UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

x QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended ~~June~~September 30, 2014

o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number 0-23240

BLACKROCK GLOBAL HORIZONS I L.P.

(Exact Name of Registrant as

specified in its charter)

Delaware		13-3716393
(State or other jurisdiction of		(IRS Employer Identification No.)
incorporation or organization)

c/o BlackRock Investment Management LLC

55 East 52nd Street

New York, New York 10055

(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)

609-282-6996

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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 o

~~Yes~~Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one)

Large Accelerated Filer o		Accelerated filer o

Non-Accelerated filer o		Smaller reporting company x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No x

Yes o No x

Table of Contents

BLACKROCK GLOBAL HORIZONS I L.P.

QUARTERLY REPORT FOR ~~June~~September 30, 2014 ON FORM 10-Q

Table of Contents

		PAGE
PART I	~~PART I~~
Item 1.	Consolidated Financial Statements	2
Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	25
Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	3738
Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	3941
PART II	~~PART II~~
Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	4042
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	4042
Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds	4042
Item 3.	Defaults Upon Senior Securities	4244
Item 4.	Reserved	4244
Item 5.	Other Information	4244
Item 6.	Exhibits	4244

Table of Contents

PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Consolidated Financial Statements

BLACKROCK GLOBAL HORIZONS I L.P.

(A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP)

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

(unaudited)

	June 30,
	September 30,
	2014		December 31,
	(in liquidation)		2013
ASSETS:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	4241,~~792~~916,~~501~~037	$	62,321,409
Equity in commodity futures trading accounts:
Cash (restricted cash $11,670,935 and $10,605,212)	30,763,852		26,472,676
Cash (restricted cash $952,624 and $10,605,212)	15,484,311		26,472,676
Net unrealized profit / market value on open contracts / options (See note 4)	1274,~~439,462~~913		738,429
Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs
Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs (cost $6,028,542 and $55,413,490) (See note 4)	4,685,461		49,264,514
(cost $26,688,697 and $55,413,490) (See note 4)	22,928,285		49,264,514
Due from Non-Consolidated LLCs	—		3,621,272
Due from Non-Consolidated LLCs	10,649,114		3,621,272
Accrued interest and other assets	233		2,577
Reimbursement from Sponsor	679,768		—
TOTAL ASSETS	$	62,360,955	$	142,420,877
Accrued interest and other assets	682		2,577
TOTAL ASSETS	$	109,253,664	$	142,420,877
LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS’ CAPITAL
LIABILITIES:
Net unrealized loss / market value on open contracts / options (See note 4)	$	1746,~~457,643~~654	$	233,777
Redemptions payable	33,096,077		8,513,455
Due to Non-Consolidated LLCs	61,125		—
Profit Shares payable	171,563		407,778
Redemptions payable	—		8,513,455
Professional fees payable	882,744		521,394
Profit Shares payable	220,283		407,778
Administrator fees payable	484,736		135,849
Professional fees payable	570,491		521,394
Distribution fees payable	261,224		348,490
Administrator fees payable	138,431		135,849
Trading Advisors’ management fees payable	138,673		144,680
Distribution fees payable	381,723		348,490
Sponsor fees payable	222,942		147,533
Trading Advisors’ management fees payable	82,456		144,680
Other fees payable	438,831		286,598
Sponsor fees payable	198,004		147,533
Total liabilities	37,154,433		10,739,554
Other fees payable	66,135		286,598
Total liabilities	2,465,302		10,739,554
PARTNERS’ CAPITAL:
General Partner (3,355,287 and 3,355,287 Units)	3,~~248~~298,~~230~~420		3,354,997
Limited Partners (70,967,912 and 130,976,898 Units)	68,851,001		128,326,326
Limited Partners (56,437,893 and 130,976,898 Units)	56,597,233		128,326,326
Total partners’ capital	7259,~~099~~895,~~231~~653		131,681,323
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS’ CAPITAL	$	~~109~~62,~~253~~360,~~664~~955	$	142,420,877

NET ASSET VALUE PER UNIT (See note 2)

See notes to consolidated financial statements (in liquidation).

Table of Contents

BLACKROCK GLOBAL HORIZONS I L.P.

(A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP)

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(unaudited)

For the three

For the ~~six~~nine

months ended

June 30, 2014

June 30,

June 30, 2014

June 30,

September 30, 2014

September 30,

September 30, 2014

September 30,

(in liquidation)

2013

(in liquidation)

2013

TRADING PROFITS (LOSSES):

Realized

32,~~485~~661,~~743~~417

(53,~~385~~021,~~874~~769

)

46,~~274~~936,~~920~~337

(58,~~800~~822,~~757~~526

)

Change in unrealized

(1,~~561~~892,654

)

~~(877~~1,~~438~~009,411

)

(~~652~~2,~~341~~544,995

)

12,~~857~~866,~~396~~807

Change in value of Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs (1)

(1,~~360~~064,~~585~~421

)

(41,~~314~~466,~~307~~806

)

(43,~~995~~931,~~794~~373

)

(79,~~794~~260,~~052~~858

)

Brokerage commissions and clearing costs

(~~236~~187,~~696~~693

)

(~~347~~296,~~663~~160

)

(~~454~~641,~~047~~740

)

(~~492~~789,~~897~~057

)

Total trading profits / (losses)

1,~~886~~645,~~901~~491

(103,~~925~~775,~~282~~324

)

(1181,~~827,262~~771

)

(1216,~~230~~005,~~310~~634

)

INVESTMENT INCOME:

Interest

~~351~~775

196,~~959~~992

34,~~753~~528

5259,~~510~~502

EXPENSES:

Distribution fees

~~550~~347,~~759~~636

1827,~~063,878~~766

1,~~077~~424,~~009~~645

23,~~249~~077,~~712~~478

Professional fees

~~445~~(138,~~506~~750

)

~~127~~105,~~095~~803

~~536~~398,~~936~~186

~~259~~365,~~225~~028

Sponsor fees

~~232~~146,~~249~~533

~~447~~348,~~802~~680

~~454~~600,~~089~~622

~~946~~1,~~635~~295,315

Trading Advisors’ management fees

~~233~~149,~~899~~595

~~539~~418,~~369~~390

~~452~~602,~~918~~513

1,~~150~~569,~~922~~312

Administrator fees

~~123~~(41,~~585~~625

)

~~116~~80,~~160~~475

~~214~~173,~~625~~000

~~263~~343,~~459~~934

Profit Shares

~~206~~58,~~125~~164

~~(47,674~~300

)

~~206~~264,~~125~~289

6,~~516~~816

Other fees

54(148,~~642~~001

)

8273,~~918~~069

~~121~~(26,~~983~~018

)

~~120~~193,~~397~~466

Total expenses before waiver

1373,~~846,765~~552

21,~~329~~854,~~548~~483

3,~~063~~437,~~685~~237

46,~~996~~851,~~866~~349

Sponsor fee waiver (See note 5)

~~(528~~343,~~562~~700

)

—

(~~676~~332,~~633~~933

)

—

Total expenses

1717,~~318,203~~252

21,~~329~~854,~~548~~483

23,~~387~~104,~~052~~304

46,~~996~~851,~~866~~349

NET INVESTMENT LOSS

(1716,~~317,852~~477

)

(21,~~309~~847,~~589~~491

)

(23,~~383~~099,~~299~~776

)

(46,~~944~~791,~~356~~847

)

NET INCOME / (LOSS)

~~569~~929,~~049~~014

(135,~~234~~622,~~871~~815

)

(43,~~210~~281,~~561~~547

)

(1722,~~174~~797,~~666~~481

)

NET INCOME / (LOSS) PER WEIGHTED AVERAGE UNIT: (2)

Weighted average number of General Partner and Limited Partner Units outstanding

Series A

9752,~~713~~527,~~775~~452

~~200~~162,~~364~~231,~~270~~045

~~105~~87,~~111~~583,~~176~~268

~~212~~195,~~060~~450,~~443~~644

Series F

4937,~~940~~372

7066,~~478~~250

5348,~~842~~352

7270,~~642~~511

Series G

1513,~~775~~324,~~218~~157

1918,~~695~~381,~~227~~424

1615,~~165~~218,~~786~~576

2019,~~301~~661,~~811~~682

Series I

1680,~~215,261~~929

1,~~873~~688,~~085~~736

1,~~279~~080,~~771~~157

1,~~897~~828,~~808~~118

Net income / (loss) per weighted average General Partner and Limited Partner Unit

Series A

0.~~0044~~0119

(0.~~0550~~0282

)

(0.~~0311~~0302

)

(0.~~0677~~0968

)

Series F

02.9698

(136.5190

)

(76.6521

)

(1623.8180

)

Series G

0.~~0048~~0130

(0.~~0581~~0298

)

(0.~~0307~~0212

)

(0.~~0724~~1026

)

Series I

0.~~0133~~0242

(0.~~0615~~0262

)

(0.~~0236~~0127

)

(0.~~0699~~0968

)

(1) Includes the Partnership’s proportionate share of the operations of its Investments in the Non-Consolidated LLCs, which includes income and expenses.

(2) The weighted average number of Units outstanding is computed for purposes of disclosing net income / (loss) per weighted average Unit. The weighted average number of Units outstanding for the three-month and ~~six~~nine-month periods ended ~~June~~September 30, 2014 and 2013 equals the Units outstanding as of such date, adjusted proportionately for Units sold and redeemed based on the respective length of time each was outstanding during the period.

See notes to consolidated financial statements (in liquidation).

Table of Contents

BLACKROCK GLOBAL HORIZONS I L.P.

(A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP)

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS’ CAPITAL

FOR THE ~~SIX~~NINE MONTHS ENDED ~~JUNE~~SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 (IN LIQUIDATION) AND 2013

(unaudited)

			General			Limited
	Units		Partner			Partners			Total
PARTNERS’ CAPITAL, December 31, 2012	254,204,453		$	3,636,703		$	258,026,265		$	261,662,968
PARTNERS’ CAPITAL,
Subscriptions	3,025,146		—			2,860,986			2,860,986
December 31, 2012	254,204,453		$	3,636,703		$	258,026,265		$	261,662,968
Net loss	—		(269,970		)	(16,904,696		)	(17,174,666		)
Subscriptions	4,759,745		—			4,382,986			4,382,986
Redemptions	(64,267,209	)	—			(61,148,112		)	(61,148,112		)
Net loss	—		(377,785		)	(22,419,696		)	(22,797,481		)
PARTNERS’ CAPITAL, June 30, 2013	192,962,390		$	3,366,733		$	182,834,443		$	186,201,176
Redemptions	(94,300,976	)	—			(88,496,567		)	(88,496,567		)
PARTNERS’ CAPITAL, December 31, 2013	134,332,185		$	3,354,997		$	128,326,326		$	131,681,323
PARTNERS’ CAPITAL,
September 30, 2013	164,663,222		$	3,258,918		$	151,492,988		$	154,751,906
PARTNERS’ CAPITAL,
December 31, 2013	134,332,185		$	3,354,997		$	128,326,326		$	131,681,323
Subscriptions	870,161		—			745,000			745,000
Net loss	—		(113,912		)	(4,322,085		)	(4,435,997		)
Redemptions	(24,267,162	)	—			(23,013,410		)	(23,013,410		)
PARTNERS’ CAPITAL, May 31, 2014	110,935,184		$	3,241,085		$	101,735,831		$	104,976,916
PARTNERS’ CAPITAL,
PARTNERS’ CAPITAL, June 1, 2014	110,935,184		$	3,241,085		$	101,735,831		$	104,976,916
May 31, 2014	110,935,184		$	3,241,085		$	101,735,831		$	104,976,916
PARTNERS’ CAPITAL,
June 1, 2014 (commencement of liquidation basis)	110,935,184		$	3,241,085		$	101,735,831		$	104,976,916
Subscriptions	—		—			—			—
Net income	—		757,~~145~~335			~~218~~1,~~291~~097,115			~~225~~1,~~436~~154,450
Redemptions	(3651,~~611~~142,~~985~~004	)	—			(3346,~~103~~235,~~121~~713		)	(3346,~~103~~235,~~121~~713		)
PARTNERS’ CAPITAL, June 30, 2014 (in liquidation)	74,323,199		$	3,248,230		$	68,851,001		$	72,099,231
PARTNERS’ CAPITAL,
September 30, 2014 (in liquidation)	59,793,180		$	3,298,420		$	56,597,233		$	59,895,653

See notes to consolidated financial statements (in liquidation).

Table of Contents

BLACKROCK GLOBAL HORIZONS I L.P.

(A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP)

CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA HIGHLIGHTS

FOR THE ~~SIX~~NINE MONTHS ENDED ~~JUNE~~SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 (IN LIQUIDATION)

(unaudited)

The following per Unit data and ratios have been derived from information provided in the consolidated financial statements. An individual Partner’s results may vary from these ratios due to timing of income and expenses and capital transactions.

	Series A			Series F			Series G			Series I
Per Unit Operating Performance:	Series A			Series F			Series G			Series I
Per Unit Operating Performance:
Net asset value, beginning of period	$	0.8802		$	212.56		$	0.9206		$	1.1261
Realized	0.~~0331~~0696			716.9948			0.~~0346~~0709			0.~~0427~~0904
Change in unrealized	(0.~~0045~~0298		)	(16.0987		)	(0.~~0047~~0293		)	(0.~~0058~~0389		)
Change in value of Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs (1)	(0.~~0358~~0219		)	(85.6632		)	(0.~~0375~~0233		)	(0.~~0403~~0199		)
Interest (2)	—			—			—			—
Interest	—		(2)	0.01			—		(2)	—		(2)
Expenses	(0.~~0212~~0333		)	(58.1103		)	(0.~~0221~~0345		)	(0.~~0175~~0277		)
Net asset value, end of period	$	0.~~8518~~8648		$	~~205~~208.6983		$	0.~~8909~~9044		$	1.~~1052~~1300
Total Return: (1)
Total return (before Profit Shares)	-31.0447		%	-31.0448		%	-31.0451		%	-10.6174		%
Profit Shares	-0.1930		%	-0.1929		%	-0.1926		%	-0.2539		%
Total return	-31.2375		%	-31.2375		%	-31.2376		%	-10.8635		%
Ratios to Average Net Assets:(3) (4) (5)
Expenses (before Profit Shares)	4.51		%	4.51		%	4.53		%	2.65		%
Expenses (before Sponsor fee waiver)	5.16		%	4.97		%	4.94		%	3.05		%
Profit Shares	0.17		%	0.17		%	0.19		%	0.23		%
Sponsor fee waiver	-0.52		%	-0.26		%	-0.19		%	-0.30		%
Expenses	4.68		%	4.68		%	4.72		%	2.88		%
Expenses (after Sponsor fee waiver and before Profit Shares)	4.64		%	4.71		%	4.75		%	2.75		%
Net investment loss	-4.67		%	-4.68		%	-4.71		%	-2.87		%
Profit Shares	0.27		%	0.26		%	0.25		%	0.35		%
Expenses	4.91		%	4.97		%	5.00		%	3.10		%
Net investment loss	-4.90		%	-4.96		%	-4.99		%	-3.09		%

(1) Includes the Partnership’s proportionate share of the operations of its Investments in the Non-Consolidated LLCs, which includes income and expenses.

(2) The amounts for Series A, Series G and Series I rounds to less than $(0.0001~~) and for Series F rounds to less than $(0~~.~~01).~~

(3) Included in the ratios of expenses to average net assets are brokerage commissions and clearing costs which are presented in Trading Profits (Losses) on the Consolidated Statement of Operations.

(4) The expenses (before Profit Shares) and the interest portion of net investment loss for the net investment loss ratios have been annualized.

(5) Excludes the Partnership’s proportionate share of expenses from its Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs. If the Partnership’s proportionate share of expenses from its Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs were included, the ratios for Expenses (before Sponsor fee waiver), Sponsor fee waiver, Expenses (after Sponsor fee waiver and before Profit Shares), Profit Shares, Expenses and Net investment loss for Series A would be 7.0374%, (0.1764)%, 7.2010%, 0.34%, 7.44%, and (7.2145)%, respectively; Series F would be 7.0345%, (0.1833)%, 7.2112%, 0.36%, 7.48% and (7.2249)%, respectively; for Series G would be 7.0439%, (0.1925)%, 7.2314%, 0.39%, 7.53% and (7.2454)%, respectively; and for Series I would be 4.1353%, (0.2336)%, 4.3617%, 0.43%, 4.60% and (4.3761)%, respectively.

See notes to consolidated financial statements (in liquidation).

Table of Contents

BLACKROCK GLOBAL HORIZONS I L.P.

(A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP)

CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA HIGHLIGHTS

FOR THE ~~SIX~~NINE MONTHS ENDED ~~JUNE~~SEPTEMBER 30, 2013

(unaudited)

	Series A			Series F			Series G			Series I
Per Unit Operating Performance:	Series A			Series F			Series G			Series I
Per Unit Operating Performance:
Net asset value, beginning of period	$	0.9551		$	230.67		$	0.9991		$	1.1835
Realized	(0.~~0245~~0402		)	(59.9372		)	(0.~~0257~~0421		)	(0.~~0307~~0506		)
Change in unrealized	0.~~0067~~0120			12.6191			0.~~0070~~0126			0.~~0082~~0151
Change in value of Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs (1)	(0.~~0319~~0393		)	(79.7049		)	(0.~~0334~~0411		)	(0.~~0334~~0396		)
Interest	0.0002			0.0506			0.0002			0.0003
Expenses	(0.~~0218~~0326		)	(57.2688		)	(0.~~0228~~0341		)	(0.~~0152~~0233		)
Net asset value, end of period	$	0.~~8838~~8552		$	~~213~~206.4455		$	0.~~9244~~8946		$	1.~~1127~~0854
Total Return: (1)
Total return (before Profit Shares)	-710.4746		%	-710.4746		%	-710.4846		%	-58.9827		%
Profit Shares	0.00		%	0.00		%	0.00		%	-0.0002		%
Total return	-710.4746		%	-710.4746		%	-710.4846		%	-58.9829		%
Ratios to Average Net Assets:(2) (3) (4) (5)
Ratios to Average Net Assets:(2) (3) (4)
Expenses (before Profit Shares)	4.6270		%	4.6272		%	4.6272		%	2.5765		%
Profit Shares	0.00		%(5)	0.00		%(5)	0.00		%(5)	0.0002		%
Expenses	4.6270		%	4.6272		%	4.6272		%	2.5767		%
Net investment loss	-4.5867		%	-4.5869		%	-4.5869		%	-2.5264		%

(1) Includes the Partnership’s proportionate share of the operations of its Investments in the Non-Consolidated LLCs, which includes income and expenses.

(2) Included in the ratios of expenses to average net assets are brokerage commissions and clearing costs which are presented in Trading Profits (Losses) on the Consolidated Statement of Operations.

(3) The expenses (before Profit Shares) and the interest portion of net investment loss for the net investment loss ratios have been annualized.

(4) Excludes the Partnership’s proportionate share of expenses from its Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs. If the Partnership’s proportionate share of expenses from its Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs were included, the ratios for Expenses (before Profit Shares), Profit Shares, Expenses and Net investment loss for Series A would be 7.03%, 0.00%, 7.03% and (7.02)%, Series F & Series G would be 67.9504%, 0.00%, 67.9504% and (67.9203)%, respectively; and for Series I would be 3.7886%, 0.0002%, 3.7888% and (3.7687)%, respectively.

(5) The Profit Shares ratios round to less than 0.01%

See notes to consolidated financial statements (in liquidation).

Table of Contents

BLACKROCK GLOBAL HORIZONS I L.P.

(A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (IN LIQUIDATION)

(unaudited)

1. LIQUIDATION BASIS OF ACCOUNTING AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

After due consideration of the diminished size of the Partnership and the recent levels of redemptions, BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (the “General Partner” or “BRIM”) ~~has~~had determined it ~~will~~would be difficult to continue to effectively implement the Partnership’s investment strategy on a long-term basis going forward. Accordingly as of June 1, 2014, the Partnership ~~will~~ no longer ~~accept~~accepted subscriptions and effective September 30, 2014, BRIM ~~will~~appointed ~~appoint~~ itself as the supervisor of the liquidation of the Partnership and ~~withdraw~~withdrew as general partner of the Partnership. As of September 30, 2014 the Partnership was in liquidation and ~~redeem~~these ~~all~~financial ~~remaining~~statements ~~investors~~have ~~from~~been prepared on the ~~Partnership~~liquidation basis of accounting. ~~BRIM~~Partners ~~anticipates~~were ~~all~~paid ~~redemption~~ proceeds ~~will~~equal beto ~~paid~~approximately ~~before~~95% of the ~~end~~September 30, of 2014 Net Asset Value in October. As aThe ~~result~~Partnership ofhas had limited activity in October and November related to the ~~pending~~winding ~~liquidation~~down of its operations. BRIM anticipates redeeming all remaining Partners from the Partnership and paying the ~~declining~~remaining ~~assets~~redemption ~~thereof,~~proceeds before the ~~Partnership~~end ~~may~~of ~~not~~2014 beat ~~able~~which totime, ~~continue~~the toPartnership ~~maintain~~will aterminate, ~~diversifies~~concluding ~~portfolio~~the liquidation process.

These consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and include the accounts of BlackRock Global Horizons I L.P. (the “Partnership”) and its wholly owned subsidiaries on a going concern basis through May 31, 2014. ~~Perspectively,~~Effective ~~effective~~ June 1, 2014, these consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial highlights have been prepared in accordance with GAAP applied on a liquidation basis. The effects of the liquidation basis of accounting have been considered; however, given that the consolidated statements of financial condition are currently presented at fair value and the estimated costs to settle assets and liabilities have been provided for, there are no adjustments to the fair value measurements or classification of the Partnership’s assets or liabilities. However, accruals for expenses estimated to be incurred through the liquidation of the Partnership have been reflected in the consolidated financial statements.

The interim financial information at ~~June~~September 30, 2014 and 2013, and for the periods ended ~~June~~September 30, 2014 and 2013 is unaudited. However, in the opinion of management, the interim financial information includes all normal recurring adjustments necessary for the fair presentation of the operating results of the Partnership for the interim periods presented as applied on the liquidation basis of accounting. The operating results for the interim periods may not be indicative of the results for the full year.

Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP have been omitted. These consolidated financial statements (in liquidation) should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2013.

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP applied on the liquidation basis requires management 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 consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

BRIM, a wholly owned subsidiary of BlackRock, Inc. (“BlackRock”), iswas the general partner of the Partnership.

Table of Contents

The General Partner ~~has~~had formed a number of subsidiaries in the form of limited liability companies (“LLCs”) to hold Partnership assets allocated to each particular Trading Advisor. Each of these subsidiaries ~~has~~had, in turn, entered into an advisory agreement with each respective Trading Advisor. The primary purpose of these subsidiaries iswas to segregate the assets of the Partnership allocated to any one Trading Advisor from the other assets of the Partnership in order to limit liability for trading losses by any one Trading Advisor to the assets allocated to such subsidiary. However within each subsidiary, there will be no segregation of liabilities of the Partnership and any other funds or accounts that ~~may~~could ~~allocate~~have allocated assets to the same subsidiary of the Partnership.

All wholly owned subsidiaries of the Partnership have been consolidated. All transactions between consolidated subsidiaries have been eliminated in consolidation. From time to time, other funds and accounts managed by the General Partner or its affiliates ~~have~~had invested in such subsidiaries in order to gain exposure to the relevant Trading Advisor. In such instances where the Partnership is not the sole investor in the subsidiary, the subsidiary is no longer being consolidated (the “Non-Consolidated LLCs”), and the Partnership’s investment in the Non-Consolidated LLCs will be presented as Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition. Effective May 1, 2011, May 7, 2013 and February 18, 2014, other funds managed by the General Partner invested in one or more subsidiaries of the Partnership. As a result, those subsidiaries were no longer consolidated; instead, the Partnership’s interest in such Non-Consolidated LLCs ~~were~~was presented as Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition. See Note 4 for further information on the Non-Consolidated LLCs. The General Partner terminated the advisory agreement with the Trading Advisor for Cambridge Global Horizons, LLC on January 30, 2014, commenced liquidation, and paid all proceeds to its members in the second quarter of 2014. The General Partner entered into an advisory agreement with the Trading Advisor for Canberra Global Horizons, LLC on December 30, 2013; trading commenced February 18, 2014, at which time another fund managed by the General Partner also invested in the LLC. On February 28, 2014, the other funds managed by the General Partner redeemed from Alamo Global Horizons, LLC and Breakout Global Horizons, LLC. As a result effective March 1, 2014, Alamo Global Horizons, LLC and Breakout Global Horizons, LLC were wholly owned subsidiaries of the Partnership and ~~there~~these iswere nore-consolidated ~~expectation~~with ~~for~~the Partnership at that time. On August 31, 2014, the other ~~funds~~fund managed by the General Partner toredeemed ~~invest~~from inCanberra ~~these~~Global Horizons, LLC and Quaker Global Horizons, LLC. As a result effective September 1, 2014, Canberra Global Horizons, LLC and Quaker Global Horizons, LLC were wholly owned subsidiaries ~~again~~of the Partnership and these were re-consolidated with the Partnership at that time. ~~Effective~~As of September 30, 2014, the Non-Consolidated LLC was in liquidation. BRIM ~~will~~anticipates ~~redeem~~redeeming all remaining ~~investors~~members from the Non-Consolidated ~~LLCs~~LLC and ~~anticipates~~paying all redemption proceeds ~~will be paid~~ before the end of 2014.

The Bank of New York Mellon provides custody services for the Partnership. The subsidiaries’ assets are held in cash and customer segregated managed accounts at Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (“MLPF&S”), Newedge USA, LLC (“Newedge USA”), J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (“JPMS”), Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“MS&Co.”), HSBC Bank PLC (“HSBC”), and Barclays Bank PLC (“Barclays”) ~~and~~ ~~any~~(collectively, ~~other clearing brokers that may be utilized by~~ the ~~Partnership in the future (the~~ “Clearing Brokers”) or could have been allocated to one or more commodity pools (each a “Portfolio Fund”) for which custodians and clearing brokers are selected by the independent professional advisors of such Portfolio Funds or managed accounts (the “Trading Advisors”). As of ~~June~~September 30, 2014, there were no assets held in any Portfolio Funds.

Valuation

Table of Contents

settlement date of the contract is an interim date for which quotations are not available. Exchange-traded written options are valued at the mean between the last bid and ask prices at the close of the options market in which the options trade. An exchange-traded option for which there is no mean price is valued at the prior day’s close price, unless it is determined that the prior day’s price no longer reflects the fair value of the option. Over-the-counter (“OTC”) options are valued by single broker quotes which use mathematical models which incorporate a number of market data factors, such as the trades and prices of the underlying instruments.Valuation

The Partnership’s policy is to value its financial instruments at fair market value. The Partnership’s commodities futures contracts traded on exchanges are valued at their close price. Foreign currency exchange contracts are valued at the midpoint between the bid and ask prices and are determined as of the close of business of the New York Stock Exchange. Interpolated values are derived when the settlement date of the contract is an interim date for which quotations are not available. Exchange-traded written options are valued at the mean between the last bid and ask prices at the close of the options market in which the options trade. An exchange-traded option for which there is no mean price is valued at the prior day’s close price, unless it is determined that the prior day’s price no longer reflects the fair value of the option. Over-the-counter (“OTC”) options are valued by single broker quotes which use mathematical models which incorporate a number of market data factors, such as the trades and prices of the underlying instruments.

The value of Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs is based on the Partnership’s proportionate share of the fair value of the financial instruments held by the Non-Consolidated LLCs plus any other assets and less any other liabilities held by the Non-Consolidated LLCs, which represents the net asset value of the Non-Consolidated LLC. The Non-Consolidated LLCs’ valuation policy is the same as that of the Partnership discussed above. Changes in the value of Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs are reflected in the Consolidated Statements of Operations as Change in value of Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs, and includes the Partnership’s proportionate share of the operations of its Investments in the Non-Consolidated LLCs, which includes income and expenses.

Net Unrealized Profit (Loss) / Market Value on Open Contracts / Options

The Partnership, either directly or indirectly through its subsidiaries, in its normal course of business, ~~enters~~entered into various derivatives contracts with MLPF&S, Newedge USA, JPMS, MS&Co., HSBC and Barclays each acting as the Partnership’s clearing brokers or derivatives counterparties. Pursuant to the brokerage agreements with MLPF&S, Newedge USA, JPMS, MS&Co., HSBC and Barclays (which include netting arrangements within each subsidiary), to the extent that such trading results in receivables from and payables to MLPF&S, Newedge USA, JPMS, MS&Co., HSBC and Barclays, these receivables and payables are offset and reported as a net receivable or payable with each broker. Net receivables are included in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition under Equity in commodity futures trading accounts in Net unrealized profit / market value on open contracts / options; net payables are included in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition under Liabilities in Net unrealized loss / market value on open contracts / options. Receivables and payables are netted by counterparty and Trading Advisor, as appropriate under GAAP.

Commodity futures, forwards and options contracts transactions are recorded on the trade date. The receivables and payables for forwards and options contracts represent the difference between the original contract value and the market value. The receivables and payables for futures contracts represent the variation margin, which is the daily fluctuation in market value of the futures contracts. The change in unrealized profit (loss) on open contracts from one period to the next is reflected in Change in unrealized in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Income Taxes

No provision for income taxes has been made in these consolidated financial statements as each Partner is individually responsible for reporting income or loss based on such Partner’s respective share of the Partnership’s income and expenses as reported for income tax purposes.

There are no uncertain tax positions which require recognition or measurement in the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements.

Table of Contents

There were no uncertain tax positions which require recognition or measurement in the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements.

2. PARTNERS’ CAPITAL

At ~~June~~September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Net Asset Values of the different Series of Units were:

June 30, 2014	Net Asset Value		Number of Units	Net Asset Value per Unit
September 30, 2014	Net Asset Value		Number of Units	Net Asset Value per Unit
Series A	$	5039,~~797~~981,~~519~~440	5946,~~634~~234,~~880~~333	$	0.~~8518~~8648
Series F	87,~~100~~532,~~602~~597		3936,~~382~~071	$	~~205~~208.6983
Series G	1211,~~425~~624,~~141~~142		1312,~~946~~852,~~813~~445	$	0.~~8909~~9044
Series I	~~775~~757,~~969~~474		~~702~~670,~~124~~331	$	1.~~1052~~1300
Total Partners’ Capital	$	7259,~~099~~895,~~231~~653	7459,~~323~~793,~~199~~180

December 31, 2013	Net Asset Value		Number of Units	Net Asset Value per Unit

Series A	$	102,123,710	116,019,483	$	0.8802
Series F	12,470,664		58,670	$	212.56
Series G	15,542,406		16,882,395	$	0.9206
Series I	1,544,543		1,371,637	$	1.1261
Total Partners’ Capital	$	131,681,323	134,332,185

3. FAIR VALUE DISCLOSURES

The Partnership qualifies as an investment company under the provisions set forth in Accounting Standard Codification (“ASC”) 946, Financial Services — Investment Companies (“ASC 946”) and therefore, all investments including derivatives are stated at fair value in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition, and changes in fair value are included in Realized and Change in unrealized trading profits (losses) in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The Partnership records derivatives contracts held in commodities futures trading accounts and cash equivalents at fair value in accordance with ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (“ASC 820”). ASC 820 defines fair value as the price that the Partnership would receive upon selling an investment or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction to a market participant in the principal or most advantageous market for the investment. ASC 820 emphasizes that valuation techniques maximize the use of observable market inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. Inputs refer broadly to the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability, including assumptions about risk to the extent the asset or liability is not traded on an exchange or an active market. Inputs may be observable or unobservable. Observable inputs are inputs that reflect the assumptions market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability developed based on market data obtained from sources independent of the Partnership. Unobservable inputs are inputs that reflect the General Partner’s assumptions about what information market participants would use to price an asset or liability developed based on the best information available under the circumstances.

ASC 820 establishes a hierarchy that classifies these inputs into the three broad levels listed below:

Level 1 — Price quotations (unadjusted) in active markets/exchanges for identical instruments.

Table of Contents

~~similar~~ASC ~~assets~~820 orestablishes ~~liabilities~~a hierarchy that ~~are~~classifies ~~not~~these ~~active; and~~ inputs ~~other~~into ~~than quoted prices that are observable or that can be generally corroborated by observable market data, such as those used in models or other valuation methodologies. As a practical expedient,~~ the ~~Partnership~~three ~~relies~~broad onlevels ~~the~~listed ~~NAV (or its equivalent) of certain investments as their fair value.~~below:

Level 1 — Price quotations (unadjusted) in active markets/exchanges for identical instruments.

Level 2 — Other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for substantially the full term of the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. Level 2 includes quoted prices (unadjusted) for similar assets or liabilities in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities that are not active; and inputs other than quoted prices that are observable or that can be generally corroborated by observable market data, such as those used in models or other valuation methodologies. As a practical expedient, the Partnership relies on the NAV (or its equivalent) of certain investments as their fair value.

Level 3 — Primarily inputs and significant assumptions that are unobservable in the market place. Level 3 includes instruments for which there is little, if any, market activity. These inputs require significant judgment or estimation by the General Partner of the Partnership.

There were no Level 3 assets or liabilities held at ~~June~~September 30, 2014, December 31, 2013 or during the periods then ended.

The following table summarizes the valuation of the Partnership’s investments by the above ASC 820 fair value hierarchy levels as of ~~June~~September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013.

				Fair Value at Reporting Date Using
Description	~~June~~September 30, 2014			Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)			Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)
Cash Equivalents	$	4241,~~792~~916,~~501~~037		$	4241,~~792~~916,~~501~~037		$	—
Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs	224,~~928~~685,~~285~~461			—			224,~~928~~685,~~285~~461
Futures (1)	113,~~315,804~~817			113,~~315,804~~817			—
Forwards (1)	(91485,~~585~~558		)	—			(91485,~~585~~558		)
Options (1)	~~(1,242,400~~—		)	~~(1,282,807~~—		)	~~40,407~~—
	$	6546,~~702~~129,~~605~~757		$	4241,~~825~~929,~~498~~854		$	224,~~877~~199,~~107~~903

Description	December 31, 2013
Cash Equivalents	$	62,321,409		$	62,321,409		$	—
Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs	49,264,514			—			49,264,514
Futures (1)	1,153,714			1,153,714			—
Forwards (1)	(82,666		)	—			(82,666		)
Options (1)	(566,396		)	(615,645		)	49,249
	$	112,090,575		$	62,859,478		$	49,231,097

(1) See the Condensed Consolidated Schedules of Investments in Note 4 for the values in each commodity industry sector within this table.

ASC 820 permits as a practical expedient, the Partnership to measure the fair value of its investments in the Non-Consolidated LLCs on the basis of the net asset value per unit of such investment or the equivalent if the net asset value per share of such investments (or the monetary equivalent) is calculated in a manner consistent with the measurement principles of the Audit and Accounting Guide as of the Partnership’s reporting date. The fair value of the investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs is based on the Partnership’s proportionate share of the fair value of the financial instruments held by the Non-Consolidated LLC, plus any other assets and less any other liabilities held by the Non-Consolidated LLCs which approximates the net asset value per unit. In accordance with ASC 820, Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs have been considered Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy as the Partnership has the ability to increase or decrease its ownership in the Non-Consolidated LLC at the above basis on the measurement date.

There were no transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 during the period.

Table of Contents

Partnership’s reporting date. The fair value of the investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs is based on the Partnership’s proportionate share of the fair value of the financial instruments held by the Non-Consolidated LLC, plus any other assets and less any other liabilities held by the Non-Consolidated LLCs which approximates the net asset value per unit. In accordance with ASC 820, Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs have been considered Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy as the Partnership had the ability to increase or decrease its ownership in the Non-Consolidated LLC at the above basis on the measurement date.

There were no transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 during the period.

4. INVESTMENTS, DERIVATIVE CONTRACTS AND OFF-BALANCE SHEET RISK

The Partnership, through its Trading Advisors in its LLCs which ~~includes~~included both consolidated and Non-consolidated LLCs, ~~trades~~traded in the international futures, forwards and options markets with the objective of achieving, through speculative trading, substantial capital appreciation over time. The Partnership’s assets ~~are~~were allocated and reallocated by the General Partner to subsidiaries managed by the Trading Advisors on behalf of the Partnership, applying proprietary strategies in numerous markets.

The Partnership, through its Trading Advisors in its LLCs which ~~includes~~included both consolidated and Non-consolidated LLCs, ~~engages~~engaged in the speculative trading of derivative contracts on agriculture, currencies, energy, interest rates, metals and stock indices. The following were the primary trading risk exposures of such derivative contracts as of at ~~June~~September 30, 2014, organized by market sector:

Agricultural. The Partnership’s primary exposure iswas to agricultural price movements, which ~~are~~were often directly affected by severe or unexpected weather conditions.

Currencies. Exchange rate risk iswas a principal market exposure of the Partnership. The Partnership’s currency exposure iswas to exchange rate fluctuations, primarily fluctuations which could disrupt the historical pricing relationships between different currencies and currency pairs. The fluctuations ~~are~~were influenced by interest rate changes as well as political and general economic conditions. The Partnership, through its Trading Advisors, ~~trades~~traded in a large number of currencies, including cross-rates—e.g., positions between two currencies other than the U.S. dollar.

Energy. The Partnership’s primary energy market exposure iswas to natural gas and oil price movements, often resulting from political developments in the Middle East and economic conditions worldwide. Energy prices ~~are~~were volatile and substantial profits and losses ~~have~~had been ~~and are expected to continue to be~~ experienced in this market.

Interest rates. Interest rate movements directly ~~affect~~affected the price of the sovereign bond futures positions held by the Partnership and indirectly the value of its stock index and currency positions. Interest rate movements in one country as well as relative interest rate movements between countries ~~may~~could have materially ~~impact~~impacted the Partnership’s profitability. The Partnership’s primary interest rate exposure iswas to interest rate fluctuations in the United States and other major industrialized, or Group of Seven countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and United States, collectively, “G-7”). However, the Partnership, through its Trading Advisors, also ~~may~~could hold positions in futures contracts on the government debt of other nations.

Metals. The Partnership’s metals market exposure iswas to fluctuations in the price of aluminum, copper, gold, lead, nickel, silver, tin and zinc.

Stock Indices. The Partnership’s equity exposure, through stock index futures, is to equity price risk in the G-7 countries, as well as other countries.

The Partnership, through the trading activities of the Trading Advisors, also engages in the speculative trading of forward currency contracts. Substantially all of the Partnership’s off-exchange trading takes place in the highly liquid, institutional spot and forward foreign exchange markets (the “FX Markets”) where there are no direct execution costs. Instead, the participant banks and dealers in the FX Markets take a “spread” between the prices at which they are prepared to buy and sell a particular currency, and such spreads are built into the pricing of the spot or forward contracts traded with the Partnership. In its exchange of futures for physical (“EFP”) trading, the Partnership acquires or may acquire cash currency

Table of Contents

~~positions~~Stock ~~through banks and dealers~~Indices. The Partnership’s ~~pays~~equity aexposure, ~~spread~~through ~~when~~stock itindex ~~exchanges these positions for~~ futures~~. This spread reflects~~, inwas ~~part,~~to ~~the~~equity ~~different~~price ~~settlement~~risk ~~dates~~in of the ~~cash~~G-7 ~~and the futures contracts~~countries, as well as ~~prevailing~~other ~~interest rates, but also includes a pricing spread in favor of the banks and dealers~~countries.

The Partnership, ~~may~~through ~~purchase~~the ~~and~~trading ~~sell~~activities ~~(write),~~of ~~both~~the ~~exchange~~Trading ~~listed~~Advisors, ~~and~~also ~~OTC,~~engaged ~~options~~in onthe ~~commodities~~speculative ortrading ~~financial~~of ~~instruments~~forward currency contracts. AnSubstantially ~~option~~all isof athe ~~contract~~Partnership’s ~~allowing,~~off-exchange ~~but~~trading ~~not~~took ~~requiring~~place in the highly liquid, ~~its~~institutional ~~holder~~spot toand ~~buy~~forward ~~(call)~~foreign orexchange ~~sell~~markets (~~put~~the “FX Markets”) awhere ~~specific~~there orwere ~~standard~~no ~~commodity~~direct orexecution ~~financial~~costs. ~~instrument~~Instead, atthe participant banks and dealers in the FX Markets took a ~~specified~~“spread” ~~price~~between ~~during~~the prices at which they were prepared to buy and sell a ~~specified~~particular ~~time~~currency, ~~period.~~and ~~The~~such ~~option~~spreads ~~premium~~were isbuilt into the ~~total~~pricing ~~price~~of ~~paid~~the spot or ~~received~~forward ~~for~~contracts ~~the~~traded ~~option~~with ~~contract~~the Partnership. ~~When~~In ~~the~~its ~~Partnership~~exchange ~~writes~~of anfutures ~~option~~for physical (“EFP”) trading, the ~~premium~~Partnership ~~received~~acquired isor ~~recorded~~could asacquire cash currency positions through banks and dealers. The Partnership paid a ~~liability~~spread when it exchanges these positions for futures. This spread reflected, in part, the ~~Consolidated~~different ~~Statements~~settlement dates of ~~Financial~~the ~~Condition~~cash and ~~marked~~the tofutures ~~market~~contracts, ~~daily~~as well as prevailing interest rates, but also includes a pricing spread in favor of the banks and dealers.

AsThe ~~both~~Partnership acould ~~buyer~~purchase and ~~seller~~sell (~~writer~~write), ofboth ~~options~~exchange listed and OTC, ~~the~~options ~~Partnership~~on ~~pays~~commodities or ~~receives~~financial ainstruments. ~~premium~~An atoption ~~the~~is ~~outset~~a ~~and~~contract ~~then~~allowing, ~~bears~~but ~~the~~not ~~risk~~requiring, ofits ~~unfavorable~~holder ~~changes~~to inbuy ~~the~~(call) ~~price~~or ofsell ~~the~~(put) ~~contract~~a ~~underlying~~specific ~~the~~or ~~option.~~standard ~~Written~~commodity ~~options~~or ~~expose~~financial ~~the~~instrument ~~Partnership~~at toa ~~potentially~~specified ~~unlimited~~price ~~liability;~~during ~~for~~a ~~purchased~~specified ~~options~~time ~~the~~period. ~~risk~~The ofoption ~~loss~~premium is ~~limited to~~ the ~~premiums~~total price paid. ~~Certain~~or ~~written~~received ~~put~~for ~~options~~the ~~permit~~option ~~cash~~contract. ~~settlement~~When ~~and~~the doPartnership ~~not~~wrote ~~require~~an ~~the~~ option, ~~holder to own~~ the ~~reference~~premium ~~asset.~~received ~~The~~was ~~Partnership~~recorded ~~does~~as ~~not~~a ~~consider~~liability ~~these~~in ~~contracts~~the toConsolidated beStatements ~~guarantees~~of asFinancial ~~described~~Condition inand ~~ASC~~marked ~~460~~to ~~Guarantees~~market daily.

~~The~~As ~~Partnership~~both isa ~~exposed~~buyer toand ~~market~~seller ~~risk~~(writer) of options, the ~~risks~~Partnership ~~arising~~paid ~~from~~or received a premium at the outset and then bore the risk of unfavorable changes in the ~~market~~price ~~value~~ of the ~~contracts~~contract underlying the option. Written options exposed the Partnership to potentially unlimited liability; ~~credit~~for ~~risk,~~purchased options the risk of ~~failure~~loss bywas ~~another~~limited ~~party~~ to ~~perform~~the ~~according~~premiums topaid. ~~the~~Certain ~~terms~~written ofput aoptions ~~contract~~permitted cash settlement and ~~concentration~~did ~~risk;~~not require the ~~risk~~option ofholder ~~financial~~to ~~institution~~own ~~insolvency~~the reference asset. The Partnership did not consider these contracts to be guaranteed as described in ASC 460 Guarantees.

The Partnership was exposed to market risk, the risks that arose from changes in the market value of the contracts; credit risk, the risk of failure by another party to perform according to the terms of a contract and concentration risk; the risk of financial institution insolvency.

Market Risk

Derivative contracts involve varying degrees of off-balance sheet market risk. Changes in the level or volatility of interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates or the market values of the financial contracts or commodities underlying such open derivative contracts frequently result in changes in the Partnership’s net unrealized profit (loss) / market value on such derivative contracts as reflected in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition. The Partnership’s exposure to market risk is influenced by a number of factors, including the relationships among the derivative contracts held by the Partnership as well as the volatility and liquidity of the markets in which the derivative contracts ~~are~~were traded. Investments in foreign markets may also entail legal and political risks.

For derivatives, risks arise from changes in the market value of the contracts. Theoretically, the Partnership is exposed to a market risk equal to the notional contract value of futures and forward currency contracts purchased and unlimited liability on such contracts sold short.

BRIM has procedures in place intended to control market risk exposure, although there can be no assurance that it will, in fact, succeed in doing so. These procedures focus primarily on monitoring the trading of the Trading Advisors, calculating the net asset value of the Partnership as of the close of business on each day and reviewing outstanding positions, or reallocating Partnership assets among Trading Advisors (although typically only as of the end of a month) for over-concentrations. BRIM’s basic risk control procedures consist simply of the ongoing process of Trading Advisor monitoring, with the market risk controls being applied by the Trading Advisors themselves.

Credit Risk

Table of Contents

ofTrading ~~the~~Advisors ~~exchange.~~(although Intypically ~~OTC~~only ~~transactions,~~as onof the ~~other~~end ~~hand, traders must rely solely on the credit~~ of ~~their~~a ~~respective~~month) ~~individual~~for ~~counterparties~~over-concentrations. ~~Margins,~~BRIM’s ~~which~~basic ~~may~~risk becontrol ~~subject~~procedures toconsist ~~loss~~simply inof the ~~event~~ongoing process of aTrading ~~default,~~Advisor ~~are generally required in exchange trading~~monitoring, ~~and~~with ~~counterparties~~the ~~may~~market ~~also~~risk ~~require~~controls ~~margin~~being inapplied by the ~~OTC~~Trading ~~markets~~Advisors themselves.

Credit Risk

The risks associated with exchange-traded contracts are typically perceived to be less than those associated with OTC (non-exchange-traded) transactions, because exchanges typically (but not universally) provide clearinghouse arrangements in which the collective credit (in some cases limited in amount, in some cases not) of the members of the exchange is pledged to support the financial integrity of the exchange. In OTC transactions, on the other hand, traders must rely solely on the credit of their respective individual counterparties. Margins, which may be subject to loss in the event of a default, are generally required in exchange trading, and counterparties may also require margin in the OTC markets.

Set forth below are tables which disclose both gross information and net information about instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition and instruments and transactions that are subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement as well as amounts related to margin, reflected as financial collateral (including cash collateral), held at clearing brokers and counterparties. Margin reflected in the collateral tables reflect margin up to an amount of 100% of the net amount of unrealized loss for the respective counterparty. Actual margin amounts required at each counterparty are based on the notional amounts or the number of contracts outstanding and may exceed the margin presented in the collateral tables. The master netting agreements allow the clearing brokers to net any collateral held in or on behalf of the Partnership or liabilities or payment obligations of the clearing brokers to the Partnership against any liabilities or payment obligations of the Partnership to the clearing brokers. The Partnership is required to deposit financial collateral (including cash collateral) at the clearing brokers and counterparties to continually meet the original and maintenance requirements established by the clearing brokers and counterparties. Such requirements are specific to the respective clearing broker or counterparty.

As noted in Note 1, during the normal course of business, the Partnership, through each Trading Advisor, ~~enters~~entered into derivative contracts with various clearing brokers and derivatives counterparties. Pursuant to the agreements with each clearing broker and derivative counterparty, certain positions have been netted in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition to reflect the legal right of offset with each clearing broker and derivative counterparty. Such netting is performed on a Trading Advisor by Trading Advisor basis with each clearing broker and derivative counterparty, and thus positions entered by each Trading Advisor are not netted between Trading Advisors. The tables below present the offsetting on a basis by commodity industry sector. As the receivables and payables are netted by clearing broker and derivative counterparty and by Trading Advisor, as appropriate under GAAP, the presentation below does not reflect amounts across commodity industry sectors which have been netted in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition. Thus, amounts for certain commodity industry sectors may appear to be netted in excess of the gross amounts of recognized assets or liabilities, as indicated by a negative net asset amount or positive net liability amount in the net amounts presented in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition in the tables below.

Table of Contents

As of 69/30/2014

Offsetting of Net unrealized profit / market value on open contracts / options:

			Gross			Net
	Gross		Amounts offset in			Amounts presented in
Commodity	Amounts of		the Consolidated Statements of			the Consolidated Statements of
Industry Sector	Recognized Assets		Financial Condition			Financial Condition
Futures
Agriculture	$	~~641,245~~—	$	~~(209,988~~—	)	$	~~431,257~~—
Currencies	~~324,849~~—		~~(44,015~~—		)	~~280,834~~—
Energy	~~457,277~~—		~~(474,543~~—		)	~~(17,266~~—		)
Interest rates	~~563,908~~—		~~(198,341~~—		)	~~365,567~~—
Metals	21,~~404~~974,~~425~~902		(21,~~425~~944,~~752~~411		)	~~(21~~30,~~327~~491		)
Stock indices	~~176,434~~—		~~(174,189~~—		)	~~2,245~~—
Subtotal	41,~~568~~974,~~138~~902		(31,~~526~~944,~~828~~411		)	130,~~041,310~~491
Forwards
Currencies	~~266~~3,~~943~~512,760		(~~263~~3,~~432~~268,338		)	3244,~~511~~422
Options
Currencies	~~79,311~~—		~~(76,611~~—		)	~~2,700~~—
Energy	~~1,011,518~~—		~~(591,546~~—		)	~~419,972~~—
Interest rates	~~92,913~~—		~~(115,656~~—		)	~~(22,743~~—		)
Stock indices	—		~~(5,288~~—		)	~~(5,288~~—		)
Subtotal	~~1,183,742~~—		~~(789,101~~—		)	~~394,641~~—
Total Derivatives subject to a master netting or similar arrangement	65,~~018~~487,~~823~~662		(45,~~579~~212,~~361~~749		)	1274,~~439,462~~913
Total Derivatives not subject to a master netting or similar arrangement	—		—			—
Total Derivatives	$	65,~~018~~487,~~823~~662	$	(45,~~579~~212,~~361~~749	)	$	1274,~~439,462~~913

Offsetting of Net unrealized loss / market value on open contracts / options:

				Gross		Net
	Gross			Amounts offset in		Amounts presented in
Commodity	Amounts of			the Consolidated Statements of		the Consolidated Statements of
Industry Sector	Recognized Liabilities			Financial Condition		Financial Condition
Futures
Agriculture	$	~~(179,247~~—	)	$	~~209,988~~—	$	~~30,741~~—
Currencies	~~(36,028~~—		)	~~44,015~~—		~~7,987~~—
Energy	~~(128,166~~—		)	~~474,543~~—		~~346,377~~—
Interest rates	~~(178,620~~—		)	~~198,341~~—		~~19,721~~—
Metals	(21,~~609~~961,~~288~~093		)	21,~~425~~944,~~752~~411		(~~183~~16,~~536~~682		)
Stock indices	~~(120,985~~—		)	~~174,189~~—		~~53,204~~—
Subtotal	(31,~~252~~961,~~334~~093		)	31,~~526~~944,~~828~~411		~~274~~(16,~~494~~682		)
Forwards
Currencies	(~~358~~3,~~528~~998,310		)	~~263~~3,~~432~~268,338		(95729,~~096~~972		)
Options
Currencies	~~(77,435~~—		)	~~76,611~~—		~~(824~~—		)
Energy	~~(1,809,378~~—		)	~~591,546~~—		~~(1,217,832~~—		)
Interest rates	~~(527,741~~—		)	~~115,656~~—		~~(412,085~~—		)
Stock indices	~~(6,300~~—		)	—		~~(6,300~~—		)
Subtotal	~~(2,420,854~~—		)	~~783,813~~—		~~(1,637,041~~—		)
Total Derivatives subject to a master netting or similar arrangement	(65,~~031~~959,~~716~~403		)	45,~~574~~212,~~073~~749		(1746,~~457,643~~654		)
Total Derivatives not subject to a master netting or similar arrangement	—			—		—
Total Derivatives	$	(65,~~031~~959,~~716~~403	)	$	45,~~574~~212,~~073~~749	$	(1746,~~457,643~~654	)

Table of Contents

As of 12/31/2013

Offsetting of Net unrealized profit / market value on open contracts / options:

			Gross			Net
	Gross		Amounts offset in			Amounts presented in
Commodity	Amounts of		the Consolidated Statements of			the Consolidated Statements of
Industry Sector	Recognized Assets		Financial Condition			Financial Condition

Futures
Agriculture	$	168,600	$	(119,929	)	$	48,671
Currencies	256,067		(44,656		)	211,411
Energy	40,183		(35,855		)	4,328
Interest rates	92,335		(184,727		)	(92,392		)
Metals	1,028,523		(949,902		)	78,621
Stock indices	971,018		(9,814		)	961,204
Subtotal	2,556,726		(1,344,883		)	1,211,843

Forwards
Currencies	336,711		(334,160		)	2,551

Options
Currencies	344,294		(172,223		)	172,071
Energy	—		(28,500		)	(28,500		)
Interest rates	—		(570,141		)	(570,141		)
Stock indices	—		(49,395		)	(49,395		)
Subtotal	344,294		(820,259		)	(475,965		)

Total Derivatives subject to a master netting or similar arrangement	3,237,731		(2,499,302		)	738,429

Total Derivatives not subject to a master netting or similar arrangement	—		—			—

Total Derivatives	$	3,237,731	$	(2,499,302	)	$	738,429

Offsetting of Net unrealized loss / market value on open contracts / options:

				Gross		Net
	Gross			Amounts offset in		Amounts presented in
Commodity	Amounts of			the Consolidated Statements of		the Consolidated Statements of
Industry Sector	Recognized Liabilities			Financial Condition		Financial Condition

Futures
Agriculture	$	(119,929	)	$	119,929	$	—
Currencies	(44,656		)	44,656		—
Energy	(35,855		)	35,855		—
Interest rates	(239,106		)	184,727		(54,379		)
Metals	(949,902		)	949,902		—
Stock indices	(13,564		)	9,814		(3,750		)
Subtotal	(1,403,012		)	1,344,883		(58,129		)

Forwards
Currencies	(419,377		)	334,160		(85,217		)

Options
Currencies	(295,045		)	172,223		(122,822		)
Energy	(9,150		)	11,100		1,950
Interest rates	(163,219		)	406,735		243,516
Stock indices	(213,075		)	—		(213,075		)
Subtotal	(680,489		)	590,058		(90,431		)

Total Derivatives subject to a master netting or similar arrangement	(2,502,878		)	2,269,101		(233,777		)

Total Derivatives not subject to a master netting or similar arrangement	—			—		—

Total Derivatives	$	(2,502,878	)	$	2,269,101	$	(233,777	)

Table of Contents

As of 69/30/2014

Collateral Held by Counterparty:

			Gross Amounts not offset in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition
	Net Amount of Unrealized Profit in the		Cash Collateral		Net
Counterparty	Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition		Received		Amount
Counterparty A	$	~~777,101~~—	$	—	$	~~777,101~~—
Counterparty B	—194,980		—		—194,980
Counterparty C	—		—		—
Counterparty D	—		—		—
Counterparty E	—		—		—
Counterparty F	—		—		—
Counterparty G	~~1,826~~—		—		~~1,826~~—
Counterparty H	21,~~026~~169		—		21,~~026~~169
	$	~~780~~196,~~953~~149	$	—	$	~~780~~196,~~953~~149

	Net Amount of Unrealized Loss in the		Cash Collateral		Net
Counterparty	Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition		Pledged		Amount
Counterparty A	$	—654,822	$	—5	$	—654,817
Counterparty B	~~184,896~~—		~~184,896~~—		—
Counterparty C	~~516,500~~—		~~516,500~~—		—
Counterparty D	~~97,738~~—		~~97,725~~—		13—
Counterparty E	—		—		—
Counterparty F	—		—		—
Counterparty G	—13,068		—13,068		—
Counterparty H	—		—		—
	$	~~799~~667,~~134~~890	$	~~799~~13,~~121~~073	$	13654,817

As of 12/31/2013

Collateral Held by Counterparty:

			Gross Amounts not offset in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition
	Net Amount of Unrealized Profit in the		Cash Collateral		Net
Counterparty	Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition		Received		Amount

Counterparty A	$	765,608	$	—	$	765,608
Counterparty B	454,673		—		454,673
Counterparty C	—		—		—
Counterparty D	—		—		—
Counterparty E	—		—		—
Counterparty F	—		—		—
Counterparty G	40,799		—		40,799
Counterparty H	—		—		—
	$	1,261,080	$	—	$	1,261,080

	Net Amount of Unrealized Loss in the		Cash Collateral		Net
Counterparty	Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition		Pledged		Amount

Counterparty A	$	—	$	—	$	—
Counterparty B	—		—		—
Counterparty C	673,773		673,773		—
Counterparty D	—		—		—
Counterparty E	76,767		85		76,682
Counterparty F	—		—		—
Counterparty G	—		—		—
Counterparty H	5,888		3		5,885
	$	756,428	$	673,861	$	82,567

Table of Contents

Concentration Risk

The amount of required margin and good faith deposits with the brokers usually ranges from 1% to 10% of net asset value of the Partnership. The cash and cash equivalents held to satisfy such requirements at ~~June~~September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 was $11952,~~670,935~~624 and $10,605,212 respectively, which equals 161.1959% and 8.05% of net asset value of the Partnership, respectively.

The Partnership has a substantial portion of its assets on deposit with financial institutions. In the event of a financial institution’s insolvency, recovery of Partnership assets on deposit may be limited to account insurance or other protection afforded such deposits.

Table of Contents

Condensed Consolidated Schedules of Investments

The Partnership ~~trades~~traded futures, forwards and options contracts. The level of trading is affected by conditions in those markets. During the period ended ~~June~~September 30, 2014, ~~119~~164,~~512~~057 contracts were closed. ~~The~~No ~~fair~~option ~~value~~contracts ofare ~~options~~ held as of ~~June~~September 30, 2014 ~~includes premiums paid of $874,663 and received of $1,789,783~~. The fair value of the Partnership’s futures, forwards and options contracts by type that are presented as Net unrealized profit (loss) / market value on open contracts ~~/ options~~ in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition as of ~~June~~September 30, 2014 (in liquidation) are as follows:

							Long Positions												Short Positions
	Long Positions						Unrealized					Short Positions							Unrealized					Net Unrealized Profit (Loss)
Commodity	Number	Gross Unrealized					Profit (Loss)/			Percent of		Number		Gross Unrealized					Profit (Loss)/			Percent of		Market Value on Open			Percent of
Industry Sector	of Contracts	Gains		Losses			Market Value			Net Assets		of Contracts		Gains		Losses			Market Value			Net Assets		Contracts~~/Options~~			Net Assets		Maturity Dates
Futures
Agriculture	314	$	560,951	$	(158,872	)	$	402,079		0.55	%	(129	)	$	80,294	$	(20,375	)	$	59,919		0.09	%	$	461,998		0.64	%	July 14 - April 15
Metals	338	$	15,956	$	(1,944,372	)	$	(1,928,416	)	-3.22	%	(338	)	$	1,958,946	$	(16,713	)	$	1,942,233		3.24	%	$	13,817		0.02	%	October 14 - December 14
Currencies	275	303,168		(2,360		)	300,808			0.42	%	(54	)	21,682		(33,669		)	(11,987		)	-0.02	%	288,821			0.40	%	September 14
Energy	235	438,589		(126,692		)	311,897			0.43	%	(19	)	18,688		(1,474		)	17,214			0.02	%	329,111			0.45	%	July 14 - May 15
Interest rates	1,855	560,988		(49,040		)	511,948			0.71	%	(230	)	2,920		(129,580		)	(126,660		)	-0.17	%	385,288			0.54	%	July 14 - December 18
Metals	694	2,381,070		(47,093		)	2,333,977			3.24	%	(628	)	23,355		(2,562,195		)	(2,538,840		)	-3.52	%	(204,863		)	-0.28	%	July 14 - June 15
Stock indices	435	139,203		(109,039		)	30,164			0.05	%	(176	)	37,231		(11,946		)	25,285			0.03	%	55,449			0.08	%	July 14 - December 15
Subtotal	3,808	4,383,969		(493,096		)	3,890,873			5.40	%	(1,236	)	184,170		(2,759,239		)	(2,575,069		)	-3.57	%	1,315,804			1.83	%
Forwards
Currencies		~~169~~156,~~424~~737		(~~184~~3,~~638~~744,972		)	(153,~~214~~588,235		)	-05.0299	%			973,~~519~~356,023		(~~173~~253,~~890~~346		)	~~(76~~3,~~371~~102,677		)	-05.1118	%	(91485,~~585~~558		)	-0.1381	%	~~July~~October 14 - April 15
Options
Total	338	$	172,693	$	(5,689,344	)	$	(5,516,651	)	-9.21	%	(338	)	$	5,314,969	$	(270,059	)	$	5,044,910		8.42	%	$	(471,741	)	-0.79	%
Currencies	—	76,611		—			76,611			0.10	%	—		—		(74,735		)	(74,735		)	-0.10	%	1,876			0.00	%	July 14 - May 15
Energy	269	591,546		—			591,546			0.82	%	(389	)	—		(1,389,406		)	(1,389,406		)	-1.93	%	(797,860		)	-1.11	%	July 14 - May 15
Interest rates	152	115,656		—			115,656			0.16	%	(1,813	)	—		(550,484		)	(550,484		)	-0.76	%	(434,828		)	-0.60	%	July 14 - September 16
Stock indices	—	—		—			—			0.00	%	(90	)	—		(11,588		)	(11,588		)	-0.02	%	(11,588		)	-0.02	%	July 14
Subtotal	421	783,813		—			783,813			1.08	%	(2,292	)	—		(2,026,213		)	(2,026,213		)	-2.81	%	(1,242,400		)	-1.73	%
Total	4,229	$	5,337,206	$	(677,734	)	$	4,659,472		6.46	%	(3,528	)	$	281,689	$	(4,959,342	)	$	(4,677,653	)	-6.49	%	$	(18,181	)	-0.03	%

No individual contract’s unrealized profit or loss comprised greater than 5% of the Partnership’s capital as of ~~June~~September 30, 2014.

Table of Contents

During the year ended December 31, 2013, 224,642 contracts were closed. The fair value of options held as of December 31, 2013 includes premiums paid of $380,693 and received of $957,228. The fair value of the Partnership’s futures, forwards and options contracts by type that are presented as Net unrealized profit (loss) / market value on open contracts / options in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition as of December 31, 2013 are as follows:

							Long Positions												Short Positions
	Long Positions						Unrealized					Short Positions							Unrealized					Net Unrealized Profit (Loss)
Commodity	Number	Gross Unrealized					Profit (Loss)/			Percent of		Number		Gross Unrealized					Profit (Loss)/			Percent of		Market Value on Open			Percent of
Industry Sector	of Contracts	Gains		Losses			Market Value			Net Assets		of Contracts		Gains		Losses			Market Value			Net Assets		Contracts/Options			Net Assets		Maturity Dates

Futures
Agriculture	133	$	15,035	$	(97,886	)	$	(82,851	)	-0.06	%	(150	)	$	153,565	$	(22,043	)	$	131,522		0.10	%	$	48,671		0.04	%	January 14 - December 14
Currencies	214	97,977		(40,224		)	57,753			0.04	%	(95	)	158,091		(4,433		)	153,658			0.12	%	211,411			0.16	%	March 14
Energy	56	40,183		(26,367		)	13,816			0.01	%	(5	)	—		(9,488		)	(9,488		)	-0.01	%	4,328			0.00	%	January 14 - April 14
Interest rates	1,284	47,047		(223,537		)	(176,490		)	-0.13	%	(362	)	45,288		(15,569		)	29,719			0.02	%	(146,771		)	-0.11	%	January 14 - September 16
Metals	346	800,800		(211,988		)	588,812			0.45	%	(331	)	227,723		(737,914		)	(510,191		)	-0.39	%	78,621			0.06	%	January 14 - April 14
Stock indices	495	970,818		(1,787		)	969,031			0.73	%	(96	)	200		(11,777		)	(11,577		)	-0.01	%	957,454			0.72	%	January 14 - March 14
Subtotal	2,528	1,971,860		(601,789		)	1,370,071			1.04	%	(1,039	)	584,867		(801,224		)	(216,357		)	-0.17	%	1,153,714			0.87	%

Forwards
Currencies		156,904		(116,121		)	40,783			0.03	%			179,807		(303,256		)	(123,449		)	-0.09	%	(82,666		)	-0.06	%	January 14 - May 14

Options
Currencies	—	172,223		—			172,223			0.13	%	—		—		(122,974		)	(122,974		)	-0.09	%	49,249			0.04	%	January 14
Energy	15	11,100		—			11,100			0.01	%	(75	)	—		(37,650		)	(37,650		)	-0.03	%	(26,550		)	-0.02	%	January 14
Interest rates	465	406,734		—			406,734			0.31	%	(1,935	)	—		(733,359		)	(733,359		)	-0.56	%	(326,625		)	-0.25	%	January 14
Stock indices	—	—		—			—			0.00	%	(333	)	—		(262,470		)	(262,470		)	-0.20	%	(262,470		)	-0.20	%	January 14 - March 14
Subtotal	480	590,057		—			590,057			0.45	%	(2,343	)	—		(1,156,453		)	(1,156,453		)	-0.88	%	(566,396		)	-0.43	%

Total	3,008	$	2,718,821	$	(717,910	)	$	2,000,911		1.52	%	(3,382	)	$	764,674	$	(2,260,933	)	$	(1,496,259	)	-1.14	%	$	504,652		0.38	%

No individual contract’s unrealized profit or loss comprised greater than 5% of the Partnership’s capital as of December 31, 2013.

Table of Contents

The following table represents the Partnership’s investment in each Non-Consolidated LLC and relevant financial information of the Non-Consolidated LLCs as of and for the periods indicated through ~~June~~ September 30, 2014 (in liquidation) and December 31, 2013, respectively:

~~June~~September 30, 2014 (in liquidation)

	Partnership’s		Partnership’s		Partnership’s investment %
Non-Consolidated LLC	Fair Value		Cost		of Non-Consolidated LLC		Management Fee		Profit Share		Redemptions Permitted
Canberra Global Horizons, LLC	$	8,171,010	$	9,514,379	71.26	%	2.025	%	15	%	Monthly
Quantum Global Horizons, LLC	$	4,685,461	$	6,028,542	37.21	%	0	%	30	%	Monthly
Quaker Global Horizons, LLC	8,832,980		9,958,362		71.00	%	1	%	20	%(1)	Monthly
Total	$	4,685,461	$	6,028,542
Quantum Global Horizons, LLC	5,924,295		7,215,956		43.14	%	0	%	30	%	Monthly
December 31, 2013
Total	$	22,928,285	$	26,688,697
	Partnership’s		Partnership’s		Partnership’s investment %
Non-Consolidated LLC	Fair Value		Cost		of Non-Consolidated LLC		Management Fee		Profit Share		Redemptions Permitted
Alamo Global Horizons, LLC	$	8,199,499	$	9,469,624	77.02	%	2	%	20	%	Monthly
Breakout Global Horizons, LLC	9,010,495		9,579,951		70.62	%	1	%	15	%	Monthly
Cambridge Global Horizons, LLC	7,773,556		11,256,744		60.99	%	1.35	%	10	%	Monthly
Quaker Global Horizons, LLC	14,195,907		13,349,897		64.37	%	1	%	20	%(1)	Monthly
Quantum Global Horizons, LLC	10,085,057		11,757,274		45.15	%	0	%	30	%	Monthly
Total	$	49,264,514	$	55,413,490

December 31, 2013

	Partnership’s		Partnership’s		Partnership’s investment %
Non-Consolidated LLC	Fair Value		Cost		of Non-Consolidated LLC		Management Fee		Profit Share		Redemptions Permitted
Alamo Global Horizons, LLC	$	8,199,499	$	9,469,624	77.02	%	2	%	20	%	Monthly
Breakout Global Horizons, LLC	9,010,495		9,579,951		70.62	%	1	%	15	%	Monthly
Cambridge Global Horizons, LLC	7,773,556		11,256,744		60.99	%	1.35	%	10	%	Monthly
Quaker Global Horizons, LLC	14,195,907		13,349,897		64.37	%	1	%	20	%(1)	Monthly
Quantum Global Horizons, LLC	10,085,057		11,757,274		45.15	%	0	%	30	%	Monthly
Total	$	49,264,514	$	55,413,490

(1) If net contribution amount is more than $50 million, the percentage shall equal 17.5%

Table of Contents

The trading profits (losses) of the Partnership’s derivatives by instrument type, as well as the location of those gains and losses on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three month periods ended ~~June~~September 30, 2014 (in liquidation) and 2013 are as follows:

2014

				Change in Net
Commodity Industry Sector	Realized Profits (Losses)			Change in Net Unrealized Profits (Losses)			Net Trading Profits (Losses)
Commodity	Realized Profits			Unrealized Profits			Net Trading
Industry Sector	(Losses)			(Losses)			Profits (Losses)
Futures
Agriculture	$	30869,~~620~~938		$	(18401,~~228~~993	)	$	12467,~~392~~945
Currencies	~~313~~(212,~~825~~956		)	70(338,~~649~~145		)	~~384~~(551,~~474~~101		)
Energy	40(1,~~467~~449,444		)	~~337~~(369,~~826~~926		)	~~378~~(1,~~293~~819,370		)
Interest rates	(1194,~~894,840~~733		)	~~392~~(488,~~490~~402		)	(1683,~~502,350~~135		)
Metals	(28244,~~858~~676		)	~~(162~~227,~~891~~297		)	(~~191~~17,~~749~~379		)
Stock indices	~~620~~234,~~848~~920			(~~142~~133,~~260~~752		)	~~478~~101,~~588~~168
Subtotal	(~~917~~996,~~938~~951		)	~~477~~(1,~~586~~504,921		)	(~~440~~2,~~352~~501,872		)
Forwards
Currencies	(~~181~~230,~~595~~288		)	(~~202~~627,~~223~~007		)	(~~383~~857,~~818~~295		)
Options
Agriculture	~~1,462~~—			~~(1,656~~—		)	~~(194~~—		)
Currencies	28186,~~459~~573			6(88,~~594~~251		)	3598,~~053~~322
Energy	~~347~~1,~~311~~026,988			~~(411~~399,~~521~~644		)	~~(64~~1,~~210~~426,632		)
Interest rates	31,~~212~~790,~~067~~346			~~171~~(58,~~964~~582		)	31,~~384~~731,~~031~~764
Metals	6(39,~~091~~612		)	—			6(39,~~091~~612		)
Stock indices	~~989~~924,~~886~~361			(4213,~~305~~537		)	~~947~~910,~~581~~824
Subtotal	43,~~585~~888,~~276~~656			~~(276~~239,~~924~~274		)	4,~~308~~127,~~352~~930
Total	$	32,~~485~~661,~~743~~417		$	(1,~~561~~892,654	)	$	3768,~~484,182~~763

2013

				Change in Net
Commodity Industry Sector	Realized Profits (Losses)			Change in Net Unrealized Profits (Losses)			Net Trading Profits (Losses)
Commodity	Realized Profits			Unrealized Profits			Net Trading
Industry Sector	(Losses)			(Losses)			Profits (Losses)
Futures
Agriculture	$	~~(547~~1,~~950~~174,749	)	$	~~645~~(569,~~965~~511	)	$	98605,~~015~~238
Currencies	(3845,~~415,248~~599		)	~~391~~418,~~248~~591			(3427,~~024,000~~008		)
Energy	(~~704~~570,~~990~~306		)	(~~283~~63,~~255~~511		)	(~~988~~633,~~245~~817		)
Interest rates	(2,~~976~~856,~~700~~907		)	~~(861~~667,~~890~~058		)	(32,~~838~~189,~~590~~849		)
Metals	~~577~~(692,~~453~~491		)	~~(369~~40,~~181~~618		)	~~208~~(651,~~272~~873		)
Stock indices	(~~487~~668,~~235~~081		)	(~~153~~355,~~806~~910		)	(~~641~~1,~~041~~023,991		)
Subtotal	(74,~~554~~458,~~670~~635		)	~~(630~~137,~~919~~335		)	(84,~~185~~321,~~589~~300		)
Forwards
Currencies	(~~155~~1,~~113~~280,167		)	~~(805~~778,~~196~~194		)	(~~960~~501,~~309~~973		)
Options
Agriculture	(3110,~~303~~550		)	36100,~~502~~314			589,~~199~~764
Currencies	1580,~~070,875~~873			(7766,~~848~~999		)	~~993~~513,~~027~~874
Energy	~~204~~194,~~661~~199			47(28,~~556~~420		)	~~252~~165,~~217~~779
Interest rates	1,~~031~~768,~~483~~510			~~(407~~292,~~428~~358		)	~~624~~2,~~055~~060,868
Metals	(9530,~~677~~726		)	~~972~~(252,~~120~~194		)	~~876~~(282,~~443~~920		)
Stock indices	~~143~~214,~~870~~727			~~(12~~48,~~225~~823		)	~~131~~263,~~645~~550
Subtotal	2,~~323~~717,~~909~~033			~~558~~93,~~677~~882			2,~~882~~810,~~586~~915
Total	$	(53,~~385~~021,~~874~~769	)	$	~~(877~~1,~~438~~009,411	)	$	(62,~~263~~012,~~312~~358	)

Table of Contents

The trading profits (losses) of the Partnership’s derivatives by instrument type, as well as the location of those gains and losses on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the ~~six~~nine month periods ended ~~June~~September 30, 2014 (in liquidation) and 2013 are as follows:

2014

				Change in Net
Commodity Industry Sector	Realized Profits (Losses)			Change in Net Unrealized Profits (Losses)			Net Trading Profits (Losses)
Commodity	Realized Profits			Unrealized Profits			Net Trading
Industry Sector	(Losses)			(Losses)			Profits (Losses)
Futures
Agriculture	$	~~247~~1,~~425~~117,363		$	~~132~~(269,~~290~~703	)	$	~~379~~847,~~715~~660
Currencies	~~563~~350,~~251~~295			(~~130~~468,~~183~~328		)	~~433~~(118,~~068~~033		)
Energy	(~~401~~1,~~752~~851,196		)	~~328~~(41,~~249~~677		)	(731,~~503~~892,873		)
Interest rates	(3,~~349~~544,~~645~~378		)	~~399~~(88,~~687~~715		)	(23,~~949~~633,~~958~~093		)
Metals	(~~479~~723,~~134~~810		)	~~(73~~153,~~640~~657		)	(~~552~~570,~~774~~153		)
Stock indices	(1891,~~126,855~~935		)	(~~962~~1,~~406~~096,158		)	(21,~~089~~988,~~261~~093		)
Subtotal	(45,~~546~~543,~~710~~661		)	(~~306~~1,~~003~~810,924		)	(47,~~852~~354,~~713~~585		)
Forwards
Currencies	(~~366~~597,~~915~~203		)	(8635,~~918~~925		)	(~~375~~1,~~833~~233,128		)
Options
Agriculture	(15,414		)	—			(15,414		)
Currencies	~~271~~457,~~112~~685			(62150,~~730~~981		)	~~208~~306,~~382~~704
Energy	~~670~~1,~~342~~697,330			(~~410~~10,~~333~~689		)	~~260~~1,~~009~~686,641
Interest rates	57,~~887~~678,~~811~~157			~~101~~42,~~280~~698			57,~~989~~720,~~091~~855
Metals	16(22,~~703~~909		)	—			16(22,~~703~~909		)
Stock indices	23,~~357~~282,~~991~~352			3420,~~363~~826			23,~~392~~303,~~354~~178
Subtotal	913,~~188~~077,~~545~~201			(~~337~~98,~~420~~146		)	812,~~851~~979,~~125~~055
Total	$	46,~~274~~936,~~920~~337		$	(~~652~~2,~~341~~544,995	)	$	34,~~622~~391,~~579~~342

2013

				Change in Net
Commodity Industry Sector	Realized Profits (Losses)			Change in Net Unrealized Profits (Losses)			Net Trading Profits (Losses)
Commodity	Realized Profits			Unrealized Profits			Net Trading
Industry Sector	(Losses)			(Losses)			Profits (Losses)
Futures
Agriculture	$	(143,~~131,254~~495	)	$	~~861~~291,~~230~~719		$	~~(270~~335,~~024~~214	)
Currencies	(23,~~433~~279,~~906~~505		)	~~(269~~148,~~778~~813		)	(23,~~703~~130,~~684~~692		)
Energy	(12,~~436~~007,~~708~~014		)	(~~160~~223,~~328~~839		)	(12,~~597~~230,~~036~~853		)
Interest rates	(46,~~121~~978,~~339~~246		)	~~(573~~93,~~079~~979		)	(46,~~694~~884,~~418~~267		)
Metals	9(682,~~914~~577		)	~~260~~301,~~469~~087			~~270~~(381,~~383~~490		)
Stock indices	32,~~431~~763,~~388~~307			(~~418~~774,~~914~~824		)	31,~~012~~988,~~474~~483
Subtotal	(510,~~681~~140,~~905~~540		)	(~~300~~163,~~400~~065		)	(510,~~982~~303,~~305~~605		)
Forwards
Currencies	(45,~~374~~654,~~243~~410		)	12,~~376~~154,~~639~~833			(23,~~997~~499,~~604~~577		)
Options
Agriculture	(5465,~~714~~264		)	82182,~~044~~358			27117,~~330~~094
Currencies	12,~~679~~260,~~370~~243			~~182~~115,~~553~~554			12,~~861~~375,~~923~~797
Energy	~~517~~711,~~275~~474			(735,~~195~~615		)	~~510~~675,~~080~~859
Interest rates	23,~~086~~855,~~779~~289			(~~379~~87,~~406~~048		)	13,~~707~~768,~~373~~241
Metals	(~~233~~263,~~017~~743		)	~~912~~660,~~735~~541			~~679~~396,~~718~~798
Stock indices	~~259~~474,~~698~~425			(939,~~574~~249		)	~~250~~513,~~124~~674
Subtotal	46,~~255~~972,~~391~~424			~~781~~875,~~157~~039			57,~~036~~847,~~548~~463
Total	$	(58,~~800~~822,~~757~~526	)	$	12,~~857~~866,~~396~~807		$	(35,~~943~~955,~~361~~719	)

Table of Contents

5. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

As of ~~June~~September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, $4241,~~792~~916,~~501~~037 and $62,321,409, respectively, were invested in an affiliated BlackRock money market fund. The Due to Non-Consolidated LLCs and Due from Non-Consolidated LLCs ~~balance~~balances of $1061,~~649,114~~125 and $3,621,272, respectively, included in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition as of ~~June~~September 30, 2014 (in liquidation) and December 31, 2013, respectively, represents the amounts owed by and to the Partnership by the Non-Consolidated LLCs for expenses paid on the Non-Consolidated LLCs’ behalf and subscriptions, redemptions and allocations of capital from the Partnership.

BRIM ~~reimburses~~reimbursed the Partnership for fees and expenses paid by the Partnership, not including the Trading Advisors’ Profit Shares (such fees and expenses, exclusive of the Trading Advisors’ Profit Shares, collectively referred to herein as “Capped Expenses”) that would be in excess of 1/12 of 7.25% of the Partnership’s net asset value (the “Expense Cap”) on the last business day of each month (each a “Regularly Scheduled Calculation Date”). Because Series I iswas not subject to the 3.0% distribution fee, the Expense Cap for Series I is 4.25% annually, rather than the 7.25% annual Expense Cap for all other Series. On each Regularly Scheduled Calculation Date, BRIM ~~will~~waived ~~waive~~ the portion of the sponsor fees that would otherwise be payable to BRIM that iswas necessary to reduce the Capped Expenses until they ~~equal~~equaled the Expense Cap. If the waiver of the sponsor fees iswas not sufficient to lower the Partnership’s Capped Expenses to the Expense Cap, BRIM ~~will~~paid ~~pay~~ those Capped Expenses necessary so that Capped Expenses dodid not exceed the Expense Cap. However, if on any Regularly Scheduled Calculation Date Capped Expenses ~~are~~were less than the Expense Cap, the difference iswas used to reimburse BRIM for any sponsor fees that were waived or any Capped Expenses paid by BRIM on preceding Calculation Dates in the same calendar year. Any such amounts ~~may~~could not be used to reimburse BRIM for any sponsor fees that were waived or any Capped Expenses paid by BRIM in preceding periods. When the Partnership changed to the liquidation basis of accounting, it provided for the estimated costs of liquidation. ~~At June 30, 2014, the reimbursement from BRIM exceeds the sponsor fee payable.~~

Effective June 1, 2014, the General Partner ~~has~~had agreed to waive the 3% redemption charge for Limited Partners whose purchase of units was within the last 12 months.

6. RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In April 2013, FASB issued ASU 2013-07, Presentation of Financial Statements: Liquidation Basis of Accounting (“ASU 2013-07”). ASU 2013-07 provides guidance on when and how to apply the liquidation basis of accounting and on what to disclose in an applicable entity’s financial statements. It is intended to increase the consistency and comparability of financial statements prepared under the liquidation basis of accounting. ASU 2013-07 is effective for entities that determine liquidation is imminent during annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2013, and interim period therein and should be applied prospectively. The Partnership’s adoption of the liquidation basis of accounting did not have a material impact on the carrying value of the assets and liabilities and the impact has been reflected in the financial statements herein.

Table of Contents

In June 2013, the FASB issued ASU No. 2013-08, Financial Services — Investment Companies: Amendments to the Scope, Measurement, and Disclosure Requirements (“ASU 2013-08”). ASU 2013-08 amends the current criteria for an entity to qualify as an investment company, creates new disclosure requirements and amends the measurement criteria for certain interests in other investment companies. ASU 2013-08 also amends the current requirements related to qualifying for the “investment company deferral” as well as the requirements related to qualifying for the “net asset value practical expedient”. The amendments are effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2013. There has been no impact to the Partnership as a result of adopting ASU 2013-08.

7. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

The General Partner has evaluated the impact of all subsequent events of the Partnership through the date these consolidated financial statements were available to be issued, and has determined that there were no subsequent events requiring adjustment or additional disclosure in the consolidated financial statements, except as noted in Note 1 regarding distributions.

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Operational Review

Set forth below is a chart which provides the Partnership’s current Trading Advisors, the portion of the Partnership’s assets that each controlled as of ~~June~~September 1, 2014, the general trading focus of each such Trading Advisor, an indication as to whether each Trading Advisor’s program is discretionary or systematic, as well as the commodity pool operator (“CPO”) and investment adviser registration status of each Trading Advisor (with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) and Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), respectively).

Table of Contents

Trading Advisors	Systematic / Discretionary	General Trading Focus	Allocation		CPO Registration Status	Investment Adviser Registration Status
Abraham Trading LP - Diversified Program **	Systematic	Long-term trend-following	7.00	%	Registered	Not Registered
Civic Capital Advisors LLC - Currency Program	Discretionary	Fundamental - Dedicated FX	15.00	%	Registered	Registered
Blackwater Capital Management LLC - Diversified Program **	Systematic	Medium-term trend-following	6.75	%	Registered	Not Registered
Crabel Capital Management LLC - Diversified Futures Program	Systematic	Short-term trend-following	7.50	%	Registered	Not Registered
Civic Capital Advisors LLC - Currency Program*	Discretionary	Fundamental - Dedicated FX	12.00	%	Registered	Registered
Ellington Management Group, LLC	Systematic	Multi Strategy - Diversified	15.00	%	Registered	Registered
Crabel Capital Management LLC - Diversified Futures Program	Systematic	Short-term trend-following	8.50	%	Registered	Not Registered
G Capital Fund Management LLC - Liquid Global Macro Portfolio	Discretionary	Fundemental global macro	15.00	%	Registered	Registered
Ellington Management Group, LLC	Systematic	Multi Strategy - Diversified	10.20	%	Registered	Registered
QMS Capital Management LP	Systematic	Diversified financial focus	15.00	%	Registered	Not Registered
G Capital Fund Management LLC - Liquid Global Macro Portfolio	Discretionary	Fundemental global macro	12.75	%	Registered	Registered
Quantitative Investment Management - Global Program*	Systematic	Short-term pattern recognition	7.50	%	Registered	Registered
QMS Capital Management LP*	Systematic	Diversified financial focus	12.50	%	Registered	Not Registered
Solaise Capital Management, LLP - Systematic Program	Systematic	Medium-term trend-following	10.00	%	Registered	Registered
Quantitative Investment Management - Global Program*	Systematic	Short-term pattern recognition	8.30	%	Registered	Registered
Winton Capital Management Ltd. - Diversified Program	Systematic	Medium-term trend-following	15.00	%	Registered	Registered
Solaise Capital Management, LLP - Systematic Program	Systematic	Medium-term trend-following	9.65	%	Registered	Registered
Winton Capital Management Ltd. - Diversified Program	Systematic	Medium-term trend-following	12.35	%	Registered	Registered

* Currently reflected on the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements as Investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs.

**BRIM ~~Terminated~~could onhave, ~~June 30~~from time to time, ~~2014~~directed certain individual Trading Advisors to manage their respective Partnership accounts as if they were managing more equity than the actual capital allocated to them.

The General Partner had, in its discretion, formed subsidiaries to hold Partnership assets allocated to a particular Trading Advisor. The purpose of these subsidiaries was to segregate the assets of the Partnership allocated to any one Trading Advisor from the other assets of the Partnership in order to seek to limit liability for trading losses by any one Trading Advisor to the assets allocated to such subsidiary. Other funds or accounts managed by BRIM or its affiliates could have also allocated capital to these subsidiaries, pari passu with the Partnership, in order to consolidate investments with a Trading Advisor into a single entity. Potential benefits of aggregating investments in subsidiaries included preservation of high water marks, greater liquidity with respect to the account of the subsidiary (e.g., with respect to lock-ups), reduced fees (e.g., redemption fees) and efficiency associated with subscriptions and redemptions. The collective nature of these subsidiaries also had potential costs, risks and conflicts, particularly at times when the Partnership, other funds or accounts managed by BRIM and/or the applicable Trading Advisor(s) were experiencing sustained or high levels of redemption pressure or markets were illiquid. There was no limitation on the amount or number of such funds or accounts or the amount of their respective allocation to any such subsidiary and such allocations could have been significant. There was no segregation of liabilities between the Partnership and any other such funds or accounts that allocated assets to the same subsidiary as the Partnership. When investing in a subsidiary,

Table of Contents

~~BRIM~~no ~~may,~~management ~~from~~fees ~~time~~or performance-based compensation were charged to ~~time~~the Partnership by any subsidiary; however, ~~direct~~such ~~certain~~subsidiary ~~individual~~was charged management fees and performance-based compensation by the Trading Advisors. toHowever, ~~manage~~the ~~their~~value ~~respective~~of the Partnership’s ~~accounts~~investments asin ifany ~~they~~subsidiary ~~were~~was ~~managing~~included ~~more~~in ~~equity~~the ~~than~~calculation and assessment of the ~~actual~~Partnership’s ~~capital~~Sponsor’s Fee and the Partnership paid its pro rata portion of such subsidiary’s expenses, including fees and expenses of the applicable Trading Advisor. As a result, the Partnership was subject to higher operating expenses than if the Partnership allocated capital to ~~them~~Trading Advisors directly.

The ~~General~~advisory ~~Partner~~agreements ~~has,~~between inthe ~~its discretion, formed subsidiaries to hold~~ Partnership ~~assets~~(or ~~allocated to~~ a ~~particular~~subsidiary ~~Trading Advisor. The purpose~~ of ~~these subsidiaries is to segregate~~ the ~~assets~~Partnership), of the ~~Partnership~~General ~~allocated~~Partner toand ~~any~~each ~~one~~ Trading Advisor ~~from~~governed the ~~other~~relationships ~~assets~~with of the ~~Partnership in order to seek to limit liability for trading losses by any one~~ Trading ~~Advisor~~Advisors, toeach ~~the~~of ~~assets~~which ~~allocated~~had tobeen ~~such~~attached ~~subsidiary.~~as ~~Other~~exhibits ~~funds or accounts managed by BRIM or its affiliates may also allocate capital~~ to ~~these~~certain ~~subsidiaries, pari passu with the~~ Partnership,’s inprior ~~order~~or tocurrent ~~consolidate investments with a Trading Advisor into a single entity~~filings. The ~~Potential~~principal ~~benefits~~terms of ~~aggregating~~this ~~investments~~form ~~in subsidiaries include preservation~~ of ~~high~~advisory ~~water~~agreement ~~marks,~~included ~~greater liquidity with respect to~~ the ~~account~~management offees (the ~~subsidiary~~“Management ~~(e.g.~~Fees”), ~~with respect to lock~~performance-~~ups),~~based ~~reduced~~allocations ~~fees~~ (~~e.g.,~~the ~~redemption~~“Profit ~~fees~~Shares”) ~~and efficiency associated with subscriptions and redemptions. The collective nature of these subsidiaries also has potential costs~~, ~~risks~~indemnification ~~and~~provisions ~~conflicts, particularly at times when the Partnership, other funds or accounts managed by BRIM~~ and~~/or~~ the ~~applicable~~term ~~Trading Advisor(s) are experiencing sustained or high levels~~ of ~~redemption~~the ~~pressure~~advisory ~~or markets are illiquid~~agreement. Set ~~There~~forth isbelow nowere ~~limitation~~general onsummary ~~the~~descriptions ~~amount or number~~ of ~~such~~these ~~funds~~terms oras ~~accounts~~well oras the ~~amount~~minimum ofaccount ~~their~~maintenance ~~respective~~level ~~allocation~~for toeach ~~any~~Trading ~~such subsidiary and such allocations may be significant~~Advisor. As ~~There~~each ~~will~~advisory beagreement nowas ~~segregation~~specifically ofnegotiated ~~liabilities~~with ~~between~~each ~~the~~Trading ~~Partnership and any other such funds or accounts that allocate assets to the same subsidiary as the Partnership. When investing in a subsidiary~~Advisor, nothere ~~management~~were ~~fees~~certain orvariations ~~performance-based~~within ~~compensation will be charged to~~ the ~~Partnership~~terms byof ~~any~~each ~~subsidiary;~~of ~~however, such subsidiary will be charged management fees and performance-based compensation by~~ the ~~Trading~~advisory ~~Advisors~~agreements. As ~~However~~noted above, ~~the~~each ~~value~~ of ~~the~~these ~~Partnership’s~~advisory ~~investments~~agreements inhad ~~any~~been ~~subsidiary~~attached ~~will~~as beexhibits ~~included~~to incertain ~~the calculation and assessment~~ of the Partnership’s ~~Sponsor’s~~prior ~~Fee and the Partnership will pay its pro rata portion of such subsidiary’s expenses, including fees and expenses of the applicable Trading Advisor~~filings. ~~As a result, the Partnership may be subject to higher operating expenses than if the Partnership allocated capital to Trading Advisors directly.~~

~~The~~Management ~~advisory~~Fees. ~~agreements~~Generally, ~~between~~Management ~~the~~Fees ~~Partnership~~approximated ~~(or~~between a0% ~~subsidiary of the Partnership), the General Partner~~ and ~~each Trading Advisor govern the relationships with the Trading Advisors, each of which have been attached as exhibits to certain Partnership’s prior or current filings~~2. ~~The~~025% ~~principal terms of this form of advisory agreement include the management fees~~ (~~the “Management Fees”~~annualized), ~~performance-based allocations (the “Profit Shares”), indemnification provisions and the term~~ of the ~~advisory~~net ~~agreement. Set~~asset ~~forth~~value ~~below are general summary descriptions~~ of ~~these terms as well as~~ the ~~minimum~~Partnership’s account ~~maintenance~~managed ~~level~~by ~~for~~a ~~each~~ Trading Advisor. As each advisory agreement is specifically negotiated with each Trading Advisor, there are certain variations within the terms of each of the advisory agreements. As noted above, each of these advisory agreements have been attached as exhibits to certain of the Partnership’s prior filings.

~~Management~~Profit ~~Fees~~Shares. ~~Generally,~~Profit ~~Management~~Shares ~~Fees~~generally ~~approximate~~were between 015% and ~~2.025~~30% ~~(annualized)~~ of the net ~~asset~~capital ~~value~~appreciation ofin the Partnership’s account managed by a Trading Advisor for the applicable period, generally quarterly or annually, and were calculated on a cumulative high water mark basis, including realized and unrealized gains and losses from futures trading. Each Trading Advisor must have earned back any losses previously experienced by the Trading Advisor prior to any new Profit Shares being paid. However, Profit Shares once paid to a Trading Advisor were not subject to being repaid to the Partnership from the Trading Advisor as a result of subsequent realized or unrealized losses.

~~Profit Shares~~Indemnification. ~~Profit~~The ~~Shares~~advisory agreements generally ~~are~~provided ~~between~~that ~~15% and 30% of~~ the ~~net~~Partnership ~~capital~~(or ~~appreciation~~a insubsidiary of the Partnership’s) ~~account~~would ~~managed~~indemnify bythe arelevant Trading Advisor, ~~for~~its ~~the~~affiliates ~~applicable~~and ~~period,~~their ~~generally~~respective ~~quarterly~~directors, orofficers, ~~annually~~shareholders, employees and ~~are~~controlling ~~calculated~~persons onfor conduct undertaken as a ~~cumulative~~trading ~~high~~advisor ~~water~~or ~~mark~~otherwise ~~basis,~~relating ~~including~~to ~~realized~~any ~~and~~action ~~unrealized~~or ~~gains~~omission ~~and~~of ~~losses~~such ~~from~~persons ~~futures~~(or ~~trading. Each~~alleged ~~Trading~~action ~~Advisor~~or ~~must~~omission) ~~earn~~in ~~back~~connection ~~any~~with ~~losses~~the ~~previously~~advisory ~~experienced~~agreements; byprovided ~~the~~that ~~Trading~~such ~~Advisor~~action ~~prior~~or toomission ~~any~~(or ~~new~~alleged ~~Profit~~action ~~Shares~~or ~~being~~omission) ~~paid. However~~did not constitute negligence (or gross negligence in some cases), ~~Profit~~misconduct ~~Shares~~or ~~once~~breach ~~paid~~of tothe advisory agreements and was done in good faith and in a ~~Trading~~manner ~~Advisor~~reasonably ~~are~~believed to be in, or not ~~subject~~opposed to, ~~being~~the ~~repaid~~best tointerests of the Partnership. The ~~from~~advisory agreements generally provided that the ~~Trading~~foregoing ~~Advisor~~indemnified asparties ashall ~~result~~not ofbe ~~subsequent~~liable ~~realized~~to the Partnership for actions or ~~unrealized~~omissions ~~losses~~within the scope of the standards set forth in the foregoing indemnities.

Term. The advisory agreements would be automatically renewed for successive year periods, on the same terms, unless terminated by either the relevant Trading Advisor or the Partnership (or a subsidiary of the Partnership). In most instances, a Trading Advisor could terminate its advisory agreement if the equity in the Partnership’s account drops below a specified minimum amount as of the close of business on any day, among other reasons. The advisory agreements were terminable at the discretion of the General Partner.

Table of Contents

~~Indemnification~~Minimum Investment Maintenance Levels. The ~~advisory~~minimum ~~agreements~~investment ~~generally~~maintenance ~~provide~~levels ~~that~~with ~~the~~each ~~Partnership~~Trading ~~(or~~Advisor awere ~~subsidiary~~as offollows: ~~the~~Civic ~~Partnership)~~Capital ~~will~~Advisors ~~indemnify~~LLC: ~~the~~none; ~~relevant~~Crabel ~~Trading~~Capital ~~Advisor,~~Management ~~its~~LLC: ~~affiliates~~$1,000,000; ~~and~~Ellington ~~their~~Management ~~respective directors~~Group, ~~officers,~~LLC: ~~shareholders~~$10,000,000; ~~employees~~G ~~and~~Capital ~~controlling~~Fund ~~persons~~Management ~~for~~LLC: ~~conduct~~$25,000,000; ~~undertaken~~QMS asCapital aManagement ~~trading~~LP: ~~advisor~~$20,000,000; orQuantitative ~~otherwise~~Investment ~~relating~~Management-Global toProgram: ~~any~~none; ~~action~~Solaise orCapital ~~omission~~Management ofLLP: ~~such~~$10,000,000; ~~persons~~and ~~(or~~Winton ~~alleged~~Capital ~~action~~Management orLimited: ~~omission)~~$1,000,000. A infailure ~~connection~~to ~~with~~maintain the ~~advisory~~minimum ~~agreements;~~investment ~~provided~~maintenance ~~that~~level ~~such~~did ~~action or omission (or alleged action or omission) does~~ not ~~constitute~~result ~~negligence (or gross negligence~~ in ~~some~~an ~~cases),~~automatic ~~misconduct~~termination ~~or breach~~ of the ~~advisory~~agreement ~~agreements~~with ~~and~~the ~~was~~Trading ~~done~~Advisor, inrather ~~good~~it ~~faith~~permitted ~~and~~the inTrading aAdvisor ~~manner reasonably believed~~ to beterminate ~~in, or not opposed to,~~ the ~~best~~advisory ~~interests of the Partnership~~agreement. The ~~advisory~~relationships ~~agreements~~with ~~generally~~all ~~provide that the foregoing indemnified parties shall not be liable to the Partnership for actions or omissions within the scope~~ of the ~~standards~~Trading ~~set~~Advisors ~~forth~~were interminated ~~the~~effective ~~foregoing~~September 30, ~~indemnities~~2014.

Term. The advisory agreements will be automatically renewed for successive year periods, on the same terms, unless terminated by either the relevant Trading Advisor or the Partnership (or a subsidiary of the Partnership). In most instances, a Trading Advisor may terminate its advisory agreement if the equity in the Partnership’s account drops below a specified minimum amount as of the close of business on any day, among other reasons. The advisory agreements are terminable at the discretion of the General Partner.

Minimum Investment Maintenance Levels. The minimum investment maintenance levels with each Trading Advisor are as follows: Civic Capital Advisors LLC: none; Crabel Capital Management LLC: $1,000,000; Ellington Management Group, LLC: $10,000,000; G Capital Fund Management LLC: $25,000,000; QMS Capital Management LP: $20,000,000; Quantitative Investment Management-Global Program: none; Solaise Capital Management LLP: $10,000,000; and Winton Capital Management Limited: $1,000,000. A failure to maintain the minimum investment maintenance level does not result in an automatic termination of the agreement with the Trading Advisor, rather it permits the Trading Advisor to terminate the advisory agreement. The relationship with Capital Fund Management S.A. was terminated on April 24, 2014. The relationships with Abraham Trading LP and Blackwater Capital Management LLC were terminated on June 30, 2014.

Performance Summary and Net Asset Value Per Unit

MONTH-END NET ASSET VALUE PER SERIES F UNIT

	Jan.		Feb.		Mar.		Apr.		May		Jun.		Jul.		Aug.		Sep.
2013	$	230.35	$	227.16	$	227.07	$	228.51	$	219.45	$	213.44	$	212.92	$	207.80	$	206.55
2014	$	210.36	$	207.85	$	204.57	$	203.47	$	205.26	$	205.69	$	204.38	$	208.82	$	208.83

Set forth below is a list of the trading profit (loss) from each of the different Trading Advisors as measured at ~~June~~September 30, 2014, and 2013, which excludes the Partnership’s proportionate share of the operations of its Investments in the Non-Consolidated LLCs, which includes income and expenses.

Table of Contents

2014

Trading Advisors	Realized			Change in Unrealized			Brokerage Commissions and Clearing Costs			Total Trading Profit (Losses)
Abraham Trading LP (1)	$	~~223~~845,~~739~~120		$	~~150~~(490,~~177~~699	)	$	(6,~~492~~393	)	$	~~367~~348,~~424~~028
Blackwater Capital Management LLC (1)	~~496~~398,~~235~~545			(991,~~553~~815		)	(9,~~576~~549		)	387,~~106~~181
Capital Fund Management S.A.	~~105~~51,~~871~~256			(~~224~~169,~~087~~487		)	(8,~~608~~607		)	(126,~~824~~838		)
Crabel Capital Management LLC	709,080			(28,536		)	(202,436		)	478,108
Civic Capital Advisors LLC (2)	(31,775		)	(939,773		)	—			(971,548		)
Ellington Management Group, LLC	317,018			(26,514		)	(46,672		)	243,832
Crabel Capital Management LLC	1,060,886			31,281			(267,747		)	824,420
G Capital Fund Management LLC	1,027,017			121,000			(145,711		)	1,002,306
Ellington Management Group, LLC	480,123			7,796			(92,865		)	395,054
G Capital Fund Management LLC	1,728,990			30,975			(209,750		)	1,550,215
Higgs Capital Management LLP	220			—			(738		)	(518		)
Ortus Capital Management Ltd.	(76,146		)	76,767			—			621
Solaise Capital Management LLP	689,961			(388,105		)	(27,356		)	274,500
QMS Capital Management LP (2)	559,843			50,405			(5,636		)	604,612
Winton Capital Management Limited	781,925			(233,490		)	(6,458		)	541,977
Solaise Capital Management LLP	763,436			(613,735		)	(32,260		)	117,441
Total	$	4,274,920		$	(652,341	)	$	(454,047	)	$	3,168,532
Winton Capital Management Limited	1,155,839			(526,710		)	(8,195		)	620,934
Total	$	6,936,337		$	(2,544,995	)	$	(641,740	)	$	3,749,602

(1) Effective March 1, 2014, this is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Partnership.

~~The~~(2) Effective ~~weighted average Management Fee rate of the Trading Advisors based on allocations as of June~~September 301, 2014, ~~was~~this ~~1.21%~~is ~~and~~a ~~the~~wholly ~~weighted~~owned ~~average~~subsidiary ~~Profit Share was 20%. The range~~ of ~~Management Fees as of June 30, 2014 was 0% to 2.025% (annualized) and~~ the ~~range of Profit Shares was 15% to 30%~~Partnership.

The weighted average Management Fee rate of the Trading Advisors based on allocations as of September 30, 2014 was 1.21% and the weighted average Profit Share was 20%. The range of Management Fees as of September 30, 2014 was 0% to 2.025% (annualized) and the range of Profit Shares was 15% to 30%.

Table of Contents

2013

Trading Advisors

Realized

Change in Unrealized

Brokerage Commissions and Clearing Costs

Total Trading Profit (Losses)

Capital Fund Management S.A.

(~~709~~1,~~836~~431,402

)

~~492~~302,~~817~~236

(5770,~~675~~211

)

(~~274~~1,~~694~~199,377

)

Crabel Capital Management LLC

(~~498~~3,~~220~~297,632

)

(~~364~~508,~~542~~959

)

(~~277~~472,~~571~~769

)

(14,~~140~~279,~~333~~360

)

G Capital Fund Management LLC

~~(182~~25,~~778~~490

)

~~(921~~169,~~591~~244

)

(5394,~~491~~189

)

(1100,~~157,860~~545

)

Higgs Capital Management LLP

~~(375~~430,~~770~~625

)

~~749~~506,~~764~~479

(63100,~~591~~163

)

~~310~~836,~~403~~941

Ortus Capital Management Ltd.

(45,~~724~~058,~~103~~602

)

2,~~066~~401,~~040~~126

—

(2,~~658~~657,~~063~~476

)

Solaise Capital Management LLP

(~~493~~353,~~599~~707

)

~~(23~~47,~~634~~790

)

(3036,~~080~~616

)

(~~547~~342,~~313~~533

)

Winton Capital Management Limited

1862,~~183,549~~702

(~~141~~51,~~458~~109

)

(1015,~~489~~109

)

1796,~~031,602~~484

Total

(58,~~800~~822,~~757~~526

)

12,~~857~~866,~~396~~807

(~~492~~789,~~897~~057

)

(46,~~436~~744,~~258~~776

)

The weighted average Management Fee rate of the Trading Advisors based on allocations as of ~~June~~September 30, 2013 was 1.3933% and the weighted average Profit Share was 2120%. The range of Management Fees as of ~~June~~September 30, 2013 was 0% to 2% (annualized) and the range of Profit Shares was 1510% to 30%.

Performance Summary - Results of Trading

January 1, 2014 to ~~June~~September 30, 2014

January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014

Directional Trading Advisors continued to experience a difficult trading environment in the first quarter, but worked to generate roughly flat performance over the period.

Equity-based trading was the leading detractor by strategy, particularly early in the period. Select equity markets declined in symphony with sharp sell-offs in the emerging markets early in the quarter, leading to losses for Trading Advisors with long-equity biases in developing markets. Most notably, long positions in Japan’s Nikkei and TOPIX indices declined as investors moved to take profits from last year’s gains on concerns over disappointing manufacturing and export data from China, volatility in the emerging markets, as well as in anticipation of the new consumption tax to be enacted in April. Short positions in Australian equity exposure also detracted, as local markets rallied on better-than-expected economic data and benefited from the flight-to-quality from emerging markets.

Metals was another strategy generally contributing losses. Trading Advisors with longer-term models noting the substantial decline in precious metals during 2013 came into the year short gold and silver, but a sharp reversal in February generated losses for short positions. The sharp increase was attributed in part to reports of resurging demand for gold in China and India. Trading Advisors adjusting their portfolio toward a longer bias in response were hurt again as both gold and silver sold back down to near previous levels over the course of March, primarily on profit-taking after a cool-down of potential hostilities surrounding Crimea, as well as from a further deceleration of the U.S. Federal Reserve (the “Fed”)’s tapering program.

Table of Contents

~~positions~~March. Notably, over the quarter, periods of cold weather in ~~Australian~~the ~~equity~~U.S. ~~exposure~~created ~~also~~a ~~detracted~~volatile environment for natural gas prices, asand ~~local~~long ~~markets~~gas ~~rallied~~positions onwere ~~better-than-expected~~aided ~~economic~~by ~~data~~several ~~and~~large ~~benefited~~price ~~from~~spikes during the ~~flight-~~quarter, helping to~~-quality~~ ~~from~~reduce ~~emerging~~overall ~~markets~~losses, but Trading Advisors slow to sell during these spikes saw little benefit as prices quickly regressed back to previous pricing levels.

Energy-based holdings also detracted slightly. Trading Advisors with net short positioning in crude and Brent crude oil early in the quarter were initially hurt by strong demand for fuels driven by record cold temperatures across much of the U.S. These losses were somewhat offset as Trading Advisors switched to a net long positioning in February, and benefited from further appreciation in energy prices, but a normalization in pricing in March as the cold weather broke again generally created losses again in March. Notably, over the quarter, periods of cold weather in the U.S. created a volatile environment for natural gas prices, and long gas positions were aided by several large price spikes during the quarter, helping to reduce overall losses, but Trading Advisors slow to sell during these spikes saw little benefit as prices quickly regressed back to previous pricing levels.

On the positive side, fixed income rates trading was one of the most additive strategies during the period, as rate levels oscillated on developing news during the quarter. More generally, net long positioning benefited performance as global sovereign yields continued to be under pressure from demand by yield hungry investors, as well as from defensive investors seeking shelter from recent emerging market volatility. Further trading opportunities were generated by misinterpreted comments by new Fed Chair Janet Yellen, who later clarified to investors that interest rates are expected to remain low for still some time. Low Eurozone growth and the potential for Eurozone deflation continued to also be a driver of uncertainty, fueling calls for more aggressive policy action. Long positioning in Europe and Japan benefited from a flight-to-quality in January, and continued strong demand for yield was supportive for much of the rest of the quarter.

Currency and agriculture holdings also contributed modestly during the quarter. In foreign exchange activity, gains in long euro and U.K. pound sterling positions were offset somewhat by losses in short Japanese yen. Long-term momentum models following the yen’s systematic devaluation over the course of last year were caught wrong-footed by a reversal generated in part by inflows from regional emerging markets. Trading Advisors have significantly increased long euro positions, while simultaneously increasing short exposure to U.S. dollar, Australian dollar and the U.K. pound sterling. Despite year-to-date appreciation, short Japanese yen exposure continues to be a common position amongst underlying Trading Advisors.

In agricultural commodities, long positions have been concentrated in soybeans, cocoa and hogs, while common short exposures include wheat and sugar. Hog prices spiked in February as a swine virus sparked a U.S. nationwide epidemic estimated to have killed a material proportion of the annual hog supply put up for sale. Soybean prices also continued to show strong upward momentum as many of the top soybean-producing countries faced unusually dry weather.

Table of Contents

April 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014

Directional trading performance varied by Trading Advisor during the second quarter, but in aggregate earned overall gains for the period.

Fixed income rates trading was again the top contributing strategy for the quarter. Amid news of improving economic activity, and the prospects of the end of quantitative easing in 2014 and future Fed rate hikes beginning in 2015, the U.S. yield curve reacted by flattening across various maturities as front-end rates sold off relative to back-end yields. Similarly, the Bank of England Governor Mark Carney’s comments that the Monetary Policy Committee’s initial rate hike “could happen sooner than markets currently expect” caused U.K. front-end yields to sell off while longer-duration rates rallied. In contrast, the European Central Bank (“ECB”) moved decisively in the other direction, seeking further cuts in the Bank’s main policy rates and further extension of fixed rate refinancing operations to boost bank lending. Trading Advisors generally maintained long exposure to bonds across most geographies, particularly in ten-year U.S. Treasury bonds, Japanese government bonds, and U.K. gilts. Consequently, they were relatively well-positioned for a rate environment that continued to build expectations consistent with slow but positive economic growth.

Equity-based strategies were also a key contributor for the period, as major equity indices generally rallied for the period. Across most regions, signs of positive economic momentum were rewarded by increasingly optimistic investors, driving robust long-side equity gains. Strong gains in U.S. employment throughout the quarter helped to improve investor moods after revised first quarter Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) data came in weaker than expected. Europe continue to show barely positive growth, but the ECB’s aggressive stimulus action helped to discourage deflationary fears and demonstrate the ECB’s commitment to economic recovery. In Japan, markets cheered that the negative impact of its new consumption tax was less than expected, particularly helping consumer-driven stocks. Again, Trading Advisors benefited from an accumulated long bias in most geographic regions as markets marched higher. Gains were led by long-biased exposures to developed European indices, select U.S. indices and the Hong Kong-based Hang Seng Index.

Table of Contents

throughout the quarter helped to improve investor moods after revised first quarter Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) data came in weaker than expected. Europe continue to show barely positive growth, but the ECB’s aggressive stimulus action helped to discourage deflationary fears and demonstrate the ECB’s commitment to economic recovery. In Japan, markets cheered that the negative impact of its new consumption tax was less than expected, particularly helping consumer-driven stocks. Again, Trading Advisors benefited from an accumulated long bias in most geographic regions as markets marched higher. Gains were led by long-biased exposures to developed European indices, select U.S. indices and the Hong Kong-based Hang Seng Index.

Net long exposure to select energy commodities, both crude and refined products, were also a modest net benefit to performance. Fuel prices were generally pressured upwards in May and June in part due to rising escalations in the Middle East, as well as from continuing conflict in the Ukraine and Crimea, which largely serves as a major distribution point for Russian energy exports.

Results from currency-related strategies were relatively mixed, but slightly positive in aggregate. On a net basis, exposure to currency strategies continued to be relatively muted, but position exposures (both long and short) varied widely by Trading Advisor. Common positions during the period included long exposure to the euro, the U.K. pound sterling, and the Australian dollar. The U.K. pound sterling helped to lead contributors, while the euro was among notable detractors.

Performance from physical commodities was also mixed for the period, with strong early gains from long positioning in corn and soybeans almost nearly offset by double-digit reversals later in the quarter as growing conditions in the U.S. and Europe turned more favorable in June.

Finally, the metals strategy generated slight losses for the quarter. Exposure to metals, both industrial and precious metals, started the quarter relatively flat, but evolved into a net short position in May as recent weakness in China’s Purchasing Managers Index pressured metals prices, and attracted the attention of select trend-following models. This short positioning was initially a benefit, but lost ground as precious metals and copper prices rallied later in the quarter.

July 1, 2014 to September 30, 2014

In aggregate, directional trading strategies generated positive performance during the third quarter, though returns varied by Trading Advisor and strategy.

Fixed income trading was once more the top-performing strategy for the quarter. The period was marked by bouts of notable volatility, driven by a re-emergence of headline risks, including geopolitical concerns across the Middle East, deflationary trends in Europe, a slowing China, and the potential for rising U.S. rates. These headlines have also served to potentially generate stronger tides of technical flows, creating meaningful trading opportunities for rates-based strategies. For the quarter, much of the strongest performance for the strategy occurred in August, where long ten-year Treasury and German bund exposures benefited from a sharp upward reversal in bond prices as weak U.S. employment data pushed out the expected timing for rate hikes, and as weak growth and geopolitical conflicts in Europe attracted overseas dollars.

Equity strategies took a relatively volatile path during the period, but generally finished the quarter positively overall. In July, long-biased equity exposures enjoyed strong performance until the final day of the month, as better-than-expected U.S. GDP figures sparked sharp short-term losses, where some discretionary macro Trading Advisors were able to take opportunity from lower prices. Trading Advisors again continued to maintain long exposures throughout a robust August and September in markets backed by strong earnings, but overall gains were reduced to some degree in the final days of September as investors again focused on the potential for rising U.S. interest rates.

Agriculture-based strategies generated moderate gains for the quarter. Soybean and corn markets saw particularly sharp declines during the period, each falling by over a third as U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) reports appeared to imply a substantial shift away from the previous environment of tight supplies and strong global demand. Some Trading Advisors with short- and intermediate-term

Table of Contents

~~January 1~~momentum models were able to take advantage of this erosion across grains, ~~2013~~utilizing short exposures to ~~June 30~~generate gains. However, ~~2013~~longer-term models, remaining long due to strength in grains before the quarter, tended to lose ground for other Trading Advisors. Meanwhile, long exposures to coffee were generally profitable, while holdings in cattle and cocoa were mixed.

Returns from the metals complex were relatively flat for the period, despite broad declines in both precious metals and industrial metals prices. Base metals prices sharply declined over much of the quarter, weakened by U.S. dollar strength and slowing Chinese industrial demand. Copper prices fell approximately 8% from its early-July peak through quarter-end, while nickel fell over 16%. While shorter-term trend-following models were able to catch this consistent weakening over the quarter, some discretionary macro Trading Advisors, with a more constructive forward-looking view of supply and demand in select base metals, lost ground in the strategy during the period. Precious metals, including silver, gold and palladium, saw similarly sharp declines over the quarter.

Energy trading generally detracted for Trading Advisors during the period. Trading Advisors were generally net long the energy complex amid ongoing price declines in benchmark crude oil, Brent crude, and natural gas spot prices. Recent weakness appears to be driven by in part by weakening global demand, as well as an increase in supply due to growth in U.S. Midwest production, and a lack of responsiveness by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”) members to support prices. As a result, West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices dropped over 13%, from $105 per barrel at the end of the second quarter, to $91 per barrel in September (and extending to lows below $80 per barrel October).

Currency trading was the largest detractor for the quarter. The strengthening U.S. dollar was generally a contributor to gains early in the quarter, but drove losses in September, particularly against currencies whose monetary policies are expected to significantly diverge from the U.S. (such as Europe and Japan), or currencies particularly sensitive to falling commodity prices (such as Australia, or much of South America). Over the period, Trading Advisors in aggregate reduced their net long exposure to the U.S. dollar against a number of currencies, and some entered September significantly net short. While the rotation away from the long side eventually gained ground subsequent to quarter-end, the move proved to be somewhat early, generating losses in September. Meanwhile, trades in the U.K. pound sterling and the Japanese yen also contributed to late-period losses.

January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013

January 1, 2013 to March 31, 2013

The first quarter of 2013 started strong for most markets, as improving U.S. economic data and aggressive economic actions in Japan helped investors shake off the broader political dramas in the U.S. and Europe. In early January, U.S. policymakers appeared to find enough middle ground to prevent a fiscal “hard stop” to the economy, though ideological divides within Congress continue to encourage future policy uncertainty. Meanwhile, Japan’s policymakers promoted an aggressive challenge to its long-deflated economy, resulting in material declines in the yen against most major currencies, and broad market rallies. In early April, the Bank of Japan followed through on its earlier rhetoric, announcing a new quantitative easing program that targets a near-doubling of Japan’s money supply.

European developments were grimmer. Economic data remained weak throughout the Eurozone, with unemployment rising through February and real fourth quarter GDP declining, according to the ECB. Furthermore, when European monetary authorities balked at a full bailout for insolvent Cypriot banks, Cyprus responded by implementing a “bail-in” (effectively a 40% tax on all deposits at Cyprus banks over €100,000), a two-week bank holiday and strict capital controls to prevent bank runs. These controversial measures instilled little investor confidence, and served as a reminder of ongoing regional challenges.

Table of Contents

Foreign exchange strategies were generally additive to Partnership performance for the quarter. The Japanese yen weakened as Prime Minister Abe aggressively advocated further monetary easing, placing pressure on the Bank of Japan to implement a substantial quantitative easing program. Further, the U.S. dollar continued to strengthen on the back of successful quantitative easing implementation and eased inflation fears stemming from comments from the Fed. The euro struggled late in the quarter against the U.S. dollar and most developed Asian currencies on uncertainty around the banking crisis that unfolded in Cyprus, reigniting familiar concerns about the instability of the European Union.

Equity trading was somewhat mixed for most of the quarter, but late-period gains helped the strategy add to overall performance. U.S. equity indices drove significant positive returns in March. U.S. equity markets continued their strong performance in 2013 with optimism returning to markets despite tepid International Monetary Fund estimates for annual U.S. GDP growth. European equities were volatile over the period on increased political concerns, seeing numerous swings that benefited mean reversion models, but frustrated momentum approaches. Short Asian equity positions detracted however, with Japanese equities in particular posting strong performance.

Fixed income activity experienced varying results during the period. Early in the quarter, bond price reversals in key markets created a difficult environment for momentum-based models, particularly in U.S. and European rates, with non-U.S. rates being the most significantly detracting sector within the fixed income portfolio. In Europe, yields declined significantly after the ECB announced the backing of bond markets; Spanish bond yields fell materially on the news. Italian bonds rallied early in February, but gave back gains late in the month as national elections spurred concerns of renewed political turmoil. In March, fallout from Cyprus caused spikes in European sovereign interest rates with investors moving to safety assets in the form of U.S. Treasuries. Ten-year U.S. Treasury interest rates spiked in early March to around 2.1%, but after the events in Cyprus rates substantially retreated to below 1.8% at month-end.

Metal holdings were mixed for the quarter. Gold prices were initially trendless amid somewhat volatile trading, but fell sharply in February as investors demonstrated a flight from quality amid domestic and global growth. Along much of the same theme, short positions in industrial metals lost ground as prices generally appreciated mid-quarter, but regained some performance as prices later slumped on rising production and fears of deceleration in China.

Table of Contents

generally appreciated mid-quarter, but regained some performance as prices later slumped on rising production and fears of deceleration in China.

Agricultural holdings detracted for the most part, particularly hurting momentum-based Trading Advisors given several reversals in a number of commodities. Broader agricultural prices were generally up on increased estimates of global demand and drought-reduced stockpiles in January, initially hurting core short positions. As Trading Advisors shifted to a longer net exposure later in the quarter, several key commodities saw declines, including corn prices, which fell on increased planting; soybeans, which fell on news of increased stockpiles; and wheat, which declined as Midwest storms eased ongoing fears of drought. Momentum Trading Advisors in these commodities were again frustrated late in the quarter, as prices slowly built-up, only to experience sharp sell-offs in the last days of the quarter.

Energy trading was among the largest detractors for the quarter. Trading Advisors were generally positioned short early in the quarter, but much of the energy complex, including crude oil and natural gas, saw price growth on continued global growth and inventory declines. As Trading Advisors shifted their exposures, prices declined - crude oil positions were hit especially hard in February and March amid rising oil supplies and news that U.S. output reached 20-year highs.

Table of Contents

April 1, 2013 to June 30, 2013

The second quarter of 2013 featured a challenging market environment for most directional Trading Advisors. Within the U.S., economic improvement has become more apparent, and as a result, investors have become increasingly anxious over the potential for the Fed to reverse course in its $85 billion/month asset-purchasing program. Late in the quarter, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke alluded to intentions to begin tapering the central bank’s purchases at some point over the next several quarters if the economy continues to improve as expected. As a result of the announcement, stocks sold-off (offsetting much of early-quarter gains) and market interest rates saw notable climbs.

Japanese markets continued to closely follow the progress of the Bank of Japan’s aggressive policy initiatives, with a rapidly weakening yen and a strengthening stock market fueled by a commitment to expand its monetary base, open up trade and overhaul uncompetitive industries, as well institute structural reforms. Details on the last of these initiatives, structural reforms, were received poorly by the markets in early June, driving unwinds that drove sharp corrections in equities and the yen. Events in Europe were relatively quiet in comparison. A lack of emergent financial crises provided European authorities with some breathing room to further develop policy, but economic, political and structural challenges remain significant for promoting substantially greater stability in the region.

Foreign exchange holdings were a significant detractor from the Partnership’s performance during the quarter. Early in the period, exposure to the U.S. dollar declined against several major currencies, as the Fed failed to indicate any near-term end to its quantitative easing (“QE”) program. The continuation of the Japanese government’s strong pro-growth “Abenomics” policies also drove the yen to recent lows. However, later in the quarter, accumulated momentum-based long holdings in the Indian rupee, British pound and the euro added to losses as the U.S. dollar reversed and substantially strengthened on news of the potential tapering of the Fed’s open-ended QE program, and short yen holdings lost ground as new structural reform policy initiatives were poorly received by investors.

Results driven by fixed income activity was volatile, but ultimately detracted over the course of the quarter. The strategy was one of the largest winners early in the quarter. Gains from long U.S. based fixed income exposures were driven by expectations of a potentially extended QE regime, as the 10-year Treasury moved to near lows for the year. However, those gains were generally offset later in the period, hampered by initial remarks from the Fed regarding a potential “tapering” of its $85 billion in monthly bond purchases, which caused 10-year Treasury yields to jump from 1.65% at the beginning of May to above 2.5% by the end of June. Reversals in select Japanese and European fixed income markets also proved to be challenging for momentum-based Trading Advisors during the quarter.

Table of Contents

hampered by initial remarks from the Fed regarding a potential “tapering” of its $85 billion in monthly bond purchases, which caused 10-year Treasury yields to jump from 1.65% at the beginning of May to above 2.5% by the end of June. Reversals in select Japanese and European fixed income markets also proved to be challenging for momentum-based Trading Advisors during the quarter.

Performance in the agricultural sector also varied substantially over the second quarter. Short exposure to select grain commodities drove the majority of early period losses, as grain prices rallied on cold, dry weather in the mid-western U.S. that damaged a substantial amount of U.S. grain crops, and as corn prices rose on a rapidly depleting 2012 inventory. Gains in May helped to mitigate some of these early losses, helped in part by soybeans that had their largest price rally since March driven by increased demand from China, as well as falling lumber prices, which had its largest decline in 17 months as U.S. lumber mills increased output while at the same time stockpiles of lumber rose. Late-quarter returns were largely mixed, with reversing prices in soybeans offsetting advances from coffee and wheat.

Equity-based holdings generated mixed results. April gains were helped by momentum in European and Asian indices, while developing and U.S. markets detracted slightly. The S&P 500 Index reached an all-time high as U.S. economic data continue to produce promising economic numbers, and European markets rose nearly 6% on expectations of accommodative policy from the ECB and waning uncertainty related to Cyprus. The Nikkei 225 continued the strong year-to-date run, finishing the month up over 10%. Mid-quarter, however, sharp reversals in Japanese stock indices were a driver of losses in the second half of May. Similarly, early S&P 500 Index gains in May erased by a sell-off near the end of the month, drove losses for momentum-based Trading Advisors. Losses continued at the end of the quarter, most prominently affected by holdings in the German DAX, the S&P 500, and the Hang Seng indices.

Table of Contents

related to Cyprus. The Nikkei 225 continued the strong year-to-date run, finishing the month up over 10%. Mid-quarter, however, sharp reversals in Japanese stock indices were a driver of losses in the second half of May. Similarly, early S&P 500 Index gains in May erased by a sell-off near the end of the month, drove losses for momentum-based Trading Advisors. Losses continued at the end of the quarter, most prominently affected by holdings in the German DAX, the S&P 500, and the Hang Seng indices.

Returns from the Partnership’s energy holdings were modestly positive for the period. The energy strategy produced gains for certain Trading Advisors in April as fuel prices continued to be negatively affected by increasing inventories driven by the U.S. oil and shale gas revolution, as well as a major U.S. refinery that temporarily closed, leading to an additional crude stockpile buildup. These gains were mitigated somewhat later in the quarter, particularly in long positions in refined oil and West Texas Intermediate in response to China’s manufacturing numbers unexpectedly contracting for the first time in seven months, as well as from a growing divergence between West Texas Intermediate crude oil and Brent crude oil.

Physical metals were generally the largest positive contributor for the Partnership, with short positions in precious and base metal sub-sectors both generally providing gains. Zinc, copper, and aluminum initially led industrial metal losers as expectations of GDP growth in China softened. Gold prices decreased throughout the quarter, with prices seeing sharp drops in April and June. Copper prices also saw substantial declines throughout the quarter due to decreased demand from Chinese manufacturers, a trend that has been in place since early 2013.

July 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013

For much of the third quarter of 2013, U.S. investors and financial media were focused on the Fed and its anticipated decision to potentially decelerate its ongoing QE program. However, the Fed surprised industry observers by maintaining the program unabated. Meanwhile, throughout the quarter, developments in Syria grabbed headlines over the growing threat of a U.S. military response to Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons in the region. Rallies associated with a potential diplomatic solution between the U.S. and Syria, and the Fed’s decision not to taper generally cemented gains for most broad U.S. equity and credit indices for the quarter.

In Europe, both credit and equity markets broadly rallied on growing investor confidence that the region has moved past the worst point of its recession. The victory of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Party in the recent election was also cheered by investors as a sign of popular support for Europe’s current policy mix. In Japan, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s suite of economic policies continued to drive positive progress, including a 3.7% annualized GDP growth for the second quarter, the highest among G7 nations. Meanwhile, fears of an economic slowdown in China seem to be dissipating, driving strong equity gains in China and Korea. However, Indonesian markets notably suffered as local policymakers raised interest rates in an effort to contain accelerating inflation.

Physical metals were among the largest detractors from performance for the quarter. Trading Advisors remained short most of the metal complex throughout most of the quarter, experiencing notable early losses in gold, platinum and copper positions. Gold prices were particularly troublesome, as short momentum positions built up over a nearly 25% price decline in the first half of the year were met with rising gold prices in July and August, which again reversed in September as momentum models began to once again build long exposures.

Returns from the Partnership’s energy holdings were positive in July and August, but these gains were more than offset by losses in September. Early gains were mainly driven by positions in long crude oil

Table of Contents

and refined products, with the run-up in crude prices primarily driven by the recent Syrian conflict, and other political tensions in the Middle East. However, by September, sharp reversals in prices across all petroleum-based products drove later-period losses, led by a substantial sell-off in crude oil in the last two weeks of the month. Overall, following the recent trend reversals after price peaks in early September in the energy complex, Trading Advisors have worked to reduce their exposure to both crude and refined products, but continue to have sizeable long exposure to other petroleum-based products.

Foreign exchange holdings were also substantial detractors from results. Trading Advisors had been shifting allocations to the U.S. dollar throughout the quarter - exposure evolved from generally short in June to long in August to short again in September. However, the U.S. dollar declined fairly consistently over the quarter, driving early losses and slight gains later in the period. In general, quarter-end exposure is concentrated in G7 currencies, as Trading Advisors reduced exposure to emerging currency positions during August as strong flows out of emerging markets put substantial pressures on emerging market currencies.

Fixed income and rates positions experienced consistent losses for the period as well. U.S. bond markets continued to experience substantial amounts of volatility surrounding the Fed’s tapering decision and the U.S. debt ceiling debates. Amid this uncertainty, fixed income securities have experienced substantial repricings since mid-May related to anticipated policy changes, and yields have moved substantially higher over a relatively short period of time. As a result, by mid-quarter, few Trading Advisors were taking substantial positions in short-term rates positions. By quarter-end, exposure remains diversified across most geographies and tenors, and rates exposure is nearly flat in terms of directional duration bets.

Equity-based activity was a positive contributing strategy for this quarter. Stock index trading generated robust gains, sourced across a number of long positions. In particular, exposure to European stocks were strong source of returns, as European stock indices posted substantial gains on renewed economic confidence in the region. Generally, Trading Advisors increased long exposures to U.S. and European equity markets, which has been beneficial as equities continued their year-long trend toward higher prices and lower correlation with other macro asset classes. This is congruent with ongoing market dynamics in which European and developed market stocks have seen inflows from emerging markets.

Trading in the agricultural sector was beneficial to performance. Broadly, Trading Advisors have been maintaining an aggregate short exposure to many agriculture segments during the quarter, with the largest short positions generally in corn, wheat, and coffee by quarter-end. Sharp declines in corn prices in July and September driven by high reported production were particularly helpful to returns, as was a relatively consistent erosion of coffee prices during the quarter.

Performance Summary — Factors Affecting Interest Income and Expenses

Cash held in accounts at the Clearing Brokers and The Bank of New York Mellon ~~earns~~earned interest on all such assets which ~~are~~were not used for trading. For the periods presented subsequent to May 1, 2011, all dollar amounts for interest income and expenses exclude those indirectly related to the Partnership’s investments in Non-Consolidated LLCs. However, each Non-Consolidated LLC ~~has~~had similar interest income and expense arrangements as the Partnership overall. The continued level of interest rates in 2014 in the U.S. negatively impacted interest income revenues. The Partnership estimates that approximately 8498% of its assets are earning interest. For the ~~six~~nine and three months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2014, the Partnership earned $34,~~753~~528 and $~~351~~775, respectively, in interest income, or approximately 0.00% and 0.00% (both round to less than 0.01%), respectively, of the Partnership’s average month-end net assets. For the nine and three months ended September 30, 2013, the Partnership earned $59,502 and $6,992, respectively, in interest income, or approximately 0.03% and 0.00% (rounds to less than 0.01%),

3436

Table of Contents

~~0.00%,~~ respectively, of the Partnership’s average month-end ~~net~~ assets. For the six and three months ended June 30, 2013, the Partnership earned $52,510 and $19,959, respectively, in interest income, or approximately 0.02% and 0.01% of the Partnership’s average month-end assets. The average interest rates for the ~~six~~nine and three months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2014 were 0.00% and 0.00% (both round to less than 0.01%), respectively. The average interest rates for the ~~six~~nine and three months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2013 were 0.0504% and 0.0402%, respectively.

The overall expenses of the Partnership (excluding Profit Shares) generally ~~vary~~varied with changes in net assets. As such, expenses that vary with net assets ~~are~~were lower as of ~~June~~September 30, 2014 when compared to the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2013. For the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2014, distribution fees, ~~Trading~~Management ~~Advisors’~~Fees ~~management fees~~ and Sponsor fees decreased approximately 5456%, when compared to the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2013. Profit Shares increased for the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2014, when compared to the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2013 primarily due to the Partnership’s higher profitability and also more profitable Trading Advisors.

The distribution fee iswas paid to the General Partner, who will then pay the distribution fee to the third-party selling agents, if any. Such selling agents in turn may use cash funds to compensate financial advisors and/or to cover the costs of supporting client accounts within the third party organization. If there are no payments to third-party selling agents with respect to a particular investor, the distribution fee will be returned by the General Partner or paid to an affiliate. Management ~~fees~~Fees ~~are~~were paid to the Trading Advisors. Sponsor fees ~~are~~were paid to the General Partner.

Liquidity; Capital Resources

The Partnership ~~may~~could ~~borrow~~have borrowed only to a limited extent and only on a strictly short-term basis in order to finance losses on non-U.S. dollar denominated trading positions pending the conversion of the Partnership’s U.S. dollar deposits. Any borrowings would behave been at a prevailing short-term rate in the relevant currency. There have been no borrowings to date.

A significant portion of the Partnership’s assets are currently held in cash. The Net Asset Value of the Partnership’s cash iswas not affected by inflation. However, changes in interest rates could ~~cause~~have caused periods of strong up or down price trends. Inflation in commodity prices could have also ~~generate~~generated price movements.

With respect to assets allocated primarily to managed accounts rather than Portfolio Funds, except in unusual circumstances, the Partnership ~~should~~could behave been able to close out of its open trading positions and liquidate its securities holdings quickly and at market prices. This ~~should~~permitted ~~permit~~ a Trading Advisor to seek to limit losses as well as reduce market exposure on short notice should its strategies indicate doing so. In addition, because there generally iswas a readily available market value for the Partnership’s positions and assets not allocated to Portfolio Funds, payment of redemption proceeds from the Partnership ~~will~~would generally be made approximately ten days following the Redemption Date, although there ~~can~~was be no assurance as to the timing of such payments.

Although the Partnership ~~has~~had not done so to date, the Partnership ~~may~~could ~~allocate~~have allocated assets to Portfolio Funds which typically ~~are~~were subject to redemption restrictions which may ~~include~~have included advance written notice for redemptions, monthly or quarterly redemptions and such Portfolio Fund’s ability to limit or suspend redemptions. Certain Trading Advisors accounts ~~may~~could have also ~~require~~required advance notice to liquidate positions. In those instances in which such notice iswas required by a Trading Advisor, the notice period does not exceed 90 days.

35Most U.S. exchanges (but generally not foreign exchanges, or banks, or broker-dealer firms in the case of foreign currency forward contracts) limit, by regulation, the amount of fluctuation limits. The daily limits

Table of Contents

Most U.S. exchanges (but generally not foreign exchanges, or banks, or broker-dealer firms in the case of foreign currency forward contracts) limit, by regulation, the amount of fluctuation limits. The daily limits establish the maximum amount the price of a futures contract may vary either up or down from the previous day’s settlement price at the end of the trading session. Once the “daily limit” has been reached in a particular commodity, no trades may be made at a price beyond the limit. Positions in the commodity can then be taken or liquidated only if traders are willing to effect trades at or within the limit during the period for trading on such day. Because the “daily limit” rule only governs price movement for a particular trading day, it does not limit losses. The rule may, in fact, substantially increase losses because it may prevent the liquidation of unfavorable positions. Futures prices have occasionally moved the daily limit for several consecutive trading days, and thereby prevented prompt liquidation of futures positions on one side of the market, subjecting those futures traders involved to substantial losses.

Liquidity ~~will~~could behave been of concern to the Partnership primarily in that the futures markets in which the Trading Advisors ~~take~~could have taken positions that may have had periods in which illiquidity ~~makes~~made it impossible or economically undesirable to execute trades which its respective trading strategy would have otherwise ~~suggest~~suggested. Other than in respect of the functioning of the markets in which it trades, liquidity ~~will~~was be of little relevance.

The Partnership has not made any investments in Portfolio Funds to date so it has not had to raise funds from Portfolio Funds. Instead, the Partnership pays its redemptions with the cash held in its various operating accounts. Due to the nature of its futures trading, the Partnership ~~has~~had significant amounts of cash available to it. When it ~~needs~~needed to fund redemptions, the General Partner ~~anticipates~~adjusted ~~that it will adjust~~ the net assets allocated to the Partnership’s various Trading Advisors as appropriate based upon its asset allocation process. The individual Trading Advisors ~~decide~~decided which trading positions to liquidate in the accounts they ~~manage~~managed, when necessary. To date the Partnership has been able to satisfy all of its redemption requests in a timely manner~~, although no assurances can be given that it will be able to do so in the future~~.

There were no material commitments for capital expenditures as of ~~June~~September 30, 2014, the end of the most recent reporting period.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

The Partnership ~~does~~did not engage in off-balance sheet arrangements with other entities and ~~has~~had not utilized, ~~nor does it expect to utilize in the future,~~ special purpose entities to facilitate off-balance sheet financing arrangements and ~~has~~had no loan guarantee arrangements.

Contractual Obligations

The Partnership ~~does~~did not enter into contractual obligations or commercial commitments to make future payments of a type that ~~would~~were be typical for an operating company or that ~~would~~could ~~affect~~have affected its liquidity or capital resources. The Partnership’s sole business iswas trading futures, forward and option contracts, both long and short. The Partnership ~~may~~could have also ~~engage~~engaged in trading derivatives. The Partnership’s consolidated financial statements present the Condensed Consolidated Schedules of Investments setting forth net unrealized profit (loss) of the Partnership’s open futures, forward and options contracts at ~~June~~September 30, 2014.

Table of Contents

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

Quantifying the Partnership’s Trading Value at Risk

Quantitative Forward-Looking Statements

The following quantitative disclosures regarding the Partnership’s market risk exposures contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor from civil liability provided for such statements by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (set forth in Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act). All quantitative disclosures in this section are deemed to be forward-looking statements for purposes of the safe harbor, except for statements of historical fact.

Table of Contents

Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act). All quantitative disclosures in this section are deemed to be forward-looking statements for purposes of the safe harbor, except for statements of historical fact.

The Partnership’s risk exposure in the various market sectors traded by the Trading Advisors is quantified below in terms of Value at Risk. Due to the Partnership’s mark-to-market accounting, any loss in the fair value of the Partnership’s open positions is directly reflected in the Partnership’s earnings (realized or unrealized) and cash flows (at least in the case of exchange-traded contracts in which profits and losses on open positions are settled daily through variation margin).

Exchange maintenance margin requirements have been used by the Partnership as the measure of its Value at Risk. Maintenance margin requirements are set by exchanges to equal or exceed the maximum loss in the fair value of any given contract incurred in 95% - 99% of the one-day time periods included in the historical sample (generally approximately one year) researched for purposes of establishing margin levels. Maintenance margin levels are established by dealers and exchanges using historical price studies, as well as an assessment of current market volatility and economic fundamentals, to provide a probabilistic estimate of the maximum expected near-term one-day price fluctuation.

In the case of market sensitive instruments which are not exchange-traded (almost exclusively currencies in the case of the Partnership), the margin requirements for the equivalent futures positions have been used as Value at Risk. In those rare cases in which a futures-equivalent margin is not available, dealers’ margins have been used.

The fair value of the Partnership’s futures and forward positions does not have any optionality component. However, certain of the Trading Advisors ~~trade~~traded commodity options. The Value at Risk associated with options is reflected in the following table as the margin requirement attributable to the instrument underlying each option.

In quantifying the Partnership’s Value at Risk, 100% positive correlation in the different positions held in each market risk category has been assumed. Consequently, the margin requirements applicable to the open contracts have been aggregated to determine each trading category’s aggregate Value at Risk. The diversification effects resulting from the fact that the Partnership’s positions are rarely, if ever, 100% positively correlated, have not been reflected.

3739

Table of Contents

The Partnership’s Trading Value at Risk in Different Market Sectors

The measurement of the Partnership’s Trading Value at Risk is based upon the margin requirements imposed upon the Partnership for the positions it maintains across the various market sectors it invests in, which are calculated for each of its clearing accounts. The Partnership’s margin requirements are then allocated across the various market sectors disclosed in the table based upon the relative size of the positions held in each sector. The Partnership’s disclosure does not attempt to reduce this exposure based upon any assumptions on the correlation of positions held across the different clearing accounts to each other. The following table indicates the average, highest and lowest trading Value at Risk associated with the Partnership’s open positions by market category for the quarterly periods ended ~~June~~September 30, 2014 and ~~June~~September 30, 2013. During these periods, the Partnership’s average capitalization, excluding the Partnership’s investments in the Non-Consolidated LLCs, were $7346,~~627~~691,~~910~~190 and $~~149~~112,~~388~~670,~~333~~526 respectively.

	As of June 30, 2014
	As of September 30, 2014
	Average		% of Average		Highest Value		Lowest Value
Market Sector	Value at Risk		Capitalization		At Risk		At Risk
Agriculture	$	~~341~~9,~~287~~653	0.4602	%	$	~~485~~14,~~843~~960	$	~~219,053~~—
Currencies	21,~~887~~244,~~674~~540		32.9267	%	41,~~015~~536,~~907~~682		2952,~~195,937~~624
Energy	~~286~~210,~~482~~314		0.3945	%	~~478~~446,~~857~~820		~~124,824~~—
Interest rates	84,~~514~~756,~~174~~455		1110.5619	%	98,~~438~~306,~~891~~178		~~7,969,425~~—
Metals	6120,~~655~~776		0.0904	%	9046,~~507~~611		~~35,798~~—
Stock indices	~~448~~176,~~026~~322		0.6138	%	~~551~~379,~~665~~514		~~330,497~~—
TOTAL	$	126,~~539~~418,~~298~~060	1713.0375	%	$	1510,~~061~~730,~~670~~765	$	10952,~~875,534~~624
	As of September 30, 2013
	Average		% of Average		Highest Value		Lowest Value
Market Sector	Value at Risk		Capitalization		At Risk		At Risk
Agriculture	$	174,580	0.15	%	$	276,293	$	1,818
Currencies	2,349,619		2.09	%	2,637,756		2,156,577
Energy	120,975		0.11	%	226,180		8,084
Interest rates	11,513,514		10.22	%	13,098,374		9,842,439
Metals	94,062		0.08	%	162,562		45,380
Stock indices	956,879		0.85	%	1,480,176		627,797
TOTAL	$	15,209,629	13.50	%	$	17,881,341	$	12,682,095

	As of June 30, 2013
	Average		% of Average		Highest Value		Lowest Value
Market Sector	Value at Risk		Capitalization		At Risk		At Risk
Agriculture	$	208,744	0.14	%	$	316,294	$	97,130
Currencies	2,142,240		1.43	%	2,896,837		1,187,094
Energy	170,896		0.11	%	329,010		74,353
Interest rates	13,408,434		8.98	%	15,677,879		10,400,674
Metals	56,417		0.04	%	98,466		15,313
Stock indices	671,771		0.45	%	776,157		491,592
TOTAL	$	16,658,502	11.15	%	$	20,094,643	$	12,266,156

Average, Highest and Lowest Value at Risk amounts relate to the average, highest and lowest month-end amounts for each month-end during the period. The Percentage of Average Capitalization is the average of the Partnership’s capitalization at the end of each calendar month during the period.

3840

Table of Contents

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

The General Partner, with the participation of the Partnership’s President as principal executive officer of the Partnership (“President”) and the Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures with respect to the Partnership as of and for the period which ended ~~June~~September 30, 2014, and, based on its evaluation, has concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures are effective. Additionally, there were no significant changes in the General Partner’s internal controls with respect to the Partnership over financial reporting which materially affect such internal controls.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There were no significant changes in the Partnership’s internal controls or in other factors that could have significantly ~~affect~~affected those controls subsequent to the date of their evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

3941

Table of Contents

PART II - OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

None.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Pending Liquidation of Partnership

After due consideration of the diminished size of the Partnership and the recent levels of redemptions, the General Partner determined it would be difficult to continue to effectively implement the Partnership’s investment strategy on a long-term basis going forward. Accordingly as of June 1, 2014, the Partnership no longer ~~accepts~~accepted subscriptions and effective September 30, 2014, BRIM ~~will~~appointed ~~appoint~~ itself as the supervisor of the liquidation of the Partnership and ~~withdraw~~withdrew as the general partner of the Partnership. Partners ~~and~~were ~~redeem~~paid ~~all~~proceeds ~~remaining~~equal ~~investors~~to ~~from~~approximately 95% of the ~~Partnership. BRIM~~September 30, ~~anticipates~~2014 ~~all~~Net ~~redemption~~Asset ~~proceeds~~Value ~~will~~in beOctober. ~~paid~~The ~~before~~Partnership ~~the~~has ~~end~~had oflimited ~~the~~activity ~~2014. As~~in aOctober and ~~result~~November related ofto the ~~pending~~winding ~~liquidation~~down of ~~the~~its ~~Partnership~~operations. BRIM ~~and~~anticipates ~~the~~redeeming ~~declining~~all ~~assets~~remaining ~~thereof,~~Partners from the Partnership ~~may~~and ~~not~~paying bethe ~~able~~remaining toredemption ~~continue~~proceeds tobefore ~~maintain~~the aend ~~diversified~~of ~~portfolio~~the 2014.

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

(a) The table below represents the units issued to accredited investors pursuant to Regulation D and Section 4(a)(2) under the Securities Act.

SERIES A						SERIES I
	Subscription						Subscription
	Amount		Units	NAV			Amount		Units	NAV
Apr-14	$	425,000	501,652	$	0.8472	Apr-14	$	—	—	$	1.0915
Jul-14	$	—	—	$	0.8518	Jul-14	$	—	—	$	1.1052
May-14	—		—	0.8426		May-14	—		—	1.0882
Aug-14	—		—	0.8464		Aug-14	—		—	1.1009
Jun-14	—		—	0.8500		Jun-14	—		—	1.1001
Sep-14	—		—	0.8649		Sep-14	—		—	1.1272

(b) None.

4042

Table of Contents

(c) Limited Partners ~~may~~could ~~redeem~~have redeemed their Units at the end of each calendar month at the then current month-end Net Asset Value per Unit. The redemption of Units ~~has~~had no impact on the value of Units that ~~remain~~remained outstanding, and Units ~~are~~were not reissued once redeemed.

The following table summarizes the redemptions by Limited Partners during the ~~second~~third calendar quarter of 2014:

Series F
		Redemption Date		Redemption
Month	Units Redeemed	NAV Per Unit		Amount
April 30, 2014	5,434	$	203.47	$	1,105,656
July 31, 2014	2,718	$	204.38	$	555,505
May 31, 2014	285	205.26		58,499
August 31, 2014	593	208.82		123,830
June 30, 2014	8,557	205.69		1,760,089
September 30, 2014	—	208.83		—
Total	143,~~276~~311			$	2679,~~924,244~~335
Series A
		Redemption Date		Redemption
Month	Units Redeemed	NAV Per Unit		Amount
July 31, 2014	7,921,737	$	0.8464	$	6,704,958
August 31, 2014	5,478,810	0.8649		4,738,623
September 30, 2014	—	0.8648		—
Total	13,400,547			$	11,443,581
Series G
		Redemption Date		Redemption
Month	Units Redeemed	NAV Per Unit		Amount
July 31, 2014	773,601	$	0.8850	$	684,637
August 31, 2014	320,767	0.9042		290,038
September 30, 2014	—	0.9044		—
Total	1,094,368			$	974,675
Series I
		Redemption Date		Redemption
Month	Units Redeemed	NAV Per Unit		Amount
July 31, 2014	31,793	$	1.1009	$	35,001
August 31, 2014	—	1.1272		—
September 30, 2014	—	1.1300		—
Total	31,793			$	35,001

Series A
		Redemption Date		Redemption
Month	Units Redeemed	NAV Per Unit		Amount
April 30, 2014	3,972,087	$	0.8426	$	3,346,881
May 31, 2014	3,053,169	0.8500		2,595,194
June 30, 2014	34,719,420	0.8518		29,574,002
Total	41,744,676			$	35,516,077

Series G
		Redemption Date		Redemption
Month	Units Redeemed	NAV Per Unit		Amount
April 30, 2014	203,310	$	0.8813	$	179,177
May 31, 2014	448,864	0.8890		399,040
June 30, 2014	1,461,392	0.8909		1,301,954
Total	2,113,566			$	1,880,171

Series I
		Redemption Date		Redemption
Month	Units Redeemed	NAV Per Unit		Amount
April 30, 2014	51,008	$	1.0882	$	55,507
May 31, 2014	110,276	1.1001		121,315
June 30, 2014	422,617	1.1052		467,076
Total	583,901			$	643,898

Table of Contents

Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities

None.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosure

Not Applicable.

Item 5. Other Information

None.

Item 6. Exhibits

(a) Exhibits

The following exhibits are incorporated by reference or are filed herewith to this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q:

31.01 and

31.02 Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications

Exhibit 31.01

and 31.02: Are filed herewith.

32.01 and

32.02 Section 1350 Certifications

Exhibit 32.01

and 32.02 Are filed herewith.

101 The financial information from the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended ~~June~~September 30, 2014 formatted in Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL), include: (i) the Consolidated Statements of Operations, (ii) the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition, and (iii) related notes (furnished herewith).

4244

Table of Contents

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

	BLACKROCK GLOBAL HORIZONS I L.P.	~~BLACKROCK GLOBAL HORIZONS I L.P.~~
	By: BLACKROCK INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC	~~By: BLACKROCK INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC~~
	(General Partner)	~~(General Partner)~~
Date: August 13, 2014		By	/s/ EDWARD RZESZOWSKI
Date: November 13, 2014	By	/s/ EDWARD RZESZOWSKI
		Edward Rzeszowski	~~Edward Rzeszowski~~
		President	~~President~~
		(Principal Executive Officer)	~~(Principal Executive Officer)~~
Date: August 13, 2014		By	/s/ MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO
Date: November 13, 2014	By	/s/ MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO
		Michael L. Pungello	~~Michael L. Pungello~~
		Chief Financial Officer	~~Chief Financial Officer~~
		(Chief Financial Officer)	~~(Chief Financial Officer)~~

4345

Filing Compare · BlackRock Global Horizons I L.P.