SALOMON SMITH BARNEY FAIRFIELD FUTURES FUND L P - 10-K Annual Report

(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)

(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the year ended December 31, 2004

Commission File Number 0-50736

SALOMON SMITH BARNEY FAIRFIELD FUTURES FUND L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

c/o Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
399 Park Ave. – 7th Fl.
New York, New York 10022

(Address and Zip Code of principal executive offices)

(212) 559-2011

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Redeemable Units of Limited Partnership Interest

(Title of Class)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes X No

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this form 10-K [X]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).

Yes X No

Limited Partnership Redeemable Units with an aggregate value of $125,746,876 were outstanding and held by non-affiliates as of the last business day of the registrants most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

As of February 28, 2005, 68,794.1179 Limited Partnership Redeemable Units were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None

PART I

Item 1. Business.

(a) General development of business. Salomon Smith Barney Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. ("Partnership") is a limited partnership organized on March 25, 2002 under the partnership laws of the State of New York. The Partnership commenced trading operations on June 5, 2002. The Partnership engages in speculative trading of commodity interests, including futures contracts, options and forward contracts. The Partnership may also engage in swaps transactions and other derivative transactions with the approval of the General Partner (defined below).

Beginning April 15, 2002, 110,000 redeemable units of Limited Partnership Interest ("Redeemable Units") were offered at $1,000 per Redeemable Unit for a period of ninety days, subject to increase for up to an additional sixty days at the sole discretion of the general partner. Between April 15, 2002 (commencement of the offering period) and June 4, 2002, 12,423 Redeemable Units were sold. Proceeds of the offering were held in an escrow account and were transferred, along with the general partner's contribution of $125,000 to the Partnership's trading account on June 5, 2002 when the Partnership commenced trading. The Partnership is not currently offering Redeemable Units. Sales and redemptions of Redeemable units and general partner contributions and redemptions for the year ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and for the period from March 25, 2002 (date Partnership was organized) to December 31, 2002 are reported in the Statements of Changes in Partners' Capital on page F-8 under "Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data."

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, formerly Smith Barney Futures Management LLC, acts as the general partner (the "General Partner") of the Partnership. The Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), formerly Salomon Smith Barney Inc. CGM is an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. ("CGMHI"), formerly Salomon Smith Barney Holdings Inc., which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.

The Partnership's trading of futures, forwards and options contracts, if applicable, on commodities is done primarily on United States of America and foreign commodity exchanges. It engages in such trading through a commodity brokerage account maintained with CGM.

The General Partner has agreed to make capital contributions, if necessary, so that its general partnership interest will be equal to the greater of (i) an amount to entitle it to 1% of each material item of Partnership income, loss, deduction or credit and (ii) the greater of (a) 1% of the partners' contributions to the Partnership or (b) $25,000. The Partnership will be liquidated upon the first of the following to occur: December 31, 2022; the net asset value per Redeemable Unit falls below $400 as of the close of any business day; a decline in net assets after trading commences to less than $1,000,000; or under certain circumstances as defined in the Limited Partnership Agreement of the Partnership (the "Limited Partnership Agreement").

Under the Limited Partnership Agreement, dated as of March 25, 2002, the General Partner has sole responsibility for the administration of the business and affairs of the Partnership. The Partnership pays the General Partner a monthly administrative fee in return for its services to the Partnership equal to 0.5% of month-end Net Assets per year.

The General Partner has entered into a Management Agreement (the "Management Agreement") with Graham Capital Management, L.P. ("Graham"), (the "Advisor") who will make all commodity trading decisions for the Partnership. The Advisor is not affiliated with the General Partner or CGM. The Advisor is not responsible for the organization or operation of the Partnership.

Pursuant to the terms of the Management Agreement, the Partnership pays the Advisor a monthly management fee equal to 1/6 of 1% (2% per year) of month-end Net Assets allocated to the Advisor and an incentive fee payable quarterly equal to 20% of the New Trading Profits. Month-end Net Assets, for the purpose of calculating management and administration fees are Net Assets, as defined in the Limited Partnership Agreement, prior to the reduction of redemptions and incentive fees

The Partnership has entered into a Customer Agreement with CGM (the "Customer Agreement") which provides that the Partnership will pay CGM a monthly Brokerage Fee equal to 4.5% per year of

month-end Net Assets, in lieu of brokerage commissions on a per trade basis. Month-end Net Assets, for the purpose of calculating commissions are Net Assets, as defined in the Limited Partnership Agreement, prior to the reduction of accrued expenses and redemptions payable. CGM also pays a portion of its brokerage fees to its financial consultants who have sold Redeemable Units of the Partnership and who are registered as associated persons with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the "CFTC"). The Partnership pays for National Futures Association ("NFA") fees, exchange fees, clearing fees, give-up fees, user fees and floor brokerage fees. The Customer Agreement between the Partnership and CGM gives the Partnership the legal right to net unrealized gains and losses. In addition, CGM pays the Partnership interest on 80% of the average daily equity maintained in cash in its account during each month at a 30-day U.S. Treasury bill rate determined weekly by CGM based on the average non-competitive yield on 3-month U.S. Treasury bills maturing in 30 days from the date on which such weekly rate is determined.

(b) Financial information about industry segments. The Partnership's business consists of only one segment, speculative trading of commodity interests (including, but not limited to, futures contracts, options and forward contracts on U.S. Treasury Bills, other financial instruments, foreign currencies, stock indices and physical commodities). The Partnership does not engage in sales of goods or services. The Partnership's net income (loss) from operations for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and for period from June 5, 2002 (commencement of trading operations) to December 31, 2002 is set forth under "Item 6. Selected Financial Data." The Partnership's capital as of December 31, 2004 was $125,370,686.

See Paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

(i) through (xii) — Not applicable.

(xiii) — The Partnership has no employees.

(d) Financial Information About Geographic Areas. The Partnership does not engage in sales of goods or services or own any long lived assets, and therefore this item is not applicable.

(e) Available Information. The Partnership does not have an Internet address. The Partnership will provide paper copies of its annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to these reports free of charge upon request.

Item 2. Properties.

The Partnership does not own or lease any properties. The General Partner operates out of facilities provided by its affiliate, CGM.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

This section describes the major pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, to which Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. ("CGMHI") or its subsidiaries is a party or to which any of their property is subject. There are no material legal proceedings pending against the Partnership or the General Partner.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM") is a New York corporation with its principal place of business at 388 Greenwich St., New York, New York 10013. CGM is registered as a broker-dealer and futures commission merchant ("FCM"), and provides futures brokerage and clearing services for institutional and retail participants in the futures markets. CGM and its affiliates also provide investment banking and other financial services for clients worldwide.

There have been no material administrative, civil or criminal actions within the past five years against Citigroup Global Markets (formerly known as Salomon Smith Barney) or any of its individual principals and no such actions are currently pending, except as follows.

Regulatory Matters

Both the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") have advised CGM that they were or are reviewing transactions in which Ameritech Pension Trust purchased from CGM and

certain affiliates approximately $20.9 million in participations in a portfolio of motels owned by Motels of America, Inc. and Best Inns, Inc. With respect to the IRS review, CGM and certain affiliated entities have consented to extensions of time for the assessment of excise taxes that may be claimed to be due with respect to the transactions for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989.

In April 2000, CGM and several other broker-dealers entered into a settlement with the IRS and the SEC, concluding an industry-wide investigation into the pricing of Treasury securities in advanced refunding transactions.

IPO Regulatory Inquiries

Since April 2002, CGM and several other broker dealers have received subpoenas and/or requests for information from various governmental and self-regulatory agencies and Congressional committees as part of their research on IPO allocation inquiries. With respect to issues raised by the NASD, the NYSE and the SEC about CGM's and other firms' e-mail retention practices, CGM and several other broker/dealers and the NASD, the NYSE and the SEC entered into a settlement agreement in December 2002. CGM agreed to pay a penalty in the amount of $1.65 million and did not admit any wrongdoing.

IPO Civil Litigation

In April 2002, consolidated amended complaints were filed against CGM and other investment banks named in numerous alleged class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of certain federal securities laws (including Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) with respect to the allocation of shares for certain initial public offerings and related aftermarket transactions and damage to investors caused by allegedly biased research analyst reports. On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an opinion denying defendants' motion to dismiss.

On October 13, 2004, the court granted in part the motion to certify class actions for six focus cases in the securities litigation. CGM is not a defendant in any of the six focus cases. The underwriter defendants in the focus cases have filed a petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking review of this decision.

Also filed in the Southern District of New York against CGM and other investment banks were several alleged class actions that were consolidated into a single class action alleging violations of certain federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the allocation of shares in initial public offerings when acting as underwriters. On November 3, 2003, the court granted CGM's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the antitrust case. An appeal to the Second Circuit of the dismissal granted to CGM in November 2003 with respect to the antitrust case relating to the allocation of shares for certain initial public offerings is pending.

Research Settlement

On April 28, 2003, CGM announced final agreements with the SEC, the NASD, the NYSE and the New York Attorney General (as lead state among the 50 states, the District Columbia and Puerto Rico) to resolve on a civil basis all of their outstanding investigations into its research and IPO allocation and distribution practices (the "Research Settlement"). As part of the Research Settlement, CGM has consented to the entry of (1) an injunction under the federal securities laws to be entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, barring CGM from violating provisions of the federal securities laws and related NASD and NYSE rules relating to research, certain IPO allocation practices, the safeguarding of material nonpublic information, and the maintenance of required books and records and requiring CGM to adopt and enforce new restrictions on the operation of research; (2) an NASD Acceptance Waiver and Consent requiring CGM to cease and desist from violations of corresponding NASD rules and requiring CGM to adopt and enforce the same new restrictions; (3) an NYSE Stipulation and Consent requiring CGM to cease and desist from violations of corresponding NYSE rules and requiring CGM to adopt and enforce the same new restrictions; and (4) an Assurance of Discontinuance with the New York Attorney General containing substantially the same or similar

restrictions. The Research Settlement requires CGM to pay $300 million for retrospective relief, plus $25 million for investor education, and commit to spend $75 million to provide independent third-party research to its clients at no charge. CGM reached these final settlement agreements without admitting or denying any wrongdoing or liability. The Research Settlement does not establish wrongdoing or liability for purposes of any other proceeding. The $300 million was accrued during the 2002 fourth quarter.

To effectuate the Research Settlement, the SEC filed a Complaint and Final Judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 31, 2003, final judgment was entered against CGM and nine other investment banks. The NASD has accepted the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent entered into with CGM in connection with the Research Settlement. In May 2003, the NYSE advised CGM that the Hearing Panel's Decision, in which it accepted the Research Settlement, had become final. As required by the Research Settlement, CGM also has entered into separate settlement agreements with numerous states and certain U.S. territories.

Several individual actions have been filed against Citigroup and CGM relating to, among other things, research on Qwest Communications International, Inc. alleging violations of state and federal securities laws.

Enron Regulatory Settlement

On July 28, 2003, Citigroup (CGM's ultimate parent) entered into a final settlement agreement with the SEC to resolve the SEC's outstanding investigations into Citigroup transactions with Enron Corp. and Dynegy Inc. Pursuant to the settlement, Citigroup has, among other terms, (1) consented to the entry of an administrative cease and desist order, which bars Citigroup from committing or causing violations of provisions of the federal securities laws, and (2) agreed to pay $120 million ($101.25 million allocable to Enron and $18.75 million allocable to Dynegy). Citigroup entered into this settlement without admitting or denying any wrongdoing or liability, and the settlement does not establish wrongdoing or liability for purposes of any other proceeding. On July 28, 2003, Citibank, N.A. entered into an agreement with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC") and Citigroup entered into an agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York ("FED") to resolve their inquiries into certain of Citigroup's transactions with Enron. Pursuant to the agreements, Citibank and Citigroup have agreed to submit plans to the OCC and FED, respectively, regarding the handling of complex structured finance transactions. Also on July 28, 2003, Citigroup entered into a settlement agreement with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to resolve its investigation into certain of Citigroup's transactions with Enron. Pursuant to that settlement, Citigroup has agreed to pay $25.5 million and to abide by its agreements with the SEC, OCC and FED.

Enron-Related Civil Action

CGM, Citigroup and various other Citigroup-related entities have been named as defendants in over 20 civil lawsuits pending in state and federal courts throughout the United States, alleging claims against Citigroup and CGM based on their dealings with Enron. The majority of these cases have been brought by purchasers and sellers of Enron equity and debt securities and Enron-linked securities. Many of the plaintiffs in these actions are large, institutional investors that had substantial Enron and Enron-linked holdings. The lawsuits collectively allege as against Citigroup and/or its affiliates and subsidiaries, among other things, federal securities fraud, state law claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and related claims. In most of these lawsuits, Citigroup is named as a co-defendant along with other investment banks alleged to have had dealings with Enron. The majority of cases pending in the federal courts have been, or are in the process of being, consolidated before a single judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In addition, in five adversary proceedings in the Enron Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Enron and, in one case, its co-debtor affiliates and subsidiaries, and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Enron Corp., et al., have named Citigroup and/or its affiliates or subsidiaries as defendants.

A Citigroup affiliate, along with other defendants, settled all claims against it in In Re: Newpower Holdings Securities Litigation, a class action brought on behalf of certain investors in NewPower securities. Citigroup reached this settlement agreement without admitting any wrongdoing. On September 13, 2004, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York preliminarily approved the settlement.

Worldcom-Related Litigation

Citigroup, CGM and certain executive officers and current and former employees have been named as defendants — along with twenty-two other investment banks, certain current and former WorldCom officers and directors, and WorldCom's former auditors — in a consolidated class action brought on behalf of individuals and entities who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of WorldCom between April 29, 1999 and June 25, 2002 In Re: Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation. The class action complaint asserts claims against CGM under (i) Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with certain bond offerings in which it served as underwriter, and (ii) Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b), alleging that it participated in the preparation and/or issuance of misleading WorldCom registration statements and disseminated misleading research reports concerning WorldCom stock. In 2003, the district court denied CGM's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint and granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Pursuant to an order entered May 28, 2003, the District Court consolidated approximately seventy-eight individual actions with the class action for pretrial proceedings. The claims asserted in these individual actions are substantially similar to the claims alleged in the class action and assert state and federal securities law claims based on CGM's research reports concerning WorldCom and/or CGM's role as an underwriter in WorldCom offerings. Plaintiffs in certain of these actions filed motions to remand their cases to state court. The District Court denied these motions and its rulings were upheld on appeal.

Numerous other actions asserting claims against CGM in connection with its research reports about WorldCom and/or its role as an investment banker for WorldCom are pending in other federal and state courts around the country. These actions have been remanded to various state courts, are pending in other federal courts, or have been conditionally transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to be consolidated with the class action. In addition to the court suits, actions asserting claims against Citigroup and certain of its affiliates relating to its WorldCom research reports are pending in numerous arbitrations around the country. These actions assert claims that are substantially similar to the claims asserted in the class action.

On May 10, 2004, Citigroup announced that it had agreed to pay $2.58 billion to settle the WorldCom class action suits. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted approval to the proposed settlement on November 10, 2004.

On September 17, 2004, Weinstein, et al. v. Ebbers, et al., an alleged class action against CGM and others brought on behalf of holders of WorldCom securities asserting claims based on, among other things, CGM's research reports concerning WorldCom, was dismissed with prejudice in its entirety by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs noticed an appeal of the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on October 15, 2004. The parties have reached an agreement in principle on the terms of a settlement of this action.

Citigroup and CGM, along with a number of other defendants, have settled Retirement Systems of Alabama, et al. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., et al., a WorldCom individual action that had been remanded to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama. The settlement became final on September 30, 2004.

On June 28, 2004, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed all claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and certain claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in In Re: Targets Securities Litigation, an alleged class action against Citigroup and CGM and certain former employees, leaving only claims under the 1934 Act for purchases of Targeted Growth Enhanced Terms Securities With Respect to the Common Stock of MCI WorldCom, Inc. ("TARGETS") after July 30, 1999. On October 20, 2004, the parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth the terms of a settlement of all remaining claims in this action. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on January 11, 2005.

A fairness hearing was held on November 5, 2004 in connection with the proposed class settlement between plaintiffs and the Citigroup-related defendants in In Re: Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Global Crossing

On or about January 28, 2003, lead plaintiff in a consolidated alleged class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (In Re: Global Crossing, Ltd. Securities Litigation) filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Global Crossing and Asia Global Crossing, which names as defendants, among others, Citigroup, CGM, CGMH and certain executive officers and current and former employees. The purported class action complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws alleging that the defendants issued research reports without a reasonable basis in fact and failed to disclose conflicts of interest with Global Crossing in connection with published investment research. On March 22, 2004, the lead plaintiff amended its consolidated complaint to add claims on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Asia Global Crossing. The added claims assert causes of action under the federal securities laws and common law in connection with CGM's research reports about Global Crossing and Asia Global Crossing and for CGM's roles as an investment banker for Global Crossing and as an underwriter in the Global Crossing and Asia Global Crossing offerings. The Citigroup related defendants moved to dismiss all of the claims against them on July 2, 2004. The plaintiffs and the Citigroup related defendants have reached an agreement in principle on the terms of a settlement of this action.

In addition, on or about January 27, 2004, the Global Crossing Estate Representative filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (i) an adversary proceeding asserting claims against, among others, Citigroup, CGM and certain executive officers and current and former employees, asserting claims under federal bankruptcy law and common law in connection with CGM's research reports about Global Crossing and for its role as an underwriter in Global Crossing offerings, and (ii) an adversary proceeding against Citigroup and several other financial institutions seeking to rescind the payment of a $1 billion loan made to a subsidiary of Global Crossing. The Citigroup related defendants moved to dismiss the former action on June 26, 2004, and the latter on May 28, 2004.

In addition, actions asserting claims against Citigroup and certain of its affiliates relating to its Global Crossing research reports are pending in numerous arbitrations around the country. These arbitration proceedings assert claims that are substantially similar to the claims asserted in the alleged class action.

Adelphia Communications Corporation

On July 6, 2003, an adversary proceeding was filed by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors on behalf of Adelphia Communications Corporation against certain lenders and investment banks, including CGM, Citibank, N.A., Citicorp USA, Inc., and Citigroup Financial Products, Inc. (together, the Citigroup Parties). The complaint alleges that the Citigroup Parties and numerous other defendants committed acts in violation of the Bank Holding Company Act and the common law. The complaint seeks equitable relief and an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. In November 2003, a similar adversary proceeding was filed by the Equity Holders Committee of Adelphia. In June 2004, motions to dismiss were filed with respect to the complaints of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and the Equity Holders Committee. The motions are currently pending.

In addition, CGM is among the underwriters named in numerous civil actions brought to date by investors in Adelphia debt securities in connection with Adelphia securities offerings between September 1997 and October 2001. Three of the complaints also assert claims against Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A. All of the complaints allege violations of federal securities laws, and certain of the complaints also allege violations of state securities laws and the common law. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. In December 2003, a second amended complaint was filed and consolidated before the same judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In February 2004, motions to dismiss the class and individual actions pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District were filed. The motions are currently pending.

Mutual Funds

Citigroup and certain of its affiliates have been named in several class action litigations pending in various federal district courts arising out of alleged violations of the federal securities laws, the Investment Company Act and common law (including breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment). The claims

concern practices in connection with the sale of mutual funds, including allegations involving market timing, revenue sharing, incentive payments for the sale of proprietary funds, undisclosed breakpoint discounts for the sale of certain classes of funds, inappropriate share class recommendations and inappropriate fund investments. The litigations involving market timing have been consolidated under the MDL rules in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and the litigations involving revenue sharing, incentive payment and other issues have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs in these litigations generally seek unspecified compensatory damages, rescissionary damages, injunctive relief, costs and fees. In the principal market timing cases that name Citigroup, a lead plaintiff has been appointed but that plaintiff has not yet filed an amended complaint. In the cases concerning revenue sharing, incentive payment and other issues, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended complaint on December 15, 2004.

Several issues in the mutual fund industry have come under scrutiny of federal and state regulators. Citigroup has received subpoenas and other requests for information from various government regulators regarding market timing, financing, fees, sales practices and other mutual fund issues in connection with various investigations. Citigroup is cooperating with all such reviews.

Research Analyst Litigation

Since May 2002, CGM and certain executive officers and current and former employees have been named as defendants in numerous alleged class action complaints, individual actions, and arbitration demands by purchasers of various securities alleging that they violated federal securities law, including Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and certain state laws for allegedly issuing research reports without a reasonable basis in fact and for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest with companies in connection with published investment research, including Global Crossing, Ltd., AT&T Corp., Level 3 Communications, Inc., Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc., XO Communications, Inc., Williams Communications Group Inc., and Focal Communications, Inc. The alleged class actions relating to research of these companies are pending before a single judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated proceedings. The Court has consolidated these actions into separate proceedings corresponding to the companies named above. On December 2, 2004, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Citigroup related defendants' motions to dismiss the claims against it in the AT&T, Level 3, XO and Williams actions. On January 6, 2005, the Court granted in part and denied in part Citigroup's motion to dismiss the claims against it in the Metromedia action.

In addition to the alleged research class actions, several individual actions have been filed against Citigroup and CGM relating to, among other things, research on Qwest Communications International, Inc. These actions allege violations of state and federal securities laws in connection with CGM's publication of research about Qwest and its underwriting of Qwest securities.

Two alleged class actions against CGM asserting common law claims in connection with published investment research on behalf of CGM customers have been dismissed by United States District Courts, one of which was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and one of which is pending on appeal to the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Two more putative class actions raising similar claims are pending against CGM, one in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Norman v. Salomon Smith Barney, et al.) and the other in Illinois state court (Disher v. CGM Inc.). On June 9, 2004, the District Court denied CGMI's motion to dismiss Norman v. Salomon Smith Barney, et al., a case which asserts violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and various common law claims in connection with certain investors who maintained guided portfolio management accounts at Smith Barney.

Supervisory Investigation

In May 2003, the SEC, NYSE and NASD issued a subpoena and letters to CGM requesting documents and information with respect to their continuing investigation of individuals in connection with the supervision of the research and investment banking departments of CGM. Other parties to the Research Settlement have received similar subpoenas and letters.

West Virginia Attorney General Suit

On June 23, 2003, the West Virginia Attorney General filed an action against CGM and nine other firms that were parties to the Research Settlement. The West Virginia Attorney General alleges that the firms violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act in connection with their research activities and seeks monetary penalties.

Citigroup Shareholder Litigation

In July 2002, Citigroup, CGM and certain officers were named as defendants in an alleged class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, brought on behalf of purchasers of Citigroup common stock between July 24, 1999 and July 23, 2002. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and for common law fraud. Fourteen virtually identical complaints have been filed and consolidated. The complaints allege that Citigroup misstated the extent of its Enron-related exposure, and that Citigroup's stock price fell once the true extent of Citigroup's Enron involvements became known. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 10, 2003, which incorporated the allegations in the 15 separate actions and added new material as well. The amended complaint focuses on certain transactions between Citigroup and Enron and alleged analyst conflicts of interest. The class period for the consolidated amended complaint is July 24, 1999 to December 11, 2002. On June 2, 2003, Citigroup filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs' response was filed on July 30, and Citigroup's reply was filed on October 3, 2003. On August 10, 2004, Judge Swain granted Citigroup's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in October 2004.

NASD Settlement

In November 2004, CGM entered into a final agreement with the NASD to resolve the NASD's investigation into certain of its selling practices. Without admitting or denying any allegations or findings, CGM accepted certain factual findings by the NASD that it (i) sold units in two managed futures funds to 45 customers for whom the investment was not suitable, (ii) failed to maintain records disclosing the basis upon which its investor suitability determinations were made and (iii) failed to adequately disclose the risks of investing in managed futures products on its website. CGM consented to a censure and a fine of $275,000 and offered to redeem the investment of the customers for whom investment in the two managed futures funds was found not suitable.

In the course of its business, CGM, as a major futures commission merchant and broker-dealer is a party to various claims and routine regulatory investigations and proceedings that the general partner believes do not have a material adverse effect on the business of CGM.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

There were no matters submitted to the security holders for a vote during the last fiscal year covered by this report.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity and Related Security Holder Matters.

(a) Market Information. The Partnership has issued no stock. There is no public market for the
Redeemable Units of Limited Partnership Interest.

(b) Holders. The number of holders of Redeemable Units of Limited Partnership Interest as of December 31, 2004 was 1,011.

(d) Use of Proceeds. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2003, there were additional sales of 57,621.1285 Redeemable Units totaling $94,258,000 and General Partner contributions representing 313.0352 Unit equivalents totaling $475,000. For the period from March 25, 2002 (date Partnership was organized) to December 31, 2002 there were additional sales of 32.061.9138 Redeemable Units totaling $43,701,000 and General Partner contributions representing 425.8983 Unit equivalents totaling $542,000.

Proceeds from the sale of additional Redeemable Units are used in the trading of commodity interests including futures contracts, options and forward contracts.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

Net realized and unrealized trading gains (losses), interest income, net income (loss) and increase (decrease) in Net Asset Value per Redeemable Unit for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, total assets at December 31, 2004, 2003, and the period from March 25, 2002 (date Partnership was organized) to December 31, 2002 were as follows:


	2004			2003		Period from March 25, 2002 (date Partnership was organized) to December 31, 2002
Realized and unrealized trading gains (losses), net of brokerage commissions (including clearing fees) of $6,785,010, $5,845,292 and $1,073,575, respectively	$	1,825,629		$	25,659,625	$	12,429,661
Interest income		1,271,443			829,712		247,745
	$	3,097,072		$	26,489,337	$	12,677,406
Net income (loss) before Incentive Fee to Advisor	$	(388,341	)	$	23,516,370	$	12,067,837
Net income (loss) available for pro rata distribution to partners	$	(3,215,332	)	$	18,957,935	$	9,706,515
Increase (decrease) in Net Asset Value per Redeemable Unit	$	(24.06	)	$	309.07	$	497.79
Total assets	$	138,246,357		$	163,570,882	$	60,120,802

Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Overview

The Partnership aims to achieve substantial capital appreciation through speculative trading in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. The Partnership may employ futures, options on futures, and forward, spot and swap contracts in those markets.

The General Partner manages all business of the Partnership. The General Partner has delegated its responsibility for the investment of the Partnership's assets to Graham. The General Partner employs a team of approximately 20 professionals whose primary emphasis is on attempting to maintain quality control among the advisors to the Partnerships operated or managed by the General Partner. A full-time

staff of due diligence professionals use state-of-the-art technology and on-site evaluations to monitor new and existing futures money managers. The accounting and operations staff provide processing of trading activity and reporting to limited partners and regulatory authorities. In selecting the Advisor for the Partnership, the General Partner considered past performance, trading style, volatility of markets traded and fee requirements.

Responsibilities of the General Partner include:


•	due diligence examinations of the Advisor;


•	selection, appointment and termination of the Advisor;


•	negotiation of the management agreement; and


•	monitoring the activity of the Advisor.

In addition, the General Partner prepares the books and records and provides the administrative and compliance services that are required by law or regulation from time to time in connection with operation of the Partnership. These services include the preparation of required books and records and reports to limited partners, government agencies and regulators; computation of net asset value; calculation of fees; effecting subscriptions, redemptions and limited partner communications; and preparation of offering documents and sales literature.

The General Partner shall seek the best prices and services available in its commodity futures brokerage transactions. The General Partner reviews at least annually, the brokerage rates charged to commodity pools similar to the Partnership to determine that the brokerage fee the Partnership pays is competitive with other rates.

The K4 Program was developed in 1998 and commenced trading operations in January 1999. The K4 Program uses a mathematical model to identify certain price patterns that have very specific characteristics indicating that there is a high probability that a significant directional move will occur. The K4 Program will normally enter or exit a position only when a significant price and volatility spike takes place. K4 will normally maintain a neutral position in 50% of the markets in the portfolio.

The K4 Program trades in approximately 65 markets including foreign exchange, global interest rates, stock index futures, agricultural futures, metals and energy.

In addition to the K4 Program, as of December 31, 2004, Graham trades the following futures programs: its Global Diversified Program, the Graham Selective Trading Program, the Proprietary Matrix Program and the Fed Policy Program.

Graham's success depends to a great extent upon the occurrence of market conditions favorable to its trading strategy. Factors such as lack of major price trends or increased governmental control of, or participation in, the markets, may reduce Graham's ability to trade profitably in the future.

As a managed futures Partnership, the Partnership's performance is dependent upon the successful trading of the Partnership's Advisor to achieve the Partnership's objectives. It is the business of the General Partner to monitor the Advisor's performance to assure compliance with the Partnership's trading policies and to determine if the Advisor's performance is meeting the Partnership's objectives. Based on 2004 results, the General Partner continues to believe the Advisor and the trading of the K4 Program have met the Partnership's objectives and expects to continue to allocate the Partnership's assets to the Advisor and this program unless otherwise indicated.

(a) Liquidity.

The Partnership does not engage in sales of goods or services. Its only assets are its equity in its commodity futures trading account, consisting of cash and cash equivalents, net unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on open futures contracts and interest receivable. Because of the low margin deposits normally required in commodity futures trading, relatively small price movements may result in substantial losses to the Partnership. Such substantial losses could lead to a material loss in liquidity.

To minimize this risk relating to low margin deposits, the Partnership follows certain trading policies, including:


(i)	The Partnership invests its assets only in commodity interests that an Advisor believes are traded in sufficient volume to permit ease of taking and liquidating positions. Sufficient volume, in this context, refers to a level of liquidity that the Advisor believes will permit it to enter and exit trades without noticeably moving the market.


(ii)	An Advisor will not initiate additional positions in any commodity if these positions would result in aggregate positions requiring a margin of more than 66 2/3% of the Partnership's net assets allocated to that Advisor.


(iii)	The Partnership may occasionally accept delivery of a commodity. Unless such delivery is disposed of promptly by retendering the warehouse receipt representing the delivery to the appropriate clearinghouse, the physical commodity position is fully hedged.


(iv)	The Partnership does not employ the trading technique commonly known as "pyramiding", in which the speculator uses unrealized profits on existing positions as margin for the purchases or sale of additional positions in the same or related commodities.


(v)	The Partnership does not utilize borrowings except short-term borrowings if the Partnership takes delivery of any cash commodities.

(vi)

The Advisor may, from time to time, employ trading strategies such as spreads or straddles on behalf of the Partnership. The term "spread" or "straddle" describes a commodity futures trading strategy involving the simultaneous buying and selling of futures contracts on the same commodity but involving different delivery dates or markets and in which the trader expects to earn a profit from a widening or narrowing of the difference between the prices of the two contracts.


(vii)	The Partnership will not permit the churning of its commodity trading account. The term "churning" refers to the practice of entering and exiting trades with a frequency unwarranted by legitimate efforts to profit from the trades, driven by the desire to generate commission income.

In the normal course of business, the Partnership is party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk, including derivative financial instruments and derivative commodity instruments. These financial instruments include forwards, futures, options and swaps, whose values are based upon an underlying asset, index or reference rate, and generally represent future commitments to exchange currencies or cash flows, or to purchase or sell other financial instruments at specified terms at specified future dates, or, in the case of derivative commodity interests, to have a reasonable possibility to be settled in cash, through physical delivery or with another financial instrument. These instruments may be traded on an exchange or over-the-counter ("OTC"). Exchange traded instruments are standardized and include futures and certain option contracts. OTC contracts are negotiated between contracting parties and include forwards, swaps and certain options. Each of these instruments is subject to various risks similar to those relating to the underlying financial instruments including market and credit risk. In general, the risks associated with OTC contracts are greater than those associated with exchange traded instruments because of the greater risk of default by the counterparty to an OTC contract.

Market risk is the potential for changes in the value of the financial instruments traded by the Partnership due to market changes, including interest and foreign exchange rate movements and fluctuations in commodity or security prices. Market risk is directly impacted by the volatility and liquidity in the markets in which the related underlying assets are traded.

Credit risk is the possibility that a loss may occur due to the failure of a counterparty to perform according to the terms of a contract. Credit risk with respect to exchange traded instruments is reduced to the extent that an exchange or clearing organization acts as counterparty to the transactions. The Partnership's risk of loss in the event of counterparty default is typically limited to the amounts recognized in the statement of financial condition and not represented by the contract or notional amounts of the instruments. The Partnership has credit risk and concentration risk because the sole counterparty or broker with respect to the Partnership's assets is CGM.

The General Partner monitors and controls the Partnership's risk exposure on a daily basis through financial, credit and risk management monitoring systems, and accordingly believes that it has effective procedures for evaluating and limiting the credit and market risks to which the Partnership is subject. These monitoring systems allow the General Partner to statistically analyze actual trading results with risk adjusted performance indicators and correlation statistics. In addition, on-line monitoring systems provide account analysis of futures, forwards and options positions by sector, margin requirements, gain and loss transactions and collateral positions. (See also "Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data" for further information on financial instrument risk included in the notes to financial statements.)

Other than the risks inherent in commodity futures and swaps trading, the Partnership knows of no trends, demands, commitments, events or uncertainties which will result in or which are reasonably likely to result in the Partnership's liquidity increasing or decreasing in any material way. The Limited Partnership Agreement provides that the General Partner may, in its discretion, cause the Partnership to cease trading operations and liquidate all open positions under certain circumstances including a decrease in Net Asset Value per Redeemable Unit to less than $400 as of the close of business on any business day.

(b) Capital resources.

(i) The Partnership has made no material commitments for capital expenditures.

(ii) The Partnership's capital consists of the capital contributions of the partners as increased or decreased by gains or losses on trading and by expenses, interest income, redemptions of Redeemable Units and distributions of profits, if any. Gains or losses on trading cannot be predicted. Market moves in commodities are dependent upon fundamental and technical factors which the Advisors may or may not be able to identify, such as changing supply and demand relationships, weather, government agricultural, commercial and trade programs and policies, national and international political and economic events and changes in interest rates. Partnership expenses consist of, among other things, commissions, advisory fees and administrative fees. The level of these expenses is dependent upon the level of trading and the ability of the Advisors to identify and take advantage of price movements in the commodity markets, in addition to the level of Net Assets maintained. In addition, the amount of interest income payable by CGM is dependent upon interest rates over which the Partnership has no control.

No forecast can be made as to the level of redemptions in any given period. A limited partner may require the Partnership to redeem his Redeemable Units at their Net Asset Value as of the last day of a month on 10 days' notice to the General Partner. For the purpose of a redemption, any accrued liability for reimbursement of offering and organization expenses for the Initial Offering Period will not reduce Net Asset Value per Redeemable Unit. There is no fee charged to limited partners in connection with redemptions. For the year ended December 31, 2004, 14,668.7146 Redeemable Units were redeemed totaling $24,724,362. For the year ended December 31, 2003, 11,659.7972 Redeemable Units were redeemed totaling $18,748,824. For the period from March 25, 2002 (date Partnership was organized) to December 31, 2002, 5,575.0488 Redeemable Units were redeemed totaling $8,081,246.

There was no additional sales of Redeemable Units for the year ended December 31, 2004. For the year ended December 31, 2003, there were additional sales of 57,621.1285 Redeemable Units totaling $94,258,000 and General Partner contributions representing 313.0352 Unit equivalents totaling $475,000. For the period from March 25, 2002 (date Partnership was organized) to December 31, 2002, there were additional sales of 32,061.9138 Redeemable Units totaling $43,701,000 and General Partner contributions representing 425.8983 Unit equivalents totaling $542,000.

For the year ended December 31, 2004, the Net Asset Value per Redeemable Unit decreased 1.3% from $1,788.14 to $1,764.08. For the year ended December 31, 2003, the Net Asset Value per Redeemable Unit increased 20.9% from $1,479.07 to $1,788.14. For the period March 25, 2002 (date Partnership was organized) through December 31, 2002, the Net Asset Value per Redeemable Unit increased 50.7% from $1,000 (less offering cost adjustment of $18.72) to $1,479.07.

The Partnership experienced net trading gains of $8,610,639 before commissions and expenses in 2004. Gains were primarily attributable to the trading of currencies, U.S. interest rates, livestock, metals and indices and were partially offset by losses recognized in the trading of energy, non-U.S. interest rates and softs.