metals, copper prices rose significantly as strong Chinese demand remained a driving force throughout the year.
Sector Performance
Due to the nature of Registrant’s trading activities, a period-to-period comparison of its trading results is not meaningful. However, a discussion of Registrant’s trading results for the major sectors in which Registrant traded for the years ended December 31, 2007, December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005 are presented below.
The Year Ended December 31, 2007
Currencies: (+) This sector experienced the majority of its losses in the Czech koruna, Mexican peso, Polish zloty, South African Rand and Swedish krona. The majority of the gains were experienced in the Brazilian real, Canadian dollar, dollar index, euro, Indian rupee, New Zealand dollar, Swiss franc and Turkish lira.
Energies: (+) This sector experienced gains in crude oil and heating oil. Losses were experienced in natural gas.
Grains: (+) This sector experienced losses in corn, soybean meal and cotton. Gains were experienced in wheat.
Indices: (+) This sector experienced a majority of its losses in the CAC 40, Dow Jones Industrial Average, Nikkei and the Russell 2000 indices. The majority of gains were experienced in the DAX, DJ Stoxx 50 and the Hang Seng indices.
Interest Rates: (+) This sector experienced a majority of its losses in Australian Bank Bills and Japanese Government Bonds. The majority of gains were experienced in the German Bund, Euribor, German 2-year Bonds, British Gilt, Short Sterling and U.S. Treasury Bonds.
Meats: (-) This sector experienced losses in live cattle.
Metals: (-) This sector experienced losses in aluminum, copper and zinc. Gains were experienced in gold.
Softs: (-) This sector experienced losses in coffee and cocoa. Gains were experienced in sugar.
The Year Ended December 31, 2006
Currencies: (-) The sector was down for the year, with long and short positions in the euro, the Mexican Peso and the Swiss Franc being the largest contributors to the losses.
Energy: (-) The sector was down for the year, with long and short positions in crude oil, and short positions in unleaded gas the largest contributors to the losses.
Grains: (-) The sector was down for the year, on losses from long and short positions in corn and wheat.
Indices: (+) The sector was up for the year, on gains from long positions in the DAX, the Hang Seng and the IBEX.
Interest Rates: (-) The sector was down for the year, with long and short positions in the German Bund, the Euroswiss, the British Gilt and the U.S. 5 year Treasury Note being the largest contributors to the losses.
Metals: (+) Gains from long positions in gold and zinc, and long and short positions in copper contributed to positive sector performance.
Softs: (-) The sector was down for the year, as short positions in cattle, and long and short positions in coffee and cocoa contributed to the losses.
The Year Ended December 31, 2005
Profits were the result of gains in the indices and metals sectors. Net losses for Series E were experienced in the currencies, energy, grains, interest rates and softs sectors.
Currencies: (-) The currency sector was down for the year, the result of three negative quarters. Long and short positions in the New Zealand dollar and the South African rand versus the U.S. dollar and in the Japanese yen versus the Euro negatively impacted the portfolio in 2005.
Energy: (-) The sector generated net losses for the year, as gains in natural gas and unleaded gas trading were not enough to offset losses in crude oil and gas oil trading.
Grains: (-) Long and short positions in soybean meal and cotton, as well as long positions in wheat resulted in losses for the year.
Indices: (+) Losses in the first half of the year were offset by profits in the second half of the year, resulting in a gain for the year. Long positions in Asian and European equity indices, such as the Tokyo Stock Index, the Nikkei, the Hang Seng, the IBEX and the FTSE were profitable, while investments in U.S. indices were not.
Interest Rates: (-) Losses were generated in three out of the four quarters in 2005, resulting in a net loss for the year. Long and short positions in U.S. Treasury Notes and Bonds hurt the portfolio.
Metals: (+) The metals sector was profitable in three out of the four quarters in 2005, with long positions in copper and zinc providing the largest profits.
Softs: (-) The sector produced a negative return over 2005 as losses on long and short positions in coffee and live hogs offset gains from long positions in sugar.
Results of Operations
The net asset value (“NAV”) per Interest as of December 31, 2007, was $178.44, an increase of 8.99% from the December 31, 2006 NAV per Interest of $163.72, which was an increase of 2.62% from the December 31, 2005 NAV per Interest of $159.53, which was a decrease of 13.74% from the December 31, 2004 NAV per Interest of $184.94. The CISDM CPO Asset Weighted Index (formerly known as the Zurich Fund/Pool Qualified Universe Index) returned 8.55%, 8.30% and 5.97% for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005, respectively. The CISDM CPO Asset Weighted Index is the dollar weighted, total return of all commodity pools tracked by Managed Account Reports, LLC. Past performance is not necessary indicative of future results.
Registrant’s net assets during the year ended December 31, 2007 was approximately $18,966,000. Registrant’s net assets decreased by approximately $4,807,000 during 2007 as compared to 2006, decreased by approximately $6,326,000 during 2006 as compared to 2005, and decreased by approximately $12,211,000 during 2005 as compared to 2004. The decrease in net assets during the years ending 2007 and 2006 was solely due to redemptions. The decrease in net assets during the year ended 2005 was due to redemptions and negative trading performance.
Registrant’s trading gains (losses) before commissions and related fees for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005 were approximately $2,870,000, $2,022,000 and $(3,797,000), respectively.
Interest income is earned on the average daily equity maintained with the clearing broker at competitive interest rates and, therefore, varies weekly according to interest rates, trading performance, and redemptions. Interest income decreased by approximately $413,000 during 2007, as compared to 2006, increased by approximately $290,000 during 2006 as compared to 2005, and increased by approximately $493,000 during 2005 as compared to 2004. The decrease in interest income during the year ended 2007 was due to reduced average assets. The increase in interest income during the years ending 2006 and 2005 was primarily due to increased short-term interest rates, which more than offset the reduced average net asset levels discussed above.
Commissions are calculated on Registrant’s net asset value at the end of each week and therefore, vary according to weekly trading performance, and redemptions. Other transaction fees consist of National Futures Association, exchange and clearing fees as well as floor brokerage costs and give-up charges, which are based on the number of trades the Trading Advisor
executes, as well as which exchange, clearing firm or bank on, or through, which the contract is traded. Commissions and other transaction fees decreased by approximately $499,000 during 2007 as compared to 2006, decreased by approximately $343,000 in 2006 as compared to 2005 and decreased by approximately $474,000 during 2005 as compared to 2004. The decrease in commissions for the years ended 2007, 2006 and 2005 was due to reduced average net asset levels discussed above.
The Trading Advisor makes all trading decisions for the Registrant. Management fees are calculated on Registrant’s net asset value at the end of each week, and therefore are affected by weekly trading performance, contributions and redemptions by Registrant. Management fees decreased by approximately $127,000 during 2007 as compared to 2006, decreased by approximately $133,000 during 2006 as compared to 2005 and decreased by approximately $185,000 during 2005 as compared to 2004. The decrease in Management fees during the years ending 2007, 2006, and 2005 was due to reduced average net asset levels discussed above.
Incentive fees are based on the “New High Net Trading Profits” generated by the Trading Advisor as defined in the Advisory Agreement among Registrant, the Managing Owner and the Trading Advisor. There were no incentive fees incurred during the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005.
General and administrative expenses for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 were approximately $178,000, $100,000 and $113,000, respectively. These expenses include accounting, audit, tax, and legal fees, as well as printing and postage costs related to reports sent to limited owners and are before reimbursement of costs incurred by the Managing Owner on behalf of Registrant. To the extent that general and administrative expenses exceed 1.5% of Registrant’s net asset value during the year (with a maximum of 0.5% attributable to other charges and audit expenses) such amounts are borne by the Managing Owner and its affiliates. For the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, general and administrative expenses did not exceed 1.5% of registrant’s net asset value, and therefore, none were borne by the Managing Owner and its affiliates.
Inflation
Inflation has had no material impact on operations or on the financial condition of Registrant from inception through December 31, 2007.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations
As of December 31, 2007, Registrant had not utilized special purpose entities to facilitate off-balance sheet financing arrangements and has no loan guarantee arrangements or off-balance sheet arrangements of any kind other than agreements entered into in the normal course of business, which may include indemnification provisions related to certain risks service providers, such as our accountants, undertake in performing services which are in the best interests of Registrant. While Registrant’s exposure under such indemnification provisions cannot be estimated, these general business indemnifications are not expected to have a material impact on Registrant’s financial position.
Registrant’s contractual obligations are with the Managing Owner and the Trading Advisor’s commodity broker. Management fees payable by Registrant to the Trading Advisor and the Managing Owner are calculated as a fixed percentage of Registrant’s Net Asset Value. Incentive fees payable by Registrant to the Trading Advisor are at a fixed rate, calculated as a percentage of “New High Net Trading Profits”. As such, the Managing Owner cannot anticipate the amounts to be paid for future periods as Net Asset Values and “New High Net Trading Profits” are not known until a future date. Commissions payable to the Trading Advisor’s commodity broker are based on a cost per executed trade plus a fixed percentage of net assets and, as such, the Managing Owner cannot anticipate the amount that will be required under the brokerage agreement, as the level of executed trades are not known until a future date. These agreements are effective for one-year terms, renewable automatically for additional one-year terms unless terminated. Additionally, these agreements may be terminated by either party thereto for various reasons. For a further discussion.
Item 7A.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Information regarding quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk is not required pursuant to Item 305(e) of Regulation S-K.
Item 8.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
The financial statements are incorporated by reference to pages 3 through 6 of Registrant’s 2007 Annual Report, which is filed as an exhibit hereto.
Selected unaudited quarterly financial data for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 are summarized below (Because redemptions may be made, and management and incentive fees are calculated, on a weekly basis, financial statements for interim periods are as of the last valuation day in the last week of the period.):
There were no extraordinary, unusual or infrequently occurring items recognized in any quarter reported above, and the Trust has not disposed of any segments of its business. There have been no year-end adjustments that are material to the results of any fiscal quarter reported above.
Item 9.
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
None
Item 9A.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Registrant’s “disclosure controls and procedures” (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by Registrant in reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), and that such information is accumulated and communicated to Registrant’s management, including the Managing Owner’s Co-Chief Executive Officers and Director of Fund Administration (who, in these capacities, function as the Co-Chief Executive Officers and Principal Financial/Accounting Officer, respectively, of the Registrant), as appropriate to allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
In designing and evaluating Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures, the Managing Owner recognized that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives. In addition, the design of disclosure controls and procedures must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints and that management is required to apply its judgment in evaluating the benefits of possible controls and procedures relative to their costs.
The Managing Owner’s management, under the supervision and with the participation of certain officers of the Managing Owner (including the Managing Owner’s Co-Chief Executive Officers and Director of Fund Administration), has evaluated the effectiveness of Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based upon such evaluation, the Managing Owner’s Co-Chief Executive Officers and Director of Fund Administration have concluded that, as of the end of such period, Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures are.
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Registrant’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal controls over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of Registrant’s management, including the Managing Owner’s Co-Chief Executive Officers and Director of Fund Administration, Registrant conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of its internal controls over financial reporting based on the framework in “Internal Control-Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”). Based on the evaluation under the framework in “Internal Control-Integrated Framework” issued by COSO, the Managing Owner concluded that Registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of December 31, 2007.
There are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any internal control, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention of overriding controls. Because of these inherent limitations, internal controls over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Accordingly, even effective internal controls over financial reporting can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Attestation Report of the Registered Public Accounting Firm
Registrant’s 2007 Annual Report does not include an attestation report of Registrant’s independent registered public accounting firm regarding the Registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by Registrant’s independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to temporary rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit Registrant to provide only management’s report in its 2007 Annual Report.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There have been no changes in Registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a - 15(f) and 15d - 15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the fourth quarter of 2007 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, Registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.
Item 9B.
Item 9B. Other Information
None
PART III
Item 10.
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
Registrant had no directors or executive officers. Registrant is managed by the Managing Owner.
The directors and executive officers of the Managing Owner are as follows:
Mr. Kenneth A. Shewer (born 1953), a Director and Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Managing Owner, has been a principal, associated person and NFA associate member of the Managing Owner since February 8, 1984, May 1,1985 and August 1, 1985, respectively. He has been Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Managing Owner since February 1984. Mr. Shewer was employed by Pasternak, Baum and Co., Inc. (“Pasternak, Baum”), an international cash commodity firm, from June 1976 until September 1983. Mr. Shewer created and managed Pasternak, Baum’s Grain Logistics and Administration Department and created its Domestic Corn and Soybean Trading Department. Mr. Shewer’s responsibilities at Pasternak, Baum included merchandising South American grain and exporting United States corn and soybeans. In 1982, Mr. Shewer became co-manager of Pasternak, Baum’s F.O.B. Corn Department. In 1983, Mr. Shewer was made Vice President and Director of Pasternak, Baum. Mr. Shewer has traveled extensively in South America and Europe in connection with the commodity business and has organized and effected grain and oilseed sales in those regions, the former Soviet Union, and the Far East. While at Pasternak, Baum, Mr. Shewer was a member of the St. Louis Merchants Exchange and was associated with the National Grain and Feed Association and the North American Export Grain Association.
Mr. Shewer graduated from Syracuse University with a B.S. degree in 1975. Mr. Shewer sits on the Board of the Stacy Joy Goodman Memorial Foundation, a non-profit charity committed to finding a cure for Juvenile Diabetes. He is also a member of the Board of the Diabetes Research Institute Foundation, a not-for-profit organization affiliated with the University of Miami School of Medicine. Mr. Shewer is a founding member and a member of the Board of the Greenwich Roundtable. He is also a Director of The Kenmar Global ECO Foundation Inc., which was formed in order to make a meaningful, positive impact on society and the environment by identifying and supporting organizations that promote environmental and sustainability causes around the world.
Mr. Marc S. Goodman (born 1948), a Director and Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Managing Owner, has been a principal, associated person and NFA associate member of the Managing Owner since February 7, 1984, May 1, 1985 and August 1, 1985, respectively. He has been President and Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Managing Owner since February 1984. Mr. Goodman joined Pasternak, Baum in September 1974 and was a Vice President and Director from July 1981 until September 1983. While at Pasternak, Baum, Mr. Goodman was largely responsible for business development outside of the United States, for investment of its corporate retirement funds, and for selecting trading personnel in the Vegetable Oil Division. Mr. Goodman also created and developed Pasternak, Baum’s Lauric Oils Department. Mr. Goodman has conducted extensive business in South America, Europe and the Far East; he has been a merchandiser of all major vegetable oils and their by-products, and of various other commodities such as sunflower seeds, frozen poultry, pulses and potatoes.
Mr. Goodman graduated from the Bernard M. Baruch School of Business of the City University of New York with a B.B.A. in 1969 and an M.B.A. in 1971 in Finance and Investments, where he was awarded an Economics and Finance Department Fellowship from September 1969 through June 1971. Mr. Goodman is a member of the American Arbitration Association; while at Pasternak, Baum, he was a member of the National Institute of Oilseeds Products and the American Fats and Oils Association (including its Export Rules Committee).
Mr. Goodman is the most recent past Chairman of the Board of the Stacy Joy Goodman Memorial Foundation, a non-profit charity committed to finding a cure for Juvenile Diabetes. He is also Chairman of the Board of the Diabetes Research Institute Foundation, a not-for-profit organization that is the principle source of funding for the Diabetes Research Institute, a world renowned cure based research center affiliated with the University of Miami School of Medicine. Mr. Goodman is a founding member and member of the Greenwich Roundtable. He is also a Director of The Kenmar Global ECO Foundation Inc., which was formed in order to make a meaningful, positive impact on society and the environment by identifying and supporting organizations that promote environmental and sustainability causes around the world.
Messrs. Shewer and Goodman left Pasternak, Baum in September 1983 to form Kenmar Advisory Corp. (now known as Preferred Investment Solutions Corp., the Managing Owner) and they have occupied their present positions with the Managing Owner since that time.
Ms. Esther Eckerling Goodman (born 1952), Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Managing Owner, has been a principal, associated person and NFA associate member of the Managing Owner since May 12, 1988, July 17, 1986 and July 17, 1986, respectively. She joined the Managing Owner in July 1986 and is its Chief Operating Officer and Senior Executive Vice President. Ms. Goodman has been involved in the futures industry since 1974. From 1974 through 1976, she was employed by Conti-Commodity Services, Inc. and ACLI Commodity Services, Inc., in the areas of hedging, speculative trading and tax arbitrage. In 1976, Ms. Goodman joined Loeb Rhoades & Company, Inc. where she was responsible for developing and managing a managed futures program that, in 1979, became the trading system for Westchester Commodity Management, an independent commodity-trading advisor of which Ms. Goodman was a founder and principal. From 1983 through mid-1986, Ms. Goodman was employed as a marketing executive at Commodities Corp. (USA) of Princeton, New Jersey. Ms. Goodman was a Director of the Managed Futures Trade Association from 1987 to 1991 and a Director of its successor organization, the Managed Futures Association, from 1991 to 1995 (now the Managed Funds Association). Ms. Goodman graduated from Stanford University with a B.A. degree in psychology in 1974.
Ms. Goodman is married to Mr. Marc Goodman.
Mr. Braxton Glasgow III (born 1953) has been a principal, associated person, branch manager and NFA associate member of the Managing Owner since June 21, 2001, June 21, 2001, July 13, 2004 and June 8, 2001, respectively. Mr. Glasgow has been an Executive Vice President of the Managing Owner since joining the Managing Owner in May 2001. Mr. Glasgow is responsible for business development. Previously, he served as Executive Vice President, Director of Client Services and a Principal at Chesapeake Capital Corp., a commodities trading firm, and as Senior Managing Director at Signet Investment Banking Co. Mr. Glasgow began his career at PricewaterhouseCoopers, where he specialized in mergers and acquisitions and private equity, including extensive work in Europe and the Far East. Mr. Glasgow received a B.S. in Accounting from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is a Certified Public Accountant. From 1994 to 1995, he was President of the Jay Group Ltd. Mr. Glasgow received a B.S. degree in accounting from the University of North Carolina in 1975.
Ms. Maureen D. Howley (born 1967) has been a principal of the Managing Owner since August 11, 2003. She has been a Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Managing Owner since joining the Managing Owner in July 2003. She is responsible for corporate finance. From July 2001 until July 2003, Ms. Howley was an Associate at Andor Capital Management, LLC, an equity hedge fund company. At Andor, she was responsible for managing the corporate accounting functions. Previously, she was the Controller at John W. Henry & Company, Inc., a commodity-trading advisor (“JWH”), where she held positions of increasing responsibility from September 1996 to July 2001. She began her career at Deloitte & Touche where she specialized in the financial services industry. She held many positions of increasing responsibility for seven years, and left as an Audit Senior Manager in September 1996 to join JWH. Ms. Howley received a B.A. in Accounting from Muhlenberg College in 1989 and designation as a Certified Public Accountant in 1990.
Mr. Lawrence S. Block (born 1967) has been a Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the Managing Owner since joining the Managing Owner in March 2005. Prior to joining the Managing Owner, Mr. Block was a Managing Director and General Counsel of Lipper & Company, L.P., a New York-based investment management firm, from January 1998 until March 2005. Prior to joining Lipper & Company, Mr. Block was a senior associate at the law firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft in New York from May 1996 through December 1997. Mr. Block also worked as an associate at the law firm Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn from September 1992 through May 1996. Mr. Block received a B.S. in Business Administration with a concentration in Accounting from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1989 and a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania School of Law in 1992. Mr. Block’s registration as a principal of the Managing Owner has been effective since March 17, 2005.
Mr. David K. Spohr (born 1963), Senior Vice President and Director of Fund Administration of the Managing Owner, joined the Managing Owner in 2005. He is responsible for the development and execution of the administration group support responsibilities and, as Director of Fund Administration, functions as the Principal Financial/Accounting Officer of Registrant. From 2002 to 2005, Mr. Spohr was a Vice President at Safra Group, where he was responsible for the Alternative Investment operations, tax reporting and pricing valuation. From 2000 to 2002, he was a consultant to The Safra Group. From 1994-1999, he was Manager of Investment Services for the Bank of Bermuda, supporting private client transactions. From 1993 to 1994, he was the Manager of Global Operations for Highbridge Capital Corporation during the fund’s infancy. Mr. Spohr received a B.S. in Business Economics from The State University of New York College at Oneonta in 1985 and designation as a Chartered Financial Analyst in 1998.
Ms. Joanne D. Rosenthal (born 1965) has been a principal, associated person and NFA associate member of the Managing Owner since February 29, 2000, February 29, 2000 and November 30, 1999, respectively. Ms. Rosenthal is Senior Vice President and Director of Portfolio Management and Implementation for the Managing Owner. Prior to joining the Managing Owner in October 1999, Ms. Rosenthal spent nine years at The Chase Manhattan Bank, in various positions of increasing responsibility. From July 1991 through April 1994, she managed the Trade Execution Desk and from May 1994 through September 1999, she was a Vice President and Senior Portfolio Manager of Chase Alternative Asset Management, Inc. Ms. Rosenthal received a Masters of Business Administration with a concentration in Finance from Cornell University and a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Concordia University in Montreal, Canada.
Mr. Peter J. Fell (born 1960), Senior Vice President and Director of Due Diligence since joining the Managing Owner in September 2004. He is responsible for manager selection and due diligence. Mr. Fell is a member of the Investment Committee. From 2000 through August 2004, Mr. Fell was a founding partner and Investment Director of Starview Capital Management. Prior to co-founding Starview Capital Management, Mr. Fell was Vice President of Research and Product Development at Merrill Lynch Investment Partners Inc (MLIP). He was responsible for the investment evaluation and recommendation process pertaining to MLIP funds and sat on MLIP’s Investment Committee. Prior to joining MLIP, Mr. Fell had been with Deutsche Bank Financial Products Corporation for six years starting in 1989, where he was Vice President in the over-the-counter fixed income derivatives area. From 1985 to 1989, he was employed by Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company, ultimately holding the position of Assistant Vice President in the Swaps and Futures Group. Mr. Fell holds an A.B. cum laude in Music Theory and History and an M.B.A. in Finance from Columbia University.
Ms. Melissa Cohn (born 1960), Managing Director and Senior Research Analyst, joined the Managing Owner in 1988. Her responsibilities include manager due diligence, manager analysis, and portfolio/risk management. Ms. Cohn has been involved in the futures industry for over 20 years. Prior to joining the Managing Owner, she spent six years in positions of increasing responsibility in the Commodities Division at Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. Her experience includes that of Sales Assistant, Assistant Commodity Trader and Trader executing orders from numerous CTAs that traded through Shearson. Ms. Cohn graduated from the University of Wisconsin Madison with a B.S. in Agriculture in 1982.
Ms. Jennifer S. Moros (born 1970) has been a Senior Vice President, Marketing and Investor Relations of the Managing Owner since joining the Managing Owner in January 2007. From October 2006 until December 2006, she worked at The Bank of New York. Previously, she was the Chief Operating Officer and Director of Marketing of Coronat Capital Management, LLC, a small start-up hedge fund, from November 2004 until September 2005. Previously, she was Vice President and Product Manager at Credit Suisse in their Alternative Capital Division from February 2000 until November 2004, responsible for marketing, new product development and reporting for their fund of hedge funds business. From June 1998 to January 2000, she was a Senior Associate in the Marketing and Business Development areas at Zweig-DiMenna, a large long/short equity hedge fund. Prior to this, she was employed at Symphony Alternative Investments, an alternatives pension consulting firm, from July 1997 to June 1998, where she was responsible for quantitative and qualitative assessments and recommendations of alternative investments including hedge funds, private equity and venture capital for large institutional clients. From November 1993 until July 1995, Ms. Moros was a Financial Analyst at Bankers Trust and a Business Applications Analyst at National Westminster Bancorp from August 1992 until November 1993. Ms. Moros received an M.B.A in Finance from The Sloan School at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1997 and a B.S. in Economics from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1992.
Mr. Frank Coloccia (born 1965), Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, graduated from Manhattan College in 1987 and 1993 with a BS in Computer Information Systems and MBA in Management Information Systems, respectively. Since December 2007, Mr. Coloccia has been Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer for all of the Kenmar Group of companies, including Preferred. Prior to joining Kenmar, Mr. Coloccia was a Managing Partner of JFA Group LLC, a consulting firm owned by Mr. Coloccia, from September 2007 until December 2007, as well as from September 2006 until January 2007.
From January 2007 until September 2007, Mr. Coloccia was the Chief Research Officer at The Info Pro, an independent market research company for the Information Technology industry. Prior to that time, he was Senior Vice President of Xandros Inc., a provider of Linux-based server, desktop and Windows-Linux cross-platform systems management tools, from April 2006 until September 2006. From November 1999 through February 2006, Mr. Coloccia was the President and Chief Technology Officer of Creative Technologies Group Inc., a consulting company that specialized in networking and application support for the small-medium enterprises market.
Mr. Gordon Nicholson (born 1965), Vice President and Senior Research Analyst, graduated from John Abbott College in 1985 with a Diploma of Collegiate Studies-Pure and Applied Sciences; from Bishop’s University in 1988 with a B.A. in Political Science and Economics and from Vermont Law School in 1993 with a J.D. Mr. Nicholson is also a Certified Financial Advisor and Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst. Mr. Nicholson joined the Kenmar Group in June 2005 and currently serves as Vice President, Director and Senior Research Analyst for the Managing Owner. Mr. Nicholson is a Member of Registrant’s Investment Committee. Previously, he was the Manager - Credit and Pricing, at Bombardier, Inc., a manufacturer of planes and trains, where he held positions of increasing responsibility from April 2003 to June 2005. Prior to that, from July 2002 to April 2003, he was a Senior Credit Analyst at Bombardier Capital, Inc., an asset management firm.
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Certain of the Managing Owner’s directors and officers and any persons holding more than ten percent of Registrant’s Limited Interests (“Ten Percent Owners”) are required to report their initial ownership of Interests and any subsequent changes in that ownership to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on Forms 3, 4 or 5. Such directors and officers and Ten Percent Owners are required by SEC regulations to furnish Registrant with copies of all Forms 3, 4 and 5 they file. There are no Ten Percent Owners of Registrant’s Limited Interests. All filing requirements of Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act were timely complied with during the fiscal year. In making these disclosures, Registrant has relied solely on written representations of the Managing Owner’s directors and officers and Registrant’s Ten Percent Owners or copies of the reports that they have filed with the SEC during and with respect to its most recent fiscal year.
Code of Ethics
Preferred has adopted a Code of Ethics for its Co-Chief Executive Officers and Director of Fund Administration (who, in these capacities, function as the Co-Chief Executive Officers and Principal Financial/Accounting Officer, respectively, of Registrant), accounting managers and persons performing similar functions. A copy of the Code of Ethics is attached as an exhibit hereto.
Audit Committee Financial Expert
Registrant itself does not have any employees. Preferred serves as managing owner of Registrant. The Board of Directors of Preferred has delegated audit committee responsibilities to the Internal Controls and Disclosure Committee. David K. Spohr is Preferred’s Director of Fund Administration (and, in that capacity, functions as Registrant’s Principal Financial/Accounting Officer), is a member of the Internal Controls and Disclosure Committee, and serves as the “audit committee financial expert” for Registrant. Mr. Spohr is not a member of Preferred’s Board of Directors and he is not independent of management.
Item 11.
Item 11. Executive Compensation
Registrant does not pay or accrue any fees, salaries or any other form of compensation for officers of the Managing Owner for their services. (See also Item 13, Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence for information regarding compensation to the Managing Owner).
Item 12.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
As of January 31, 2008, Preferred maintains a 1% Managing Owner Interest in Registrant. As of January 31, 2008, all of Preferred’s stock is owned indirectly and equally by Messrs. Goodman and Shewer, Preferred’s sole directors.
As of January 31, 2008, the following officers of the Managing Owner are deemed to own beneficially the following number of General Interests issued by Registrant:
(*) These Interests are held indirectly through Preferred. The Beneficial Owner disclaims beneficial ownership over such securities for purposes of Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent of his pecuniary interest therein.
(**) These Interests are held by the Beneficial Owner’s spouse indirectly through Preferred. The Beneficial Owner disclaims beneficial ownership over such securities for purposes of Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent of her pecuniary interest therein.
As of January 31, 2008, no Unitholder(s) beneficially owned more than five percent (5%) of the outstanding Limited Interests issued by Registrant.
Item 13.
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
Registrant has and will continue to have certain relationships with the Managing Owner and its affiliates. However, there have been no direct financial transactions between Registrant and the officers of the Managing Owner.
Reference is made to Note 4 to the financial statements in Registrant’s 2007 Annual Report, which is filed as an exhibit hereto, which identifies the related parties and discusses the services provided by these parties and the amounts paid or payable, if any, for their services.
Director Independence
David K. Spohr is Preferred’s Director of Fund Administration (and, in that capacity, functions as Registrant’s Principal Financial/Accounting Officer), is a member of the Internal Controls and Disclosure Committee, and serves as the “audit committee financial expert” for Registrant. Mr. Spohr is not a member of Preferred’s Board of Directors and he is not independent of management.
Item 14.
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services
Audit Fees and All Other Fees
Registrant’s principal accountant since October 15, 2007 has been Eisner LLP (“Eisner”). Registrant’s principal accountant for the year ended December 31, 2006 and for the period January 1, 2007 through September 14, 2007 was Deloitte & Touche LLP (“D&T”).
(a) Audit Fees
Fees for audit services performed by Eisner totaled approximately $37,000 for 2007, respectively, including fees associated with the review of Registrant’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q. Fees for audit services performed by D&T totaled approximately $29,000 and $57,500 for 2007 and 2006, respectively, including fees associated with the annual audit and the reviews of Registrant’s quarterly reports on Form 10-Q.
(b) Audit-Related Fees
The audit-related fees billed to Registrant by Eisner for the period of October 15, 2007 through December 31, 2007 totaled approximately $0. The audit-related fees billed to Registrant by D&T for the year ended December 31, 2006 and for the period January 1, 2007 through September 14, 2007 for products and services other than the services reported above totaled $0.
(c) Tax Fees
Fees for tax services by Arthur F. Bell, Jr. & Associates, L.L.C, including tax compliance and tax advice totaled approximately $15,000 and $7,000 in 2007 and 2006, respectively.
We have been advised by Eisner that neither the firm, nor any member of the firm, has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in any capacity in Registrant or its affiliates.
(d) All Other Fees.
The other fees billed to Registrant by D&T for the year ended December 31, 2006 and for the period January 1, 2007 through September 14, 2007 for products and services other than the services reported above totaled $0. The other fees billed to Registrant by Eisner for the period of October 15, 2007 through December 31, 2007 totaled approximately $0.
PART IV
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
ANNUAL REPORT
December 31, 2007
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
PAGES
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm - Eisner LLP
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm - Deloitte & Touche LLP
Financial Statements
Statements of Financial Condition
Condensed Schedules of Investments
Statements of Operations
Statements of Changes in Trust Capital
Notes to Financial Statements
7 - 15
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Managing Owner and Limited Owners of
World Monitor Trust II - Series E
We have audited the accompanying statement of financial condition, including the condensed schedule of investments, of World Monitor Trust II - Series E (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2007, and the related statements of operations and changes in trust capital and financial highlights for the year ended December 31, 2007. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of World Monitor Trust II - Series E at December 31, 2007, and the results of its operations and changes in its trust capital and the financial highlights for the year ended December 31, 2007, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Eisner LLP
New York, New York
March 19, 2008
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Managing Owner and Limited Owners of
World Monitor Trust II - Series E
We have audited the accompanying statement of financial condition, including the condensed schedule of investments, of World Monitor Trust II - Series E (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2006, and the related statements of operations and changes in trust capital for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of World Monitor Trust II - Series E at December 31, 2006, and the results of its operations and changes in its trust capital for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Deloitte & Touche LLP
New York, New York
March 28, 2007
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
December 31, 2007 and 2006
Net Asset Value per Limited and Managing Owner Interest
See accompanying notes.
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
CONDENSED SCHEDULES OF INVESTMENTS
December 31, 2007 and 2006
See accompanying notes.
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and
See accompanying notes.
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN TRUST CAPITAL
For the Years Ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
See accompanying notes.
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note 1. ORGANIZATION
A. General Description of the Trust
World Monitor Trust II (the “Trust”) is a business trust organized under the laws of Delaware on April 22, 1999. The Trust consists of three separate and distinct series (“Series”): Series D, E and F. Series D, E and F commenced trading operations on March 13, 2000, April 6, 2000 and March 1, 2000, respectively, and each Series will continue to exist until terminated pursuant to the provisions of Article XIII of the Third Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust and Trust Agreement (the “Trust Agreement”). The assets of each Series are segregated from those of the other Series, separately valued and independently managed and separate financial statements are prepared for each Series. Each Series was formed to engage in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of futures, forward and options contracts, and may, from time to time, engage in cash and spot transactions. The trustee of the Trust is Wilmington Trust Company. The fiscal year end of the Trust and Series E is December 31. Because redemptions may be made, and management and incentive fees are calculated; on a weekly basis, financial statements for interim periods are as of the latest valuation day in the last day in the last week of the period.
The term (“Managing Owner”), as used herein, refers to Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. (“Preferred”).
B. Regulation
As a registrant with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Trust is subject to the regulatory requirements under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As a commodity pool, the Trust is subject to the regulations of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an agency of the United States (U.S.) government which regulates most aspects of the commodity futures industry; rules of the National Futures Association, an industry self-regulatory organization; and the requirements of the various commodity exchanges where the Trust executes transactions. Additionally, the Trust is subject to the requirements of the futures commission merchants (brokers) and interbank market makers through which the Trust trades.
C. The Offering
Up to $50,000,000 of limited interests in each Series (“Limited Interests”) were being offered (totaling $150,000,000) (“Subscription Maximum”) until each Series’ Subscription Maximum was met either through sale or exchange or until the Managing Owner suspended the offering of Limited Interests as discussed below. Interests were offered to investors who met certain established suitability standards, with a minimum initial subscription of $5,000 ($2,000 for an individual retirement account), although the minimum purchase for any single Series was $1,000. General Interests were also sold exclusively to the Managing Owner. Limited Interests and Managing Owner or General Interests are sometimes collectively referred to as “Interests”.
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Note 1. ORGANIZATION (CONTINUED)
C. The Offering (Continued)
Initially, the Limited Interests for each Series were offered for a period of up to 180 days after the date of the Prospectus (“Initial Offering Period”) at $100 per interest. The subscription minimum of $5,000,000 for each Series was reached during the Initial Offering Period permitting Series D, E and F to commence trading operations. Series E completed its initial offering April 6, 2000 with gross proceeds of $5,157,459, which was fully allocated to commodities trading. Series E and F interests were offered until they substantially achieved their subscription maximum of $50,000,000 on the sale of Limited Interests during June 2003 and July 2003, respectively. In addition, since July 2003, the weekly offering of interests in Series D has been suspended. Accordingly, at this time, interests in Series E may not be offered or exchanged.
The Managing Owner is required to maintain at least a 1% interest in the capital, profits and losses of each Series so long as it acting as the Managing Owner.
D. The Trading Advisor
Each Series has its own independent commodity trading advisor that makes that Series’ trading decisions. The Managing Owner, on behalf of Series E, entered into an advisory agreement with Graham Capital Management, L.P. (the “Trading Advisor”) to make the trading decisions for Series E. The advisory agreement may be terminated for various reasons, including at the discretion of the Managing Owner. The Managing Owner has allocated 100% of the assets of Series E to the Trading Advisor.
E. Exchanges, Redemptions and Termination
Interests owned in one series of the Trust (Series D, E or F) were exchangeable, without any charge, for Interests of one or more other Series on a weekly basis for as long as Limited Interests in those Series were being offered to the public. Exchanges were made at the applicable Series’ then current net asset value per Interest as of the close of business on the Friday immediately preceding the week in which the exchange request was effected. The exchange of Interests was treated as a redemption of Interests in one Series (with the related tax consequences) and the simultaneous purchase of Interests in the other Series. Series E and Series F are no longer offered to the public as those series substantially achieved their subscription maximums during June 2003 and July 2003, respectively. In addition, since July 2003, the offering of interests in Series D has been suspended. Accordingly, at this time, Interests may not be exchanged. Future redemptions and exchanges will impact the amount of funds available for investment in commodity contracts in subsequent periods.
Redemptions are permitted on a weekly basis.
In the event that the estimated net asset value per Interest of a Series at the end of any business day after adjustments for distributions and redemptions, declines by 50% or more since the commencement of trading activities or the first day of a fiscal year, the Series will automatically terminate.
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Note 2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
A. Basis of Accounting
The financial statements of Series E are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Such principles require the Managing Owner to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Commodity futures and forward transactions are reflected in the accompanying statements of financial condition on a trade date basis. Net unrealized gains or losses on open contracts (the difference between contract trade price and market price) is reflected in the statement of financial condition in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 39 - “Offsetting of Amounts Related to Certain Contracts.” The market value of futures (exchange-traded) contracts is based upon the closing quotation on the various futures exchanges on which the contract is traded. The fair value of swap and forward (non-exchange traded) contracts is extrapolated on a forward basis from the spot prices. Any change in net unrealized gain or loss during the current period is reported in the statement of operations. Realized gains and losses on commodity transactions are recognized in the period in which the contracts are closed.
The weighted average number of Limited and General Interests outstanding was computed for purposes of disclosing net income (loss) per weighted average Limited and General Interest. The weighted average Limited Interests and General Interests are equal to the number of Interests outstanding at period end, adjusted proportionately for Interests redeemed based on their respective time outstanding during such period.
Series E has elected not to provide a Statement of Cash Flows as permitted by Statement of Financial Account Standards (“SFAS”) No. 102, “Statement of Cash Flows - Exemption of Certain Enterprises and Classification of Cash Flows from Certain Securities Acquired for Resale.”
Consistent with standard business practices in the normal course of business, Series E has provided general indemnifications to the Managing Owner, its Trading Advisor and others when they act, in good faith, in the best interests of Series E. Series E is unable to develop an estimate of the maximum potential amount of future payments that could potentially result from any hypothetical future claim, but expects the risk of having to make any payments under these general business indemnifications to be remote.
The SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 108 (“SAB 108”) “Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements When Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements”, provides guidance on quantifying and evaluating the materiality of unrecorded misstatements. It is effective for the first annual period ending after November 15, 2006. Preferred, as Managing Owner of Series E, has evaluated the impact, if any, the implementation of SAB 108 may have on its financial statements. In Preferred’s opinion, no material unrecorded misstatements are in existence as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 that would require a cumulative effect adjustment to the financial statements.
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Note 2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
A. Basis of Accounting (Continued)
In July 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes-an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109” (“FIN 48”), which clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in tax positions. FIN 48 requires that Series E recognize in its financial statements, the impact of a tax position if that position is more likely than not of being sustained on audit, based on the technical merits of the position. The provisions of FIN 48 were effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006, with the cumulative effect of the change in accounting principle recorded as an adjustment to opening retained earnings. In connection with the adoption of FIN 48, Series E has elected an accounting policy to classify interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits as interest expense. Preferred, as Managing Owner of Series E, evaluated the impact of adopting FIN 48 on Series E’s financial statements. In Preferred’s opinion, the adoption of FIN 48 had no material impact on Series E, as Series E’s tax position is based on established tax precedence for the tax treatment of investment partnerships as flow through tax entities.
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157 (“SFAS 157”), “Fair Value Measurements”. SFAS 157 requires use of a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three levels: quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities (Level 1), inputs other than quoted market prices that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly (Level 2), and unobservable inputs for the asset or liability (Level 3). SFAS 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007.
The Trust adopted SFAS 157 in the first quarter of 2008. Preferred, as Managing Owner of Series E, evaluated the impact adoption of SFAS 157 will have on Series E’s financial statements. Based on an analysis by Preferred, the effect of applying SFAS 157 to the investment portfolio included in these financial statements will not result in a change to the fair value of Series E’s investments. Of its unrealized gains, approximately $47,346 or 0.25% of Series E’s trust capital at December 31, 2007 is classified as Level 1 and $0 or 0.00% are Levels 2 or 3, and of its unrealized losses, approximately $0 or 0.00% are Level 1, $62,555 or 0.33% are Level 2 and $0 or 0.00% are Level 3 using the fair value hierarchy of SFAS 157.
In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities”, including an amendment of SFAS 115, or SFAS 159. This statement provides companies with an option to report selected financial assets and liabilities at fair value. This statement is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 with early adoption permitted.
The Trust adopted SFAS 159 in the first quarter of 2008. Preferred, as Managing Owner of Series E, evaluated the impact adoption of SFAS 159 will have on Series E’s financial statements. In Preferred’s opinion, the adoption of SFAS 159 had no material effect on Series E’s financial statements.
Cash represents amounts deposited with a bank and clearing brokers, a portion of which is restricted for purposes of meeting margin requirements, which typically range from 0% to 35% of the notional amounts of the derivatives traded. Series E receives interest on all cash balances held by the bank and clearing brokers at prevailing rates. The brokers are highly capitalized and are members of major securities exchanges.
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Note 2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
B. Income Taxes
Series E is treated as a partnership for Federal income tax purposes. As such, Series E is not required to provide for, or pay, any Federal or state income taxes. Income tax attributes that arise from its operations are passed directly to the individual interest holders including the Managing Owner. Series E may be subject to other state and local taxes in jurisdictions in which it operates.
C. Profit and Loss Allocations and Distributions
Series E allocates profits and losses for both financial and tax reporting purposes to its Interest holders weekly on a pro rata basis based on each owner’s Interests outstanding during the week. Distributions (other than redemptions of Interests) may be made at the sole discretion of the Managing Owner on a pro rata basis in accordance with the respective capital balances of the Interest holders. The Managing Owner has not and does not presently intend to make any distributions.
D. Foreign Currency Transaction
Series E’s functional currency is the U.S. dollar; however, it transacts business in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. Assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other then the U.S. dollar are translated into U.S. dollars at the rates in effect at the date of the statement of financial condition. Income and expense items denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars at the rates in effect during the period. Gains and losses resulting from the translation to U.S. dollars are reported in income currently.
Note 3. FEES
A. Organizational and General and Administrative Costs
Prudential Equity Group Inc. (“PEG”) or its affiliates paid the costs of organizing Series E and all costs of offering its Limited Interests and continued to pay the administrative costs incurred by the Managing Owner or its affiliates for services they performed for Series E through September 30, 2004. Preferred may engage third parties to perform such services for Series E. These services will be paid by Preferred to the extent they are not reimbursable by Series E. Administrative costs include, but are not limited to, those costs discussed in Note 4 below.
Routine legal, audit, postage, and other routine third party administrative costs are paid by Series E. To the extent that general and administrative costs incurred by Series E exceed 1.5% of Series E’s net asset value during the year (with a maximum of 0.5% attributable to other than legal and audit expenses) such amounts will be borne by the Managing Owner and its affiliates.
B. Management and Incentive Fees
Series E pays its Trading Advisor a management fee at an annual rate of 2% of Series E’s net asset value allocated to its management. The management fee is determined weekly and the sum of such weekly amounts is paid monthly. Series E also pays its Trading Advisor a quarterly incentive fee equal to 22% of such Trading Advisor’s “New High Net Trading Profits” (as defined in the advisory agreement). The incentive fee also accrues weekly.
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Note 3. FEES (CONTINUED)
C. Commissions
On October 1, 2004, an agreement was executed between Preferred and Prudential Financial Derivatives LLC (“PFD”), which amended and restated the brokerage commissions which were previously paid to PFD (at an annual rate of 6% of Series E’s net asset value) excluding transaction fee’s which will be paid to PFD. The agreement incorporates the previous PFD brokerage agreement’s terms, including the total fees paid by Series E. The fee is determined weekly and the sum of such weekly amounts is paid monthly. Series E is also obligated to pay all floor brokerage expenses, give-up charges and NFA, clearing and exchange fees incurred in connection with Series E’s commodity trading activities.
Note 4. RELATED PARTIES
Series E reimburses the Managing Owner or its affiliates for services they performed for Series E, which included, but are not limited to: brokerage services; accounting and financial management; registrar, transfer and assignment functions; investor communications; printing and other administrative services. However, to the extent that general and administrative expenses exceeded 1.5% of Series E’s net asset value during the year (with a maximum of 0.5% attributable to other than legal and audit expenses) such amounts are borne by the Managing Owner and its affiliates.
The expenses incurred by Series E for services performed by the Managing Owner and its affiliates for Series E were:
Expenses payable to the Managing Owner and its affiliates as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 were $111,429 and $150,251, respectively, which are included in commissions and other transaction fees payable and accrued expenses payable on the statements of financial condition.
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Note 4. RELATED PARTIES (CONTINUED)
Series E, acting through its Trading Advisor may execute over-the-counter, spot, forward and/or option foreign exchange transactions with its broker. The broker then engages in back-to-back trading with Prudential-Bache Global Markets Inc. (“PBGM”). PBGM attempts to earn a profit on such transactions. PBGM keeps its prices on foreign currency competitive with other interbank currency trading desks. All over-the-counter currency transactions are conducted between Series E and its broker pursuant to a line of credit. The broker may require that collateral be posted against the marked-to-market positions of Series E.
Note 5. INCOME TAX REPORTING
There have been no differences between the tax basis and book basis of assets liabilities and Interest holders’ capital since inception of the Trust.
Note 6. DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND ASSOCIATED RISKS
Series E is exposed to various types of risks associated with the derivative instruments and related markets in which it invests. These risks include, but are not limited to, risk of loss from fluctuations in the value of derivative instruments held (market risk) and the inability of counterparties to perform under the terms of Series E’s investment activities (credit risk).
Market Risk
Trading in futures and forward contracts (including foreign exchange) involves entering into contractual commitments to purchase or sell a particular commodity at a specified date and price. The gross or face amount of the contracts, which is typically many times that of Series E’s net assets being traded, significantly exceeds Series E’s future cash requirements since Series E intends to close out its open positions prior to settlement. As a result, Series E is generally subject only to the risk of loss arising from the change in the value of the contracts. As such, Series E considers the “fair value” of its derivative instruments to be the net unrealized gain or loss on the contracts. The market risk associated with Series E’s commitments to purchase commodities is limited to the gross or face amount of the contracts held. However, when Series E enters into a contractual commitment to sell commodities, it must make delivery of the underlying commodity at the contract price and then repurchase the contract at prevailing market prices or settle in cash. Since the repurchase price to which a commodity can rise is unlimited, entering into commitments to sell commodities exposes Series E to unlimited risk.
Market risk is influenced by a wide variety of factors including government programs and policies, political and economic events, the level and volatility of interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, the diversification effects among the derivative instruments Series E holds and the liquidity and inherent volatility of the markets in which Series E trades.
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Note 6. DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND ASSOCIATED RISKS (CONTINUED)
Credit Risk
When entering into futures or forward contracts, Series E is exposed to credit risk that the counterparty to the contract will not meet its obligations. The counterparty for futures contracts traded on United States and most foreign futures exchanges is the clearinghouse associated with the particular exchange. In general, clearinghouses are backed by their corporate members who are required to share any financial burden resulting from the non-performance by one of their members and, as such, should significantly reduce this credit risk. In cases where the clearinghouse is not backed by the clearing members (i.e. some foreign exchanges), it is normally backed by a consortium of banks or other financial institutions. On the other hand, there is concentration risk on forward transactions entered into by Series E as Series E’s commodity broker (as defined in Note 4), is the sole counterparty. Series E has entered into a master netting agreement with its broker and, as a result, when applicable presents unrealized gains and losses on open forward positions as a net amount in the statements of financial condition. The amount at risk associated with counterparty non-performance of all of Series E’s contracts is the net unrealized gain included in the statements of financial condition; however, counterparty non-performance on only certain of Series E’s contracts may result in greater loss than non-performance on all of Series E’s contracts. There can be no assurance that any counterparty clearing member or clearinghouse will meet its obligations to Series E.
The Managing Owner attempts to minimize both credit and market risks by requiring Series E and its Trading Advisor to abide by various trading limitations and policies. The Managing Owner monitors compliance with these trading limitations and policies which include, but are not limited to, executing and clearing all trades with creditworthy counterparties; limiting the amount of margin or premium required for any one commodity or all commodities combined; and generally limiting transactions to contracts which are traded in sufficient volume to permit the taking and liquidating of positions. Additionally, pursuant to the advisory agreement among Series E, the Managing Owner and the Trading Advisor, Series E shall automatically terminate the Trading Advisor if the net asset value allocated to the Trading Advisor declines by 40% from the value at the beginning of any year or since the commencement of trading activities. Furthermore, the Third Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust and Trust Agreement provides that Series E will liquidate its positions, and eventually dissolve, if Series E experiences a decline in the net asset value of 50% from the value at the beginning of any year or since the commencement of trading activities. In each case, the decline in net asset value is after giving effect for distributions, and redemptions. The Managing Owner may impose additional restrictions (through modifications of trading limitations and policies) upon the trading activities of the Trading Advisor as it, in good faith, deems to be in the best interest of Series E.
Series E’s futures commission merchant, in accepting orders for the purchase or sale of domestic futures contracts, is required by Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) regulations to separately account for and segregate as belonging to Series E all assets of Series E relating to domestic futures trading and is not allowed to commingle such assets with its other assets. At December 31, 2007 and 2006, such segregated assets totaled $13,599,526 and $6,173,755, respectively. Part 30.7 of the CFTC regulations also requires Series E’s futures commission merchant to secure assets of Series E related to foreign futures trading which totaled $(16,544) and $(1,242,325) at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. There are no segregation requirements for assets related to forward trading.
At December 31, 2007, Series E’s open futures and forward contracts generally mature within eighteen months.
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Note 7. FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
The following information presents performance per Interest data and other supplemental financial data for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005. This information has been derived from information presented in the financial statements.
Per Interest Performance
Total returns are calculated based on the change in value of an Interest during the year. An individual Interestholder’s total returns and ratios may vary from the above total returns and ratios based on the timing of additions and redemptions.
(1)
Interest income per interest and expenses per interest are calculated by dividing interest income and expenses by the weighted average number of Interests outstanding during the year. Net realized gain (loss) and change in net unrealized gain (loss) on commodity transactions is a balancing amount necessary to reconcile the change in net asset value per Interest with the other per Interest information.
(2)
Represents interest income less total expenses (exclusive of incentive fees).
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, on the [ ] day of March 2008.
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
By:
Preferred Investment Solutions Corp.
Managing Owner
By:
/s/ David K. Spohr
Date: March 20, 2008
David K. Spohr
Senior Vice President and Director of Fund Administration
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of Registrant in the capacities indicated on March 20, 2008.
WORLD MONITOR TRUST II - SERIES E
By:
Preferred Investment Solutions Corp.
Managing Owner
OTHER INFORMATION
The actual round turn equivalent of brokerage commissions paid per trade for the year ended December 31, 2007 was $2.39.
Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is available to limited owners without charge upon written request to:
World Monitor Trust II - Series E
c/o Preferred Investment Solutions Corp
900 King Street, Suite 100
Rye Brook, New York 10573