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 Actions

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.

4

Dynegy Inc.

On June 6, 2003, the complaint in a pre-existing putative class action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (IN RE: DYNEGY INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION) brought by purchasers of publicly traded debt and equity securities of Dynegy Inc. was amended to add Citigroup, Citibank and CGMI as defendants. The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against the Citigroup defendants. The Citigroup defendants filed a motion to dismiss in March 2004, which motion was granted by the District Court in October 2004. The court denied lead plaintiff's request for leave to appeal.

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

5

---

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

6

---

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

7

---

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 established public market for the Redeemable Units of Limited Partnership Interest.

8

---

(b)    Holders. The number of holders of Redeemable Units of Limited Partnership Interest as of December 31, 2004 was 1,409.

(c)    Distribution. The Partnership did not declare a distribution in 2004 and 2003.

(d)    Use of Proceeds. There were no additional sales of Redeemable Units in the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002.

Item 6.    Selected Financial Data.

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, 2002, 2001 and 2000 and total assets at December 31, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000 were as follows:

				2004				2003				2002				2001				2000
Realized and unrealized trading gains (losses) net of brokerage commissions (including clearing fees) of $3,000,995, $3,165,689, $3,030,685, $3,312,436 and $4,029,150, respectively				$	(1,065,432	)		$	10,770,857			$	7,180,050			$	2,013,666			$	568,937
Interest income					493,041				414,271				646,856				1,580,323				3,075,979
				$	(572,391	)		$	11,185,128			$	7,826,906			$	3,593,989			$	3,644,916
Net income (loss)				$	(1,870,748	)		$	8,236,273			$	5,603,443			$	2,185,742			$	1,661,004
Increase (decrease) in Net Asset Value per Redeemable Unit				$	(49.56	)		$	203.30			$	128.72			$	41.71			$	59.57
Total assets				$	49,765,621			$	57,815,029			$	53,694,328			$	54,385,513			$	61,705,880

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, directly and indirectly, 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 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 Campbell & Company, Inc. ("Campbell"), Aspect Capital Limited ("Aspect"), and Altis Partners Limited ("Altis") (collectively, the "Advisors"). 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 Advisors for the Partnership, the General Partner considered past performance, trading style, volatility of markets traded and fee requirements.

9

---

Responsibilities of the General Partner include:

•	due diligence examinations of the Advisors;

•	selection, appointment and termination of the Advisors;

•	negotiation of the management agreements; and

•	monitoring the activity of the Advisors.

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 programs traded by each Advisor on behalf of the Partnership are: Campbell – Financial, Metal & Energy Large Portfolio ("FME Large"), Aspect – Diversified Program ("Diversified"), and Altis – The Global Financial Program. As of December 31, 2004, the Partnership's assets were allocated among the Advisors in the following approximate percentages: Campbell, 38%, Aspect, 36%, and Altis, 26%.

Campbell & Company, Inc.

Campbell trades its FME Large Portfolio for the Partnership. Campbell's trading models are designed to detect and exploit medium-term to long-term price changes, while also applying risk management and portfolio management principles.

Campbell believes that utilizing multiple trading models provides an important level of diversification, and is most beneficial when multiple contracts of each market are traded. Every trading model may not trade every market. It is possible that one trading model may signal a long position while another trading model signals a short position in the same market. It is Campbell's intention to offset those signals to reduce unnecessary trading, but if the signals are not simultaneous, both trades will be taken and since it is unlikely that both positions would prove profitable, in retrospect, one or both trades will appear to have been unnecessary. It is Campbell's policy to follow trades signaled by each trading model independently of the other models.

Aspect Capital Limited.

Aspect trades its Diversified Program on behalf of the Partnership. The Diversified Program is a systematic global futures trading program. Its goal is the generation of significant long-term capital growth independent of stock and bond market returns. This program continuously monitors price movements in a wide range of global financial, currency and commodity markets, searching for profit opportunities over periods ranging from a few hours to several months.

Aspect has designed the Diversified Program to have broad market diversification (subject to liquidity constraints). Aspect's quantitative resources are sufficient to enable it to design and implement a broadly diversified portfolio with a significant allocation to numerous different markets.

Aspect's Diversified Program trades over 100 markets in seven major sectors: currencies, energy, metals, stock indices, bonds, agricultural commodities and interest rates implementing momentum strategies. Aspect is constantly examining new liquid and uncorrelated markets to incorporate in the program with the aim of improving its reward/risk ratio and capacity. Aspect has no market or sector preferences, believing that allowing for liquidity effects, equal profitability can be achieved in the long-term in all markets. The key factors in determining the asset allocation are correlation and liquidity. Correlations are analyzed at the sector, sub-sector, economic block and market levels to design a portfolio which is highly diversified.

10

---

Altis Partners Limited.

Altis trades its Global Diversified Program on behalf of the Partnership. It is a systematic, automated trading program that builds on the Principals' market experience and employs a unique proprietary Advanced Asset Allocator. The Advanced Asset Allocator was specifically developed to manage portfolios of derivative instruments in a robust and scalable manner. The portfolio management technology combines original, traditional and contrasting investment techniques into one complete and comprehensive trading system. Investments changes are implemented after considering their effect on the whole portfolio not just the individual markets concerned.

(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 positions, unrealized appreciation on open forward 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 Advisors 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)